Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. Tanuku Janaki

Telangana HC21 Feb 2012CRLA/398/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against an acquittal. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the murder charges due to reliance on the sole eyewitness evidence, which was disbelieved due to inconsistencies regarding custody and delay, and investigative lapses.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused.

The State of a.P., Vs Tanuku Janaki — 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.398 of 2008

¶3

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

¶4

This appeal at the instance of the State is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.282 of 2000 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) East Godavari District, Rajahmundry on 21.02.2007.

¶5

The respondents herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 and they were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 328 IPC.

¶6

According to the prosecution accused No.1, Tanuku Janaki is the native of Rajanagaram and her husband lives on coolie work in Rajanagaram and he works most of the time in the lands of accused No.2. Accused No.1 is having extra marital intimacy with accused No.2, who is their landlord. Accused Nos.1 and 2 fell indebted to several persons and they could not repay the loans. Therefore, they offered to sell away their house and about a year back, the deceased Mamillapallil Narayana Srinivas visited the house of accused No.1 with a view to purchase their house, in that connection, the deceased used to visit the house of accused No.1 very frequently and on account of which, accused No.1 has become close to the deceased and developed illicit intimacy with him without the knowledge of her husband. When asked by accused No.1, the deceased gave an amount of Rs.12,000/- to her as a loan and she executed a pronote in the name of deceased Srinivas and the illicit intimacy between accused No.1 and the deceased became stronger. Once or twice the wife of the deceased came to the house of accused No.1 and pressed the accused No.1 to repay their pronote debt. Recently the conduct of

¶7

the deceased changed and he started inducing the accused No.1 to discard her husband and children and came with him as he was transferred from that place. Once the deceased threatened the accused No.1 to kill her husband and children and also that he will consume poison to commit suicide by leaving a suicidal note against accused No.1, so that her family will be smashed. On 30.09.2000 the deceased induced and forced accused No.1 to come to Rajahmundry with him and to pay cash of Rs.12,000/- and finally threatened her that if she fails to come to Rajahmundry with him, he will see her family members death. With this inducement and threats, accused No.1 got vexed and intended to get rid of the problem from her life, she discussed about the problem with her first paramour, who is accused No.2, and both of them exchanged their common intention and find out a plan for the murder of the deceased. Accused No.1 sought the help of accused No.2 in execution of the murder of the deceased. On 30.09.2000 at 5.00 p.m. accused Nos.1 and 2 engaged a taxi bearing No.AP 5U 338 and went to the house of the deceased and requested him to join them to go to Kanakadurga temple, Vijayawada. The deceased agreed for the same and picked up a cash of Rs.10,000/from his house and boarded the taxi and joined accused Nos.1 and 2. Thus, accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased to Vijayawada and reached Vijayawada by 11.00 p.m. on that day and in the early hours of the next day i.e. on 01.10.2000 accused Nos.1 and 2 and deceased had a free-darsan of deity Kanaka Durga in the temple with the help of a known person by name Seetharamayya. On 01.10.2000 at 7.30 a.m. accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the deceased started at Vijayawada to return to Rajahmundry, on the way at Bheemadolu accused Nos.1 and 2 asked the deceased and pressed him to give party. They stopped the car at Dwaraka Tirumala centre and accused No.2 purchased a whisky bottle, two drink bottles and disposable glasses. The taxi driver by name Raju, P.W.4 went and purchased chicken. Later, all of them started from Dwaraka Tirumala centre, as a part of

¶8

their pre-mediated plan, accused No.2 mixed some poison in the whisky glass and supplied the same to the deceased, who sat in the back seat of the taxi. The deceased consumed the whisky mixed with poison and he was chit chatting with accused Nos.1 and 2, and the deceased started getting hiccups. When the taxi reached Kovvuru the deceased suffered from hiccups heavily and became drowsy. The taxi driver, P.W.4 noticed the condition of the deceased to be precarious and suggested accused Nos.1 and 2 to take the deceased to any hospital, but accused Nos.1 and 2 refused to hear the words of taxi driver and put him under threats and fear. Accused Nos.1 and 2 took away the cash of Rs.10,000/- from the packet of deceased. In the meanwhile, the deceased died in the taxi itself at Utchilli and accused No.2 throw away the dead body of the deceased in Bobbarlanka irrigation channel and came back to Rajahmundry and from there to Rajanagaram. Accused

¶9

Nos.1 and 2 threatened the taxi-driver that they will engage others to kill him, if he disclosed the offence to anybody and they paid the taxi fare to the driver and asked him to go. On 12.10.2000 at 10.30 a.m. on the written report of the wife of the deceased, A.S.I of police, P.W.12 has registered a case in Crime No.382 of 2000 as Man Missing and investigated into. Ever since the date of incident, the taxi driver, P.W.4 has some sort of fear about the murder and disturbed mentally. When P.W.4 came to know about the police investigation and accused Nos.1 and 2 absconded from their places, P.W.4 approached Karri Venkanna, who is an elder of the locality and informed him about the murder by accused Nos.1 and 2 and requested him to take to the police station. On 28.10.2000 from 11.00 am to 12.30 p.m. the said Karri Venkanna, got recorded the statement of P.W.4 by P.W.5 and both of them produced P.W.4 along with his statement before S.I of police, Rajanagaram police station. Later, he sent P.W.4 along with his statement to the S.I of police, I Town Police Station, for further action. The S.I of police, I Town police station, Rajahmundry, basing on the

