1
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY-CUM- ADDL.DISTRICT &
SESSIONS COURT, PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOLE.
Present : Sri K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, B.Sc.,B.L.,
III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ongole,
F.A.C.: Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Ongole.
Monday, the Eighth (8th) day of April, 2013.
SESSIONS CASE NO.85/2012
(Cr.No.5/2011 of Veligandla P.S., P.R.C.No.14/2011 of Judicial Magistrate of
First Class Court, Kanigiri)
(1)NAME OF THE POLICE STATION AND CRIME NO. OF OFFENCE. : Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Circle.
(2)DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED : Chagani Venkataiah, S/o.Bhushaiah, aged 28 years, Reddy by caste, Pulikuntla Village of Velignadla Mandal. (3)DATES OF :
Occurrence: 04-03-2011 Complaint: 15-03-2011 Committal Order : 02-08-2011 Apprehension: 23-03-2011 Commencement of trail: 03-12-2012 Closure of trail: 19-02-2013 Sentence or Order: 08-04-2013 (4) SENTENCE OR ORDER : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.302 and 201 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted of said charges u/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
(5) EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kanigiri committed P.R.C. No.14/2011 on the file of his Court and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 85/2012 on the file of Sessions Court, Ongole and made over to this Court for disposal according to law on 18- 04-2012. On 03-07-2012 charges u/s. 302 and 201 of IPC. have been framed against the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 03- 12-2012 trial schedule was commenced and concluded on 19-02-2013. During the trial period, PWs.1 to 21 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P24, and Ex.D.1. On 08-02-2013 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported defence evidence. The defence side evidence closed on 19-02-2013. Arguments on both sides were concluded on 26-03-2013. On 08-04-2013 judgment
pronounced (V.S.J.). acquitting the accused from the charged offence under
Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Sd./- K.Venkata Raman Reddy,
III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Ongole.FAC:Judge-Family -cum- Addl.District& Sessions Judge, Ongole.
2
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY-CUM- ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT,
PRAKASAM DIVISION, ONGOLE.
Present: Sri K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, B.Sc.,B.L., III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, FAC;Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.District & Sessions
Judge, Ongole
Ongole,
Monday, the 8 th day of April, 2013.
SESSIONS CASE NO.85/2012
(Cr.No.5/2011 of Veligandla P.S., P.R.C.No.14/2011 of Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kanigiri.)
Between:-
State: Inspector of Police, Kanigiri. … Complainant
And
Chagani Venkataiah, S/o.Bhushaiah, aged 28 years, reddy by caste,
Pulikuntla village of Veligandla Mandal.... Accused
Konatham Chandra Sekhar S/o.Bala Krishna, 4 years, Reddy, Pulikuntla village, Veligandla Mandal.… Deceased
The prosecution has been conducted by Addl.Public Prosecutor for the
State and of the accused defended by Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for accused.
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC., and he is acquitted of said charges under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
J U D G M E N T
Inspector of Police, Kanigiri circle filed charge sheet against accused under Section 302 and 201 IPC., in Cr.No.5/2011 of Veligandla Police Station alleging as:-
Konatham Balakrishna(PW.1) and accused are residents of Pulikuntla village. Both of them married women of same village i.e., Ramalinga Puram @
Bapanapalli village. PW.1-K.Balakrishna and his wife K.Vasantha(PW.2) are 3 blessed with two sons and they were leading happy life, whereas the accused, who is blessed with two female children addicted to vices and he did not look after his wife and children properly. Whenever the accused visited his in-laws house, his parents-in-law and their neighbours used to ridicule him by comparing his life with PW.1. On account of the same, accused felt humiliated and bore grudge against PW.1.
