Allowed

Vanthala Rajanna, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC13 Jul 2012CRLA/1053/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. The High Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the sole eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to contradictions regarding overt acts, failure to explain a 12-hour delay in reporting the murder, and hostility of other witnesses. The conviction and life sentence were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside and the appellants were set at liberty.

Vanthala Rajanna, Vs The State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

Crl.A.No.1053 of 2008

¶3

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad)

¶4

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.198 of 2008 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam on 02.07.2008.

¶5

The appellants herein are A.1 and A.2 and they were prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.

¶6

According to the prosecution the deceased Vanthala Bheemana and P.W.1, Vanthala Jama are the husband and wife and they had a son and daughter. A.1 is their son and the marriage of A.1 was performed with one Purnima and since the date of his marriage, he along with his wife living in his in-laws house leaving his old parents. In spite of holding several panchayats, A.1 declined to look after them. They left the village and went to Maredumilli to eke out their livelihood and stayed there for sometime by doing labour work. About one year back, A.1 along with his in-laws shifted from their village to Chintapalli Camp near Sileru and settled there by doing labour work. The deceased and his wife out of love and affection towards A.1, came to Chintapalli Camp and stayed with their son by bearing all his harassment. A.1 used to picked up quarrels with his father and abuse him in filthy language and asked him to go away from his house. About 2 months back, the deceased and his wife, P.W.1 left the house of their son and went to the house of Korra Balaram, P.W.2 in Chintapalli Camp itself and stayed there separately in an anti room. A.1 used to visit their house and demanded them to left the place. On 08.06.2007 at about 08.00 p.m., A.1 along Vanthala Kothanna, A.2, who is their grand son by courtesy, went near the house of the deceased and picked up an argument with him, attacked him, beat him with a stick on

¶7

his head and kicked him and killed him. P.Ws.1 to 3 witnessed the said incident. On 09.06.2007, P.W.1 got drafted the complaint by P.W.4 and went to the police station and lodged the report. P.W.8, who registered the case in Crime No.6 of 2007 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, issued the F.I.R. Thereafter, P.W.9 took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence, drafted the scene of offence observation report and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.5 and another, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Doctor, P.W.7, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the death of the deceased was due to Haemotoma and fracture of skull and injury to brain. On 10.06.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.9 arrested the accused, interrogated him and recorded his confessional statement and in pursuance of his confession recovered the weapon used in the commission of offence in the presence of P.W.5 and another. Thereafter, he sent the material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam and the Assistant Director, opined that the blood was detected on the material objects. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by P.W.10 and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

¶8

The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the accused and they pleaded not guilty for the said charge.

¶9

In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os.1 to 6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶10

The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found A.1 and A.2 guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by both the accused.

¶12

Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶13

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

¶14

P O I N T:

¶15

The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the sole testimony of P.W.1 cannot be believed in view of the contradictions in her evidence and P.Ws.2 and 3 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and they turned hostile to the prosecution and the alleged recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused does not establish the commission of offence by the accused, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is liable to be set aside.

¶16

The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that P.W.1 is the sole eyewitness to the incident and she categorically stated about the commission of offence by the accused, as such the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and the said conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal.

¶17

According to the prosecution A.1 is the son of the deceased and P.W.1 and he was not looking after them and he is living along with wife in his in-laws house and they have shifted to Chintapalli Camp to eke out their livelihood by doing labour work, the deceased and P.W.1 also gone to A.1’s house. Two months prior to the date of incident, A.1 did not like them and asked them to go away, then they shifted to the house of P.W.2 and started living in his house, then A.1 along with A.2 came there and attacked on the deceased and killed him.

¶18

P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and eyewitness to the incident, has stated in her chief-examination that herself, A.1 and her

¶19

husband used to reside in Valsa Gedda, at that time A.1 was married. For labour work, herself and her husband shifted their residence to Maredupalli village, A.1 and his wife shifted to Chintapalli Camp, Sileru, one year later, herself and her husband went to A.1 and his wife to live with them at Chintapalli Camp, they resided with them together for 2 or 3 months. Her husband and A.1 quarrelled, hence herself and her husband went away from the house of A.1 to a near by house of P.W.2, and used to reside there in a room, still A.1 and her husband used to quarrel, but she did not know the reason. On one day in the night,

¶20

A.1 and A.2 beat her husband with a stick. A.2 beat her husband with a stick on the back of his head. A.1 kicked her husband with his legs on the back of her husband and her husband died on the spot. Immediately A.1 and A.2 fled away from the house. Thereafter, she got drafted the complaint by P.W.4 and lodged the same in the police station. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint. In the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor she admitted that A.1 stated to her husband on the date of incident that there would not be peace for him unless he get rid of her husband and she adds that her husband refused to leave the place as he could secure labour work there, he had been residing separately from A.1, even though A.1 quarrelled with her husband to leave the place at the time of the incident. She further admitted that A.2 pulled her husband with his hands, then her husband fell down. She denied that A.1 beat her husband with a stick. She further denied that A.2 kicked her husband with his legs. She denied that she is deposing false to help her son and that she entered compromise with the accused. In the cross-examination by the defence counsel she stated that herself and P.W.2 went to the police station to lodge the complaint. She did not know the contents of Ex.P.1. She further admitted that police station is very close to their house and they can reach the police station by walk within five minutes and there is a road to the police station.

