Allowed

Korra balaram, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC11 Oct 2012CRLA/1478/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against life imprisonment for murder, the High Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that prosecution witnesses were not credible eye witnesses, there was sole testimony from a child recorded after a long delay, and the prosecution failed to prove the accused caused the death beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder set aside; appellant acquitted and set at liberty.

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

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1478 of 2008

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶5

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.143 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam on 30.07.2008.

¶6

The appellant herein is the accused No.1 and he along with A2 to A6 was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶7

According to the prosecution, the deceased Korra Saddu and the accused are the residents of Uggandi village within the police limits of Dumbriguda Mandal. A1 and A4 are the sons of A6, A5 is the elder brother of Koora Seetharam A6, and A2 and A3 are the brothers-in-law of PW.1. The deceased was also the brother of PW.1. PW.2 is the son of the deceased and PW.3 is his wife. A5 and A6 are the paternal uncles of PW.1 and the deceased. Their sister was Gammela Ramba. A5 has no children and intended to give his property to his sister’s sons, who are A2 and A3. The deceased demanded A5 to give some property, for which, A5 refused. Therefore, since three years prior to 22.11.2002, disputes arose between them. On 22.11.2002, at about 8.00 p.m., A1 and A4 went to the house of the deceased and invited him for settlement of disputes. The deceased followed by PW.2 and his daughter went there. The accused picked up a quarrel. Then A1 armed with a crowbar beat the deceased on the head, A2 stabbed the deceased, and other accused also beat the deceased, causing his instantaneous death. PW.1 came there and A3 pulled the crowbar from the hands of A1 and beat PW.1 on the back of the head and A2 beat on

¶8

the right leg of PW.1. On the statement of PW.1, PW.8, S.I. of police registered a case in Cr.No.30 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and another and got the scene photographed, and the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On 26.11.2002, all the accused were arrested by PW.10 and in pursuance of their confessions, the crowbar and the knife used by the accused were seized and they were sent for remand, and the properties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. PW.9, the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the death was due to heamorrhage and shock due to puforating head injury and brain and laceration caused by a sharp object. After completion of the investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused.

¶9

The Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against A1 to A6 and charge under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC against A2 and A3 and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges.

¶10

The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 and MOs.1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused in defence.

¶11

During the pendency of the matter before the trial Court, A2 reported to have dead and the case against him was recorded as abated.

¶12

Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence,

¶13

the Sessions Judge found A1 guilty for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The Sessions Judge further found A3 guilty for the charge under Section 324 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The Sessions Judge further found A4 to A6 not guilty for the charges framed against them.

¶14

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/A1.

¶15

Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/A1 beyond reasonable doubt?

¶16

POINT:

¶17

The counsel appearing for the appellant has pleaded that PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and no independent witnesses were examined and the accused cannot be convicted and basing on the evidence of interested witnesses PWs.1 to 3, which is contradictory to each other and motive for the accused to commit the offence also not established and as such the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is liable to be set aside.

¶18

The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that there are disputes between the deceased and the accused with regard to the settlement of land. She further pleaded that the prosecution could able to establish the identity of the accused at the time of incident and the weapons, which were used in the commission of the offence by the accused and they were seized at the instance of the accused and as such the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused No.1 caused the death of the

¶19

deceased by stabbing on his head with a crowbar.

¶20

PW.1 is the brother, PW.2 is the son and PW.3 is the wife of the deceased. PWs.4 and 5 are panch witnesses to the scene of offence and inquest respectively. PW.6 is the mediator for confession and recovery. PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who issued the FIR. PW.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. PW.9 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and treated PW.1. PW.10 is the Inspector of Police, who arrested the accused and seized MOs.1 and 2 under Ex.P-9.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that there are differences between the accused and the deceased with regard to the property of A5, who has no children. On 22.11.2002, at about 8.00 p.m., A1 and A4 went to the house of the deceased and invited him for settlement of disputes and the deceased went to the house of A5 along with PWs.2 and his daughter. At that place the accused picked up a quarrel and attacked the deceased. Then A1 armed with a crowbar beat the deceased on the head, A2 stabbed the deceased and other accused also beat the deceased causing death. When PW.1 came to the rescue of the deceased, A3 pulled the crowbar from the hands of A1 and beat PW.1 and A2 also caused injuries to him. The prosecution story is A1 and A2 are responsible for attacking the deceased with a crowbar and knife.

¶22

According to the prosecution, PW.1 is an eye witness to the incident. The prosecution examined PW.1 as an eye witness to the incident, she has narrated entire incident in the chief examination but in the cross-examination she admitted that the attack was informed by one Mahadev, who is PW.2, and thereafter she went to the scene of offence and she also further admitted that Ex.P-1 does not show that she saw the attack on the deceased and also further admitted that on the information given by the wife and children of the deceased he lodged the complaint. Thus, PW.1 is not an eye witness to the attack made on

¶23

the deceased.