(a) Whileso, three months prior to the date of incident on one day at the time of playing cards, a wordy quarrel ensued in between PW.1 and accused, whereas PW.1 commented the accused by uttering as” NEEKU
IDDARU ADAPILLALU, ENDUKURA NEEVU ABADDALU CHEPPI
BRATHUKUTHUNTAVU, BARYA BIDDALANU SARIGA CHUSKOLEVU”, thereupon accused grew wild against PW.1 and threatened uttering as “ NEE PEDDA
KODUKU CHANIPOINADU, NEE CHINA KODUKU ETLA BRATHUKUTHADO NENU
CHUSTHANULE”. Said incident took place in the presence of Konatham
Balakesu(LW.11), PW.4-Kandula Venkata Swamy and others and all of them admonished both accused and PW.1, then they disbursed from that place.
(b) However, accused intended to do away the life of deceased in order to wreck vengeance and waiting for an opportunity. While so, on 4.3.2011 during noon time, accused purchased parched grain(borugulu) from
Kasaiah of Vedullacheruvu village near the house of accused and gave some portion of parched grain to his 3 years old daughter-Chagani Navaneetha (LW.21). At that time, the accused noticed the deceased moving there, then he called the deceased and gave him a portion of parched grain (borugulu) to deceased and took him with a criminal intention along with his daughter to his house. Later, accused gave Rs.3/- to his daughter-Navaneetha asking her to go and purchase chocolates. After said Navaneetha left the house, accused throttled the deceased, consequently, deceased became unconscious, the accused thought that deceased kept him in his house. In the meanwhile, 4
PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of accused in searth of their son i.e., deceased and accused informed them that he had not seen the deceased boy. Later accused had thrown the deceased boy, who was struggling for life into a well in front of his house and caused the death of deceased. Later, PW.1 and other villagers found floating the dead body in the well. Though some suspicion arose, parents of deceased buried the deceased’s dead body at their backyard thinking that deceased accidentally fell into the well. Later, rumours spread in the village that accused might have killed the deceased and thrown the dead body into well.
(c) On 15.3.2011 at 12.00 hours, PW.1 presented report at
Veligandla Police Station. Basing on that report Sk.Md.Musthafa, the then ASI of Police, Veligandla P.S., (PW.20) registered a case in Cr.No.5/2011 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C., and issued FIR to Mandal Executive Magistrate, Veligandla and all officers concerned. He took up investigation sent the requisition to
Thasildar/ Mandal Executive Magistrate, Veligandla and Superintendent ,
APVVP Area Hospital, Kanigiri to depute one Medical Officer for the purpose of spot Post Mortem examination over the dead body of deceased. Said ASI of
Police, examined PW.1, PW.2, Kandula Venkata Reddy(PW.3) and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and also observed the scene of offence very minutely in the presence of mediators i.e., K.Padmanabham (PW.16) and Rayalla Venkateswarlu (LW.28) under a cover of observation report and also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and also the grave yard of the deceased.
(d) On 16.3.2011 at 14.30 hours said ASI of Police, got exhumed the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW.17 E.Chandravathi,
Thasildar, P.C.Palli in-charge Veligandla and Dr.S.Subba Reddy(PW.19) and also got photographed the grave as well as dead body in different angles through photographer i.e., D.Suresh (PW.5), further secured the presence of 5
Konatham Chennakesavulu(LW.3), Konatham Audilakshmamma(LW.4),
Konatham Chinna Bala Krishna(LW.5), Guvva Guravaiah (LW.7), Chagana
Ramireddy (LW.8) and Guvva Yerraiah (LW.9). Inquest had been held over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW.16 Kanaparthy Padmanabham,
R.Venkateswarlu(LW.28) and K.Bala Subba Reddy (LW.29) under a cover of inquest report. Said Mandal Thasidlar also recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, K.Thirupathaiah(LW.10), Pathakottu Narayana(LW.13) and recorded their statements. Said medical officer conducted autopsy at the spot as dead body was in decomposed condition and preserved sternum, liver, kidney for onward transmission to RFSL., Guntur for final opinion. Said ASI searched for suspected accused, but in vain and he came to know that the accused was absconding since the date of report to police by PW.1.