¶21

Therefore, P.W.1 even though said to have been eyewitness to the incident did not speak about the reason for quarrels between A.1 and deceased, she only stated that the A.1 used to quarrel with the deceased. In the chief-examination, she has stated about the specific overt acts of A.1 and A.2, but in the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, she denied the specific overt acts of A.1 and A.2. She expressed her ignorance about the contents of Ex.P.1. But P.W.4, who drafted the complaint, has stated that he drafted the complaint as per the instructions of P.W.1. According to him, P.W.1 took the written complaint from him and went to the police station and lodged the same, whereas P.W.1 has stated that herself and P.W.2 went to the police station.

¶22

P.W.2, who is the owner of the house in whose house the accused and deceased living, has stated about the deceased and P.W.1 living in his house and A.1 along with his wife used to reside with his parents-in-law in Chintapalli Camp. P.W.1 and her husband used to reside with A.1 prior to shifting their residence to his house and while he was taking dinner, he heard the cries of P.W.1 and went out; by that time the deceased was dead and he did not observe how the deceased died and he do not know whether anybody beat him or not.

¶23

P.W.3, who is the father of P.W.1 and who is also residing in the house of P.W.2 does not speak anything about the accused coming to the house of P.W.2 and on that day on hearing a call from P.W.1, he has gone to her house and found the dead body of the deceased and he did not see anybody beating the deceased. Thus, P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile to the prosecution and not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶24

P.W.8, A.S.I of police, who has issued the F.I.R., has stated about the receiving of complaint from P.W.1 on 09.06.2007 at about 09.30 a.m. and registering the F.I.R. In the cross-examination he has stated that he did not know where P.W.1 got Ex.P.1 drafted. According

¶25

to him P.W.1 alone came to the police station, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not speak anything about his accompanying P.W.1 to the police station. Therefore, the evidence of sole eyewitness relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.1. As already discussed above, P.W.1 denied the specific overt acts of A.1 and A.2 in the cross-examination by Additional Public Prosecutor. Moreover, she did not speak anything about the motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased.

¶26

According to P.W.7, doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he found the contusion over the occipital region 3” in diameter with irregular margin and also found the internal injuries i.e. fracture of occipital bone and fracture of right parital bone and he opined that the death of the deceased was due to Haematoma and fracture of skull and injury to brain. He admitted that the said injury can be caused with an object like M.O.1.

¶27

P.W.9, investigating officer, has stated about the arrest of the accused on 10.06.2007 at Sileru junction and as per the confession of A.1, he recovered the M.O.1 stick in the presence of P.W.5. P.W.5 also stated about his accompanying police to Sileru junction and he was shown both the accused at Sileru junction and A.1 stated that he would show the stick if they accompanied him and the statements of both the accused were recorded and at the instance of A.1, M.O.1 was recovered. P.W.5 is village secretary and he is having contacts with the police. P.W.9, investigating officer even before the accused were traced out, he has taken the mediator along with them and has not called any independent witnesses at the time of arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.1 and the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the recovery of M.O.1 at the instance of the accused.

¶28

According to the prosecution the incident has occurred on 08.06.2007 at about 08.00 p.m., whereas the complaint, Ex.P.1 was

¶29

lodged on the next day i.e. on 09.06.2007 at 09.30 p.m. Thus, there is delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the complaint. In Ex.P.1 it was mentioned that as the day is dark, she did not go to the police station on that day and after drafting the report, she has approached the police with the report. P.W.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that the police station is very close to their house and she can reach the police station by walk

¶30

within 5 minutes. If P.W.1 has witnessed the incident, she would have reported the matter immediately to the police orally without giving any written complaint, but she has not done so and no explanation was forthcoming why there is delay of 12 hours in lodging the complaint. The trial Court has observed that P.W.1 is a rustic tribal woman and she do not know the consequences of delay in lodging the complaint. She may be a rustic woman, but having seen the accused causing the death of her husband; it is a normal conduct of any person to report the matter immediately to police or any other person. According to the prosecution P.Ws.2 and 3 gone to the scene of offence immediately after the incident but they have not lodged any complaint with the police even though the police station is very close to the scene of offence. Therefore, in view of the delay in lodging the complaint and as P.W.1 has not stated about the motive for the accused to commit the offence and denied the specific overt acts of the accused, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of P.W.1 for convicting the accused. Thus, the trial Court has committed an error in relying upon the sole testimony of P.W.1 for convicting the accused. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶31

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2, by judgment dated 02.07.2008 passed in S.C.No.198 of 2007 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, is set aside. The appellants – accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be set at liberty forthwith,

¶32

if they are not required in any other case.

¶33

_______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA.

¶34

_____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Date:13-07-2012 Ksp

Vanthala Rajanna, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanthala Rajanna, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Aditya Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Medi Krishna, (A1) Vs The State of A.P.

A. Venkatamma, Vs The Director General of Police

Potla Krishnaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pioneer Alloy Castings Ltd. Vs State Bank Of India

Sri Pappu Prema Sagar Vs The Station House Officer