Allowed

Gangaraboina Seeta Ramulu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC29 Oct 2012CRLA/646/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and hurt. holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of reliable eyewitness evidence and uncorroborated testimony from witnesses who could not recall prior statements before the police.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC set aside; appellant set at liberty forthwith.

Gangaraboina Seeta Ramulu, Vs The State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD

¶6

CRL. A. NO. 646 OF 2008

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gangaraboina Seeta Ramulu

¶9

..... Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

..... Respondent

¶13

The Court made the following:

¶14

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

¶15

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 745 of 2007 by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge (III-Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, on 27.03.2008.

¶16

The appellant herein was prosecuted for the offences under Secs.302 and 323 IPC. According to the prosecution, the deceased Gangaraboina Achaiah had three sons and the appellant is his younger son. He was a vagabond and addicted to vices. He used to intermittently work at Hyderabad and return to his village, Kambalapally, where the deceased owned a house and he was also getting old age pension of Rs.200/- per month. The appellant used to quarrel with the deceased whenever he gets the old age pension and was repeatedly demanding to transfer the house in his name. While so, on 5.7.2007 at about 0830 hours, while the deceased was inside the house, the appellant went there and demanded the deceased to part with the pension amount and on his refusal, being enraged, the accused took a pestle, beat him on his left leg and left hand, resulting in fracture and thereafter he pressed the neck of the deceased with the said pestle and when the wife of the deceased went in rescue of her husband, the accused beat her and pushed her away and having noticed that the deceased died,

¶17

came out of the house and made extra judicial confession before PWs.4 and 5 and fled away. PW-1, who is elder son of the deceased lodged complaint, Ex.P-1 and a case in Cr. No. 97 of 2007 was registered by the Police, Mahabubabad for the offence under Sec.302 IPC. Thereafter, PW-12, Inspector of Police examined the complainant, shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Area Hospital, Mahabubabad, conducted scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also arrested the accused, recorded his confessional statement and in pursuance thereof, got recovered the pestle used in the commission of offence. The doctor, PW-8, who conducted post mortem examination has opined that the cause of death is due to asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory failure. PW-8 also treated PW-2, wife of the deceased and opined that she sustained simple injury. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶18

The court below has framed charges under Sec.302 and Sec.323 IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges.

¶19

In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-9 and M.O. pestle. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the accused.

¶20

Taking into consideration both oral and

¶21

documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec.302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. He was convicted the accused for the offence under Sec.323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in the absence of any evidence corroborating the evidence of PW-2, conviction cannot be sustained more particularly when she admitted that at the time of offence she was sitting on the pial in front of the house. She further contends that the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 being hearsay in nature, ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court in basing conviction. It is also contended that in view of the specific evidence of PW-12, the Investigating Officer, that PWs1, 3, 4 and 5 did not state before him that PW-2 informed them that the accused killed the deceased, the trial court erred in recording conviction for the offence under Sec.302 IPC. She further contends that in the absence of corroborative evidence, the trial court ought not to have convicted the

¶24

accused for the offence under Sec.323 IPC.

¶25

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the findings recorded by the trial court. He submitted that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded on her mere admission that she was sitting on pial in front of the house. He further contends that the injury on PW-2, as per Ex.P-9, also supports the case of the prosecution that when she went in rescue of her husband, the accused pushed her away and she fell on a vegetable knife. He further contends that the recovery of MO-1 also lends support to the prosecution case and, therefore, no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence under appeal.

¶26

PW-1 is the complainant and son of the deceased. PW-2 is the wife and PW-6 is daughter of the deceased while PW-3 is his daughter-in-law. PWs. 4 and 5 are the neighbourers. PW-7 is the inquest panch while PW-8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW-9 is the witness for scene of offence. PWs. 10 and 11 are the panch for confession of the accused and recovery of pestle, MO-1. PW-12 is the Inspector of Police who conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.

¶27

To establish guilt of the accused, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2, wife of the deceased, who is said to be an eyewitness. According to

¶28

PW-2, on the date of incident, the accused quarreled with the deceased to give the pension amount and also a part of the sale consideration by selling the house, for which the deceased refused. Enraged by the said refusal, the accused pulled the deceased from the cot and when he fell down on the door, the accused beat the deceased with a pestle and on hearing the cries, PWs. 4 and 5 came to the scene of offence and she sent information to her son, PW-1, who came to the scene offence and lodged a written report, Ex.P-1. In the cross-examination, she admitted that at the time of incident she was sitting on the pial in front of the house. She further admitted that the accused was present when PWs. 4 and 5 came to the scene of offence and the accused confessed about the commission of offence before them. She also admitted that the accused went to Hyderabad for his livelihood.

¶29

PW-3, daughter-in-law of the deceased, stated that the accused is a vagabond and on the date of incident, he beat the deceased with a pestle as the deceased refused to part with the pension amount and to transfer the house in his name. She came to know about the incident through PW-5 and on enquiry, PW-2 told her about the accused killing the deceased. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not state to the police that on enquiry PW-2 told her that the accused killed the deceased.

¶30

PW-4 resides adjacent to the house of the deceased. He stated that on the date of incident, on hearing hue and cry from the house of the deceased, himself and PW-5 went to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body lying on the ground. According to him, on enquiry, PW-2 told him that as the deceased refused to give his pension amount and transfer the house in the name of the accused, the accused killed the deceased. He further stated that the accused also informed the same to him. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state to the police about PW-2 informing him about the accused killing the deceased.