¶24

PW.2 is son of the deceased and according to him, on the date of incident, A1 called the deceased and the deceased went to the house of A1 followed by him. The deceased was beaten by A1 with a crowbar on the head. A2 beat on the back of the deceased and thereafter when PW.1 came there, A3 beat him with the crowbar taking it from the hands of A1 on the back of head. Similarly A2 also beat PW.1 with a knife on his right leg, A4, A5 and A6 also beat PW.1 with hands and in the crossexamination he admitted that there are some elders in the house of A1 at the time of incident and he came to know about the disputes regarding the property through his deceased father.

¶25

PW.3, who is the wife of the deceased, stated that at about 8.00 p.m. A1 came and called the deceased for talks, then the deceased went to the house of A1 along with PW.2 and her daughter and the deceased was attacked and fell down. After hearing the cries of the children, she went there followed by PW.1, where they have seen that the accused beating the deceased and also PW.1 was attacked by A3 with a crowbar taking from the hands of A1 on his head and A2 beat with a knife on his right leg and the other accused beat PW.1 with hands. She identified MOs.1 and 2, crowbar and knife respectively. She admitted in the cross-examination that as per the information given by her children about attack, she got the knowledge of attack by the accused on the deceased and she admitted that she has not seen the attack on the deceased by the accused and she denied the suggestion that she was in the custody of police three days prior to giving of the evidence.

¶26

Even though the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as eye witnesses to the incident, it is clear from the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 that they are not the eye witnesses to the incident and PW.2 only eye witness. According to PW.2, the motive for the dispute is

¶27

with regard to sharing of the properties of A5, he has no personal knowledge of the said dispute. He came to know through his deceased father about the existence of the dispute with regard to the sharing of property of A5 between his deceased father and the accused. Apart from that, according to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, A1 called the deceased to his house and there the attack has taken place but the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P5, shows that the attack has taken place in the house of A5 but not at the house of A1. So there is a discrepancy with regard to the place where the attack has taken place. According to PW.2, the deceased was beaten by A1 with a crowbar on his head and A2 beat on the back of the deceased and when PW.1 came there, A3 beat him with the crowbar taking it from the hands of A1 on the back of head and similarly A2 beat PW.1 with a knife on the right leg and the other accused beat PW.1 with hands. The said fact of A3 snatching the crowbar from A1 was not stated by PW.1, who is an injured witness and he has not mentioned the overt acts of the other accused. The prosecution by examining PW.9, the doctor, who issued the wound certificate of PW.1, could establish the sustaining of injuries by him but he has categorically stated that he has not witnessed the attack on the deceased. Therefore, his sustaining injuries cannot establish his presence at the time of incident.

¶28

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused called the deceased for settlement of their disputes and PW.2 admitted that there are mediators sitting in the house of A1 at the time of incident. Even though the independent witnesses were cited as eye witnesses to the incident, they were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the only evidence available with regard to the attack on the deceased is that of PW.2. PW.2 was aged about 10 years at the time of incident and the incident has taken place in the year 2002 and his evidence was recorded in the year 2008 i.e. after six years of the incident. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW.2 to convict the

¶29

accused.

¶30

Moreover the incident has taken place on 22.11.2002 at 8.00 p.m. and it was reported to the police station on 23.11.2002 at about 5.00 p.m. but the FIR was sent to the concerned Magistrate on 24.11.2012. Even though the prosecution has tried to justify by mentioning in the FIR that the incident has taken place in the night time and to reach this place from the village, the delay was occurred. The delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution.

¶31

Even though the prosecution has established that the death of the deceased is a homicidal, as per the opinion of the doctor PW.9, that the deceased died due to heamorrhagic shock prior to 36 to 46 hours of post mortem examination, there is no evidence to show that the accused are responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶32

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant-accused No.1, by judgment dated 30.07.2008 in S.C.No.143 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted for the said charge and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶33

__________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶34

_______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶35

Dated: 11-10-2012 MR

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

¶37

AND

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶39

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1478 of 2008

¶40

Dated: 11-10-2012

¶41

Korra balaram, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Korra balaram, 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

Kammari Prabhu,(A-6) Vs State of A.P.

The State of a.P., Vs Kunta Bapanna

Thumma Siva, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bodasu Kothaiah , Kothanna, Vs The State of A.P.

Marapareddigari Bhimalinga Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bitra Venkateswararao, Vs State of a.P., through Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri