Partly allowed

C.Sivappa at Siva, Chittoor Dt and Anr., v. the State, Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2024CRLA/890/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against life convictions of two accused in a billhook murder arising from a grudge over a rape case involving A.1's brother. The court upheld A.1's murder conviction based on consistent eyewitness evidence but acquitted A.2 as nothing was attributed to him beyond presence at a distance.

What did the court decide?

A.1's conviction and sentence confirmed; A.2's conviction and sentence set aside and he set at liberty.

C.Sivappa at Siva, Chittoor Dt and Anr… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶3

APHC010320672016

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶5

AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

[3474]

¶8

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶11

and

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.890 of 2016

¶14

Between:

¶15

1.C.Sivappa @ Siva S/o Chinna Thimmappa 2. D.Doddappa S/o Devappa, Both are residents of Salachinthanapalle village H/o Kodathanapalli, Gudupalli Mandal, Chittoor District

¶16

… Appellants/A.1 & A.2

¶17

AND

¶18

The State Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

¶19

... Respondent

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants:

¶21

Sri K Ramamohan Mahadeva

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶23

Sri S. Dusyantha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶28

and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.890 of 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT : ( Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy )

¶31

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.186 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, are the appellants in the present criminal appeal. They, along with A.3, were tried by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 120-B IPC, read with 34 IPC. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted A.1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A.2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. He acquitted A.3 for the offence under Sections 302, 120-B IPC.

¶32

Substance of the charge is that, on 22.08.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., A.1 attacked one Munikrishanappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with a billhook while the deceased was going to his fields on Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.TN 23 AC 3278, causing his death in furtherance of the conspiracy between A.1 to A.3, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC read with 34 IPC.

¶33

Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses is as follows:

¶34

i) All the three accused, deceased and material prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 are the residents of Salachinthanapalle village of Gudupalli Mandal,

¶35

¶36

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶37

Chittoor District. PW.1 is the wife, PW.2 is the son of the deceased and PW.3 is the friend of PW.2. PWs.4 to 7 are the residents of Bissanatham village. About three months prior to the date of incident, one Devarajulu, who is none other than the brother of A.1, committed rape on the second daughter of PW.1 and the deceased. In connection with the said case, the said Devarajulu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Because of that, A.1 who is the son of A.3 and A.2, who is the brother of A.3, bore grudge against the deceased.

¶38

ii) While so, on 22.08.2014 at about 6.00 a.m., when PWs.1 and 2 were proceeding by walk to their agricultural lands for watering tamota crop, the deceased was going ahead of them on his motor cycle. At about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was nearing to his field, A.1 suddenly came out of the bushes and attacked the deceased with a billhook on his hand and the deceased fell down from the motor bike. Immediately, A.1 caused multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. PWs.1 and 2 who were proceeding behind the deceased, witnessed the said incident. PWs.3 to 5, who were going to the railway station witnessed the incident. PWs.1 and 2 when tried to interfere, A.1 said to have threatened them at the point of billhook. A.2 said to have been watching the incident from a distance. PWs.6 and 7, who were working as security guards also witnessed the incident while they were returning from their duty. Immediately, PW.1 went to the police station and gave a report to the police.

¶39

iii) PW.11-Sub Inspector of Police, Gudupalli PS, received Ex.P.1 from PW.1 at about 10.00 a.m., and registered a case in Cr.No.48 of 2014 under Ex.P.11 for

¶40

¶41

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶42

the offences under Sections 302, 120-B read with 34 IPC and Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. He issued copies of FIRs to all concerned.

¶43

iv) Having received the information, PW.12-Insepctor of Police, Palamaneru PS, who was in charge of Kuppam Circle, proceeded to the scene of offence at about 10.30 a.m. He secured the presence of mediators PW.9 and another and prepared observation report Ex.P.3. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P.4 at the scene of offence and he got the scene photographed. He also conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators under Ex.P.2. He also seized blood stained earth and control earth at the scene of offence. He recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 and others at the time of inquest. He sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination.

¶44

v) PW.10-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Nagari, who was deputed to work in Area Hospital, Kuppam, conducted autopsy over the dead body at about 9.15 a.m. on 23.08.2014. He found seven external injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined cause of death was due to shock with brain hemorrhage and head injury. He issued Ex.P.9 post-mortem certificate.