¶10

statement of P.W.4, altered the section of law from Man missing to Section 302, 201, 506 read with 34 IPC took up investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. On requisition of police, the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry has recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. The S.I of police deputed a search party to trace out the dead body of the deceased. On 01.11.2000 the S.I of police arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators, P.W.10 and another and interrogated them separately and recorded their statements. In pursuance of the confession statement of accused No.1, the S.I of police seized the pronote for Rs.12,000/executed in favour of the deceased under a cover of mediators report. As per the confession of accused No.1, the S.I of police seized the empty poison container and plastic tin of Monogram-36 from the scene of offence in Bhimadolu (KM stone MDR-1801). Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 remanded to judicial custody. On 13.11.2000 search party of I Town police Station while causing enquiries found the skull and 3 bones of human dead body in the bushes in the old Gouthami Godavari lankapaya, near Mokklathippa, Jaibhimnagar after Pallamkurru. The A.S.I of police, P.W.15 visited the said place and held inquest over the skull

¶11

and 3 bones and seized them under cover of mahazar and observation report. The Skull and bones first sent to Professor, Forensic Medicine, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada to examine the skull and bones and he examined the same and opined that the bones and skull belonged to an adult – male person, aged about 40 years. Again the skull, bones and photograph of the deceased were sent to F.S.L. Hyderabad for super imposition examination. On 25.11.2000 P.W.15 again visited the Mokkalathippa village and seized some more bones and Jaw from the same place and sent the same to FSL for comparison. The investigation disclosed that accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention killed the deceased by administering the poison, mixing in whisky and throw away the dead

¶12

body of the deceased in Utchilli canal and also threatened P.W.4 with dire consequences if he disclosed the same to anybody.

¶13

The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 506 IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and under Section 328 IPC against the accused No.2 and they pleaded not guilty for the said charges.

¶14

In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.21 and M.Os.1 to 6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D.1 was married on their behalf.

¶15

Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the said charges and acquitted them.

¶16

Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.

¶17

Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

¶18

Whether the prosecution could able to establish the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 506 IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the offence under Section 328 IPC against accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T:

¶19

The Additional Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the deceased was last seen in the house on 30.09.2000 and on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 engaged the taxi of P.W.4 and took the deceased in the said taxi to Kanakadurga temple, Vijayawada and the same was witnessed by P.Ws.6 and 14 and subsequently the deceased was found missing and P.W.4, the only eyewitness has specifically stated about the offence committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in causing the

¶20

death of the deceased and throwing the dead body in the irrigation channel at Utichilli. She further pleaded that even though the dead body of the deceased was not traced out, from the evidence produced by the prosecution they could able to establish the charges framed against the accused.

¶21

The respondents’ counsel on the other hand has pleaded that the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be relied upon as he has kept quiet for more than 25 days without informing the same to anybody and his plea that he was threatened by accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be believed. According to him, P.W.4 was in the police custody after his return from the Vijayawada and he was forced to give a statement and the police have got recorded his said statement by P.W.5 and foisted a false case against the accused.

¶22

The learned Sessions Judge has mainly acquitted the accused on the ground that there is delay in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 and disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4 by taking into consideration of news item published in the 1^st page of Vartha East Godavari Edition, dated 25.10.2000 and P.W.4 was in the police custody and he has not disclosed the incident to anybody.

¶23

According to P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, that her husband was found missing from 30.09.2000 and she lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 on 12.10.2000. Even though there is delay of 11 days, she did not give any reasons for the said delay either in Ex.P.1, report or in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and she tried to explain the said delay in her cross-examination. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that on 30.09.2000 her husband went out from the house along with Pronote executed by accused No.1 in favour of her husband and cash of Rs.10,000/- saying that he is going to Rajanagaram and from then onwards the whereabouts of her husband is not known. P.W.1 in her evidence expressed suspicion against accused No.1, but the

¶24

investigating agency has not visited the house of accused No.1 to find out whether the deceased visited her house on 30.09.2000 and the very fact that the police did not visit the house of accused No.1 creates a doubt with regard to the involvement of accused No.1 as well as the version of P.W.1.

¶25

With regard to occurrence of the incident, the only evidence available on record is that P.W.4, who is a direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. According to P.W.4 on 30.09.2000 accused Nos.1 and 2 engaged his taxi and came from Rajanagaram to Rajahmundry, wherein the deceased boarded the car and from there they all went to Kanakadurga Temple at Vijayawada and on their return the accused mixed poison in the liquor and served the same to the deceased and on consuming the same he died and thereafter the dead body was thrown into the channel of river Godavari after crossing Utchilli village. According to him the incident occurred on 1.10.2000, and he did not come out from his house for 25 days as he fell sick with fever and vomitings and for 20 to 25 days he could not narrate the incident to anybody due to fear of the accused as they threatened him with dire consequences. He admitted that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, Rajahmundry. According to the defence, P.W.4 was taken into custody by the police on 11.10.2000 and was subjected to third degree methods and ultimately he was made to speak against the accused and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also got recorded by the Magistrate on requisition by P.W.16.