(e) On 22.3.2011 at 10.45 hours accused approached Chakka
Thirupathi(PW.6), Panchayat Secretary, Vedullacheruvu and made an extra judicial confession about commission of offence and said Panchayat Secretary recorded the said confession of accused and took the accused to Veligandla
Police Station and produced before PW.20-ASI of Police, who in turn arrested the accused after filing memo before J.F.C.M., Kanigiri to alter the charge from
Section 174 Cr.P.C., to under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Said ASI of Police produced the accused before PW.21 K.Prakasa Rao, the then Inspector of
Police, Kanigiri circle along with PW.6 and said Inspector of Police took up for further investigation. During the course of investigation, said Inspector of
Police interrogated the accused in the presence of mediators
Y.Ramakrishnaiah(PW.18), Sanitary Inspector, Kanigiri and Dr.Subba Reddy (LW.32) and prepared a mediator nama incorporating the confession about commission of offence by the accused duly attested by said mediators. Said
Inspector of Police, examined PW.6 Panchayat Secretary and recorded his statement. Later, said Inspector of Police, produced the accused before 6
J.F.C.M., Kanigiri for judicial remand. The said Inspector of Police further visited
Pulikuntla village examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4,
Konatham Chennakesavulu(LW.3), Konatham Audilakshmamma(LW.4),
Konatham Chinna Bala Krishna(LW.5), Guvva Guravaiah (LW.7), Chagana
Ramireddy(LW.8)andGuvvaYerraiah(LW.9),Konatham
Thirupathaiah(LW.10), Konatham Balakesu(LW.11), Konatham Bala Kesavul,
Chagani Chennamma(PW.8), G.China Chennaiah(PW.9). on requisition of said
Inspector of Police, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur recorded the statements of PW.4-K.Venkata Swamy, PW.6-Ch.Thirupathi under Section 164
Cr.P.C. said Inspector of Police further examined and recorded the statements of PW.10-Ch.Thirupathamma, PW.11-Rayalla Thirupathamma, Chagani
Navaneetha(LW.21), PW.12_ Kakerla Naga Lakshamma, PW.13-P.Sriramulu,
PW.14-P.Ramanamma, PW.15-Gajjala Peda Lakshmi Reddy and J.Ramana
Reddy (LW.26). Said Inspector of Police also sent material object preserved by
Medical Officer in the course of post mortem examination to RFSL., Guntur for analysis and report. Basing on the RFSL., report, the aforesaid doctor issued
Post Mortem Certificate along with final opinion about the cause of death of deceased as due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Hence, the charge.
02.Considering the material on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Kanigiri took cognizance of offence under Sections 302 and 201
IPC., against accused as PRC.14/2011, further supplied copies of documents on which prosecution relied on to accused on appearance under Sec. 207
Cr.P.C., further committed the case to the Sessions Division, Prakasam by adopting procedure contemplated under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C., by his order dated 2-08-2011 as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions.
7
03.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole took the case on file under
Section 302 IPC., and 201 IPC., against accused as S.C.No.85/2012 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.
04.On appearance of accused before the Court duly represented by counsel, an opportunity was given to the prosecution and also the defence to submit their respective versions at the stage of framing charges. Considering the material on record in the light of submissions of Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for state and defence counsel, a charges under Section302 IPC., and 201 IPC., have been framed against accused, read over and explained said charges to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
05.To substantiate the case of prosecution, totally ‘21’ witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 21 and exhibited ‘24’ documents as Exs.P1 to P24.
06.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., putting the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same. Though the accused stated during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had defence evidence, subsequently, he got filed memo reporting no defence. A portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 is marked as Ex.D1.
07.Heard the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for complainant/state filed written arguments and heard defence counsel appearing for accused.
Now the point for determination is:-
1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt?
8
a) That accused intentionally had strangulated the deceased
boy-Konatham Chandra Sekhar to death at his house?
b) That accused had thrown the dead body of deceased into a well in front of his house with an intention to screen himself from legal punishment as alleged by the prosecution?
POINT :-
08.PW.1-Konatham Bala Krishna, PW.2-K.Vasantha are the parents of deceased-K.Chandra Sekhar and they are residents of Pulikuntla village. PW.3-
K.Venkata Reddy, PW.4-K.Venkata Swamy, PW.7-K.Bala Kesavulu, PW.8-
Ch.Chennamma, PW.9-G.China Chennaiah, PW.10-Chagani Thirupathamma,
PW.11-Rayalla Thirupathamma, PW.12-K.Naga Lakshmamma are the residents of Pulikunta village.
a) Admittedly, deceased a four years old boy, was found floating dead in the waters of a well situate in between houses of accused and PW.3-
K.Venkata Reddy at noon time on 4.3.2011 and that body of deceased was buried on the next day by his parents, PW.1 and 2 at the backyard of their house, later on 15.3.2011,. PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report to PW.20 ASI of Police,
Veligandla P.S., who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.5/2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact that PW.20-A.S.I of Police got exhumed the dead body of deceased on 16.3.2011in the presence of PW.17-Mandal
Thasildar E.Chandravathi and PW.19- Dr.S.Subba Reddy, CAS., Area Hospital,
Kanigiri. It is also not in dispute that PW.19-Dr.S.Subba Reddy had conducted post mortem examination at the spot and issued Ex.P18 preliminary post mortem report and also Ex.P20 final opinion after receipt of Ex.P19 RFSL report opining that the deceased would have died of asphyxia as a result of drowning.
09.It is the evidence of PW.1-K.Bala Krishna and PW.2-K.Vasantha that they came to know through relatives and villagers that accused killed their son, 9 then PW.1 gave report Ex.P1 to the police. PW.1-K.Balakrishna stated in his evidence in chief that three months prior to the date of death of deceased, accused and some others were found playing cards and he noticed the same while going to field and chastised them, thereupon, the accused threatening him stating that his eldest son died by falling into well, further uttered as “Mee rendo koduku yela Bathukuthado Chusthanu”. PW.1 also stated in his evidence in chief that he was present while galata took place between accused and his in-laws on the ground that the accused did not look after his children and wife due to vices. PW.2-K.Vasantha stated in her evidence in chief that accused neglected his wife and children and he used to illtreat his wife and children and that wife and mother-in-law of accused used to chastise the accused stating that PW.1 was looking after her properly, whereas accused neglected his wife and children.
a) As per the case of prosecution, PW.4-K.Venkata Swamy was present when galata allegedly took place between accused and PW.1 three months prior to the death of deceased. PW.4 stated in his evidence in chief that no galata took place between PW.1 and accused in his presence prior to the death of deceased. He denied the suggestion put to him by Addl.P.P., that accused one Balakesu and himself were playing cards three months prior to the death of deceased and at that time, there was a galata between PW.1 and accused. PW.7 K.Balakrishna stated in his evidence that on the date of death of deceased, he received message about the death of deceased while working at Gopa Samudram, then he came back and saw the dead body of deceased at the house of PW.1 and that he did not see PW.1 and accused altercating to each other.
b) PW.8-Chagani Chennamma stated in her evidence that on the date of death of deceased, she came back to the house from the fields at evening hours and saw the dead body of deceased at the house of PW.1 and 10 on the date of death of deceased, she did not see the deceased or accused or daughter of accused. PW.9-Gurujepalli China Chennaiah stated in his evidence that there is a bazar in between his house and the well and that while he was at his house on the date of death of deceased, he came to know through villagers that deceased fell into the waters of well. He stated in his evidence in chief that accused did not come to him on that day.
c) PW.10-Chagani Thirupathamma stated in her evidence that she is working as cook at elementary school and that deceased used to go to the school at 12-00 noon and left the school after taking meal and that the deceased came to the school on the date of death at about 12.30 hours and after having meal, he left the school and that Kakarla Nagalakshmamma did not come to that school on that day and she did not talk to the daughter of accused by name Navaneetha on that day. PW.11-Ravella Thirupathamma stated in her evidence that she cooks food at elementary school and that the deceased used to come to their school and eat meal at 12.30 hours and go away and on the date of death of deceased, he came to the school and eat meal and left the school and that K.NagaLakshmamma did not to the school on the date of death of deceased and that she did not talk to the daughter of accused Navaneetha on the date of death of deceased. It is the evidence of
PW.12-K.Naga Lakshmamma that she had been at her fields on the date of death of deceased and she did not distribute any eatables (Prasadam) to the school children at Ramalayam temple.
d) The evidence of PW.3, PW.4, PW.7, PW.12 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to prove any one of the allegations levelled against accused.
10.PW.13_P.Sreeramulu father-in-law of accused stated in his evidence that accused had been looking after his wife and children properly and accused 11 had no vices PW.14-P.Ramanamma mother-in-law of accused also stated that accused had no vices. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.13 and 14 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution in establishing the allegation that accused had addicted to vices and used to ill-treat his wife and children by neglecting them.
a) PW.15-G.Peda Lakshmireddy, a resident of Ramalinga Puram stated in his evidence that accused had habit of consuming liquor and that the wife and children of accused used to reside at the house of PW.13 and 14 at their village for most of the period, as accused did not treat them properly and he advised the accused to look after the wife and children properly and earn good name as PW.1 had been looking after his children affectionately. On confrontation in respect thereto, PW.15-stated in his evidence during cross examination that he did not remember whether he stated before police that accused was in the habit of drinking liquor. He further stated in his evidence during cross examination that he did not state before police that wife of accused used to reside at her parents house in their village for most of period, as the accused did not treat her properly. The accused got suggested PW.15 that father-in-law of PW.1 belongs to his group and on account of the same, he is speaking falsehood, but he denied the same.
11.The learned counsel submitted that there was no any such galata between accused and PW.1 three months prior to the death of deceased and that the accused neither neglected his wife and children nor his in- laws chastised him by comparing with PW.1 as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that Ex.p1 report given to Police long after the death of deceased, does not contain any such allegations.
12.
12
12.As seen from Ex.P1 report of PW.1 Dt.15.3.2011, no such allegations are find place in that report. There is a material discrepancy with respect to alleged incident between accused and PW.1 three months prior to the date of death of deceased as PW.1 stated in his evidence as mentioned above that while he was going to fields noticed the accused and some others were playing cards and chastised them, thereupon, accused threatened him in the aforesaid manner, whereas it is the case of prosecution that while accused
PW.1 and others were playing cards, a wordy quarrel took place between PW.1 and accused.
a) Accused got suggested PW.1 that PW.1 did not state before police that three months prior to the death of deceased, PW.1 noticed the accused and others while playing cards and chastised them, thereupon, accused threatened PW.1 further uttered words as” Nee Rendava Koduku ela
Bathukuthado Chusthanu” and the same was proved through PW.20 ASI of
Police, Sk.Md.Musthafa, as he admitted in his evidence during cross examination that PW.1 did not state the same before him. The accused also got suggested PW.2 that he did not state before police that accused neglected his wife and children and used to illtreat them and that the wife, mother-in-law of accused used to chastise the accused stating that PW.1 was looking after her properly, whereas the accused neglected his wife and children and proved the same as PW.21 Inspector of Police stated in his evidence during cross examination that PW.2 did not state the same before him.
b) In view of the fact that Ex.P1 does not disclose the alleged galata between accused and PW.1, three months prior to the date of death of deceased and also the alleged galata between accused and his in-laws on the ground of alleged ill-treatment and neglect of the wife and children by the accused and in view of the material omission in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in that regard as mentioned above, the version of prosecution that there was a 13 galata between PW.1 and accused three months prior to the death of deceased and also there was a galata between accused and his in-laws for neglecting his wife and children by the accused and chastising the accused by his in-laws and other villagers by comparing with PW.1 and on account of the same, accused bore grudge against PW.1 cannot be believed. Hence, the written arguments submitted on behalf of prosecution in that regard cannot be accepted.