¶45

vi) On 22.08.2014, PW.13-Inspector of Police, Kuppam Circle took up further investigation. On 23.08.2014 on credible information, he arrested A.1 at Kuppam – KGF road in the presence of mediators. On the confession made by A.1, he recovered MOs.1 and 7 and seized them under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.7. On 03.09.2014, he arrested A.2 and A.3 at O.N. Kottur bus stop under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.8. He sent all the material objects to the RFSL, Tirupati for

¶46

¶47

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶48

examination. The report sent by RFSL is Ex.P.12. After completion of the investigation, his successor filed the charge sheet.

¶49

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and also exhibited MOs.1 to 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Of course, the accused did not choose to examine any witness in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, convicted and sentenced A.1 and A.2 and acquitted A.3 as aforesaid.

¶50

Sri G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel, representing Sri K. Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the relevant point of time is highly doubtful and there is no possibility for them to witness the incident, as the deceased went to his fields on a motor cycle, whereas, PWs.1 and 2 were going to their fields by walk. So far as the evidence of PWs.3 to 7 are concerned, they are only chance witnesses and they were planted by the prosecution, as if they witnessed the incident. As such, he requests this Court to allow the present criminal appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants by the trial Court.

¶51

On the other hand, Sri S. Dushyantha Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal appeal contending that there are seven eye witnesses in the present case and their evidence is consistent with regard to attack on the deceased by A.1. There is nothing to disbelieve their version and there are no contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and he requests this Court to

¶52

¶53

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶54

dismiss the criminal appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

¶55

We have gone through the entire evidence on record. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is crystal clear that while they were going to the fields for watering tamota crop, they witnessed the incident. In the cross examination of PW.1, the defence has specifically elicited that the deceased has planted 4000 tamota saplings in his field. PW.1 in her earliest report Ex.P.1 has specifically stated the presence of PWs.3 to 5, who witnessed the attack on the deceased by A.1 at the scene of offence. Having seen the incident, PW.1 immediately went to the police station at about 10.00 a.m. and gave a report to the police. The police station is situated at a distance of 4 kms from the scene of offence. As such, the FIR was lodged immediately without any delay on the part of PW.1. Further, PW.1 is an illiterate lady. In her cross examination, the defence could not elicit anything favourable to them. Even PW.2 also corroborates the evidence of PW.1. The evidence of PWs.3 to 7 also corroborates the version of PWs.1 and 2. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of PWs.3 to 7, who are the eye witnesses and their evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW.10, coupled with Ex.P.9 post-mortem certificate. As such, we are of the view that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A.1 beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution examined seven eye witnesses, who spoke about the attack made by A.1 on the deceased.

¶56

For the reasons stated above, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court as against A.1, as the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302

¶57

¶58

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶59

IPC. Accordingly, the criminal appeal of the 1^st appellant/A.1 is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against him in SC No.186 of 2015 dated 29.08.2016 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

¶60

So far as A.2 is concerned, all the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7 did not say anything except saying that A.2 was found at a distance without arming any weapon. Even according to PWs.1 to 7, A.2 has not participated in the attack. With regard to conspiracy, the trial Court has not accepted the said conspiracy and acquitted A.3. As such, except stating that A.2 was found at a distance, nothing has been attributed by PW.1 in her evidence as against A.2. PWs.2 to 7 also have not stated in their evidence about the presence of A.2 at the scene of offence. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A.2 beyond reasonable doubt and the 2^nd appellant/A.2 is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal of the 2^nd appellant/A.2 is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court in SC No.186 of 2015 dated 29.08.2016 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor and he is set at liberty forthwith.

¶61

In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.

¶62

As the appellants/A.1 & A.2 were granted bail by this Court on 16.11.2021, A.1 is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, forthwith. If not, the learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of A.1 by issuing warrants to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. So far as A.2 is concerned, as he was also granted bail, he is

¶63

¶64

KSR, J &BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.890 of 2016

¶65

directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa for completing the legal formalities in terms of the judgment rendered in ‘ Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P .¹ .

¶66

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.

¶67

____________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY_

¶68

_______________________________ JUSTIC E B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶69

Date: 20.03.2024 BSS

¶70

1 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)

¶71

¶72