¶26

According to P.W.4, he did not come out of the house for 20 to 25 days and for the first time he approached Karri Venkanna on 28.10.2000 before whom he has stated the entire episode, who in turn taken him to P.W.5, V.A.O, who reduced his statement into writing and later P.W.5 submitted his statement before P.W.13, S.I of police along with the accused.

¶27

P.Ws.5 and 13 supported the version of P.W.4. According to P.W.13, he has forwarded the said statement of P.W.4 to P.W.16, S.I of police, I Town P.S., Rajahmundry along with memo dated 28.10.2000.

¶28

According to P.W.16 after receiving the statement of P.W.4 along with memo of P.W.13, Ex.P.18, he went to Rajanagaram and examined and recorded the statement of P.W.4 and on the same day he sent requisition to Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry for recording statement of P.W.4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the investigating agency came to know about the death of the deceased through P.W.4 on 28.10.2000, whereas Ex.D.1, the 1^st page of Vartha, East Godavari Edition dated 25.10.2000 marked through P.W.1. The said news was published in Vartha on 25.10.2000 about the entire incident as narrated by P.W.4. Thus, it is evident that the investigating agency could get the information through the Taxi driver even prior to 25.10.2000. Therefore, Ex.D.1 probabilises that P.W.4 was in the custody of police even prior to 25.10.2000. Apart from that P.W.14, another taxi driver of Rajanagaram Taxi Stand, has stated that P.W.4 came to Rajanagaram Taxi stand on third day and had a talk with him, but he did not state anything to him about his visit to Vijayawada. He further categorically stated that P.W.4 brought his taxi to the taxi stand and within 10 days thereafter police took P.W.4 into custody. He further stated that P.W.4 was coming to taxi stand often before he was taken into custody by the police. Thus, the evidence of P.W.14 falsifies the evidence of P.W.4 that he did not leave his house and that he did not ply his vehicle for 25 days. Moreover, P.W.1 has stated that 10 days after her Ex.P.1 report, she went to police station as she was called by police and she observed the presence of P.W.4 in the police station. If the evidence of P.W.14, P.W.1 and Ex.D.1 taken into consideration, it proves that P.W.4 was in the custody of police even prior to 25.10.2000.

¶29

The case of P.W.4 is that the accused threatened him with dire consequences; as such he did not disclose the same to anybody. Admittedly accused Nos.1 and 2 dragged the dead body from the car of P.W.4 while they were returning from Vijayawada to Rajanagaram and he had several opportunities to escape along with his car, but he did not do so and it is not the case of P.W.4 that accused Nos.1 and 2 prevented him from escaping with his car immediately after noticing the murder of the deceased. Therefore, the above circumstances falsifies the theory set up by the prosecution that out of fear P.W.4 did not move out from the house for 25 days and for the first time he disclosing the same before P.W.5.

¶30

The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed the lapses on the part of the investigating officer in investigating the case. Even though it is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the deceased has gone to the house of accused No.1, the investigating officer did not make any enquiries in the house of accused No.1 about the arrival of deceased to her house, and even after his coming to know through P.W.4 that the dead body was thrown in the Godavari at Utchilli village, he did not make any efforts to visit the said place to find out the dead body and he has also not made any efforts even after the arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2 to go to that place. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.4 holding that there is abnormal delay in reporting to the police and the explanation given by P.W.4 for such delay is proved to be false because he was in police custody. If the evidence of P.W.4 is disbelieved there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. Even though P.W.6 has last seen accused Nos.1 and 2 going in the taxi of P.W.4, when the evidence of P.W.4 itself is not believable with regard to the accused committing the offence, the evidence of P.W.6 is not at all helpful to the prosecution. Moreover, according to P.W.16 after arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2, at the instance of accused No.1, he has seized the

¶31

pronote said to have been executed by accused No.1 in favour of the deceased. But when the same was confronted to P.W.1, she denied the said pronote said to have been executed by accused No.1 in favour of her husband. Even though the empty poison tin was recovered at the instance of accused No.2, the investigating officer did not take any steps to send the same to F.S.L. for analysis to find out whether the said tin containing any traces of poison. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has at length discussed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and gave valid and justifiable reasons for disbelieving the story of prosecution and rightly found the accused not guilty for the charges with which they are charged. The said finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference in the appeal. Thus we hold that the prosecution could not establish the charges framed against the accused.

¶32

In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶33

_______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA.

¶34

_____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶35

Dated:21-02-2012 Ksp

The State of a.P., v. Tanuku Janaki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. Tanuku Janaki

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

Potharam Raju Goud, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Seema Fathima, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Kaluram Jangid, Vs The Inspector of Police

Narenderakumar Tripati Vs The Commissioner of Police

Bibi Farida Vs The Principlal Secretary

I. Desaiah Vs State of A.P.