¶31

PW-5 is another neighbourer of the deceased. According to him, he was working as caste jawan and on the date of incident, on hearing the hue and cry from the house of the deceased, himself and PW-4 went to the house of the deceased where PW-2 informed them that the accused killed the deceased as he refused to pay his pension amount and transfer the house in the name of the accused. He further stated that the accused was also present there at that time. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion about his making enquiry with PW2 and PW-2 informing him that the accused killed the deceased. She admitted that the accused was working in Hyderabad now and then.

¶32

PW-6, daughter of the deceased, stated that she

¶33

came to know about the accused killing the deceased over phone, when the deceased refused to part with the pension amount. Admittedly, she is not an eyewitness to the incident. She admitted that the accused was staying in Hyderabad to eke out his livelihood.

¶34

PW-7 is the inquest panch. In the crossexamination, in the first instance, this witness stated that he put his signature on Ex.P-2 inquest panchanama in the police station and again stated that he signed the panchanama at the Hospital, Mahabubabad.

¶35

PW-8, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, stated that the deceased sustained as many as eight external injuries and five internal injuries. All the internal injuries are ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory failure. In the crossexamination, he admitted that except injury No.5 viz., penetrating injury on the left side of the hyoid bone, two in number, measuring 1 inch x ¼ inch muscle deep with irregular margins measuring ¾ x ¼ inch, the other injuries shall not lead to death of a person.

¶36

PW-9 is a witness for the scene of offence while PW-10 is the witness for the alleged confession of the accused, who turned hostile. PW-11 is the witness for the recovery of the pestle, MO-1, pursuant to the confession made by the accused. PW-12, is the Inspector of Police,

¶37

who conducted investigation and laid the charges sheet. According to him, PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 did not state before him that they enquired with PW-2 and she told that the accused killed the deceased.

¶38

As observed earlier, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-2, who is said to be the eyewitness to the incident. It is her categorical evidence that at the time of incident she was sitting on the pial in front of the house. She further admitted that there was a quarrel in between all her sons and her husband and all the sons claimed the entire house for each of them. Even though, the prosecution has claimed PW-2 to be an eyewitness, in view of her categorical admission that at the time of incident she was sitting on a pial in front of the house, she cannot be treated as an eyewitness. Except PW-2, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Even PW-1, who has lodged the complaint has stated that he came to know about the incident through PW-5 and on coming to know about the incident, he came to the place of incident, prepared the complaint. PW-12, Investigating Officer categorically stated that PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 5 did not state before him that on their enquiry PW-2 informed them that the accused killed the deceased. In view of this fact and the fact that PW-2 was sitting on the pial in front of her house at the time of incident, it cannot be said that she has witnessed the incident. The trial court has solely relied

¶39

on the evidence of PW-2 in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. PW-2 did not state about the specific overt acts of the accused. On the other hand she stated that the accused pulled the deceased from the cot and when fell on the cot, the accused beat him with a pestle. Thus the evidence of PW2 does not disclose on which part of the deceased the accused beat him with the pestle. The doctor PW-8, who conducted autopsy over the dead of the deceased, has opined that the cause of death is due to asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory failure. Therefore, when injury No.5, which is said to be fatal, as stated by PW-8, and when it is not established that the accused caused injury, he can not be held responsible for the death of the deceased.

¶40

The court below found that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5, before whom the accused made extra judicial confession about causing the death of the deceased. PWs. 4 and 5 deposed that on hearing the cries from the house of the deceased, they went to his house and found the deceased lying on the ground and on enquiry, PW-2 informed them that the accused killed the deceased and the accused also informed the same to them. The omission on the part of these two witnesses as this material fact was not stated to the police when examined under Sec.161 Cr. P.C. Therefore, their coming to know about the killing of the deceased through PW-2 on their

¶41

enquiry, can be viewed with suspicion.

¶42

The other circumstance upon which the prosecution relies upon is the recovery of MO-1, pestle, at the instance of the accused. PW-11 stated that when the police called himself and PW-10, the accused was in their custody and on their enquiry, the accused made a confession about the commission of offence and led them to his house where from he brought MO-1, which was seized by the police. The other mediator PW-10 also supported the version of PW-11 with regard to the recovery of MO-1 from the house of the accused as per his confession. Mere recovery of MO-1 at the instance of accused does not connect the accused when the evidence of PW-2, the eyewitness, is held to be not reliable.

¶43

Adverting to the charge under Sec. 323 IPC, the court below has based the conviction on Ex.P-9. PW-2 did not speak about the accused causing injury to her in the chief examination and after declaring her hostile in the cross-examination, she has stated that when she tried to rescue her husband she fell on a vegetable knife. She remained conspicuously silent about the treatment given by the doctor. PW-8, the doctor appears to have examined PW-2, did not state anything as to the treatment given to PW-2 or issuing the wound certificate, Ex.P-9. The said Ex.P-9 was marked through the Investigating Officer, PW-12. In the absence of corroborative evidence,

¶44

merely basing on Ex.P-9, conviction for the offence under Sec. 323 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 and 323 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

¶45

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant – accused, by judgment dated 27.03.2008 passed in S.C. No. 745 of 2007 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 323 IPC, is set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶46

____________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶47

___________________ Justice P.Durga Prasad

¶48

October 29, 2012 MAS.

Gangaraboina Seeta Ramulu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaraboina Seeta Ramulu, 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

Guntaka Karunakar Reddy, Vs State of A.P.

Kavali Mallesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandari Bhagyamma, Vs The State of A.P.

Teeparthi Surya Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

Tekumudi Krishna Murthy, Vs The Superintendent of Police

The State of a.P., Vs Gurrappagari Somaraju