13.It is the evidence of PW.19-Dr.S.Subba Reddy that on 16.3.2011 at about 3.00 pm., he conducted post mortem examination over the deceased by name
K.Chandra Sekhar and found the following findings i.e., exhumation was done and seen a male dead body was lying on its back with both extended upper and lower limbs in burial pit measuring length about 148 cm., width about 66 cm., and depth about 30 cm., and whole head was putrefied and skull was exposed with no brain tissue in the skull and skin over neck completely putrefied and hyoid bone is not traceable it is completely putrefied. Mediastum contains 50 ml of foul smelling water and sternum is preserved for diatum test. Lungs tissue and heart tissues not visible as they are completely putrefied. Stomach and intestines also not visible as completely putrefied and found water 22 to 30 ml of foul smelling water in the peritoneal cavity. Left side kidney is pale and preserved for chemical analysis, liver is also pale and preserved for chemical analysis, genital organ completely putrefied, spinal card and column are visible at lumbar region and thoracic region and that approximate time of death was about 10 to 15 days prior to Post Mortem examination and sent sternum for diatum test and liver and kidney for chemical analysis by preserving in saturated solution of sodium chloride and he received report from Scientific Officer, RFSL., to the effect that Items 1 to 3 were analysed and poisonous substance was not found in them and that 14
Items 4 and 5 were examined under microscopic for diatum and that similar diatums were detected in both of them. He further stated in his evidence that as per preliminary findings and expert opinions, he was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia as a result of drowning, accordingly, he issued Ex.P18 preliminary post mortem report and Ex.P20 final opinion.
14.It is the evidence of PW.6 –Chakka Thirupathi, Panchayat Secretary of
Vedullacheruvu that he was also in-charge of Ramalinga puram @ Bapanapalli and that on 22.3.2011 at about 10.30 am., while he was discharging his duties as Panchayat Secretary at the veranda of the house of Sarpanch of
Ramalinga puram, as there was no separate office for him, accused went there and confessed that he killed the deceased and thrown the dead body into a well, further expressed his intention to surrender before police through him.
PW.6 further stated in his evidence that accused further stated before him that
PW.1 and accused had married in the same village and accused addicted to vices and his in-laws used to compare him with PW.1 stating that PW.1 had been looking after his wife and children properly for which accused felt insulted and that there was a galata between PW.1 and accused three months prior to the offence while playing the cards and on account of the same, accused decided to kill the son of PW.1 accordingly, he killed the son of PW.1 i.e., deceased. PW.6 further stated in his evidence that he recorded aforesaid statement of accused and obtained thumb impression of accused on that recorded statement and identified Ex.p4 as the said statement of accused recorded by him. PW.6 also stated in his evidence that on the same day at about 12.45 hours, he took the accused along with Ex.P4 statement to
Veligandla Police Station and handed over the accused and said statement to
ASI of Police, who had been there, thereafter, said ASI and himself took the 15 accused to the office of Inspector of Police, Kanigiri and that Inspector of
Police, who was present at the office, interrogated the accused in his presence after procuring the presence of Y.Ramakrishnaiah(PW.18) and D.V.Subba
Reddy (LW.32) and accused narrated the incident as what he stated before him and that the Inspector of Police, prepared a mahazar incorporating the confession of accused and identified Ex.P5 as the admissible portion of said mediatornama and Ex.P6 as his statement recorded by Magistrate.
a) PW.18-Y.Ramakrishnaiah, Sanitary Inspector, Kanigiri
Municipality and also stated in his evidence that on 22.3.2011 at the instance of Inspector of Police, Kanigiri, he along with D.V.Subba Reddy(LW.32) went to the office of circle Inspector and found PW.6, ASI-Musthafa and accused and
Inspector of Police there and that Inspector of Police interrogated the accused in their presence and prepared mahazar in respect thereto incorporating the confession of accused and both of them attested the said mediatornama and identified Ex.P5 as the admissible portion of said mediatornama. PW.20 ASI of
Police-Sk.Md.Musthafa and PW.21 Inspector of Police-K.Prakasa Rao stated in their respective evidence about production of accused before them by PW.6 and also about interrogation of accused by PW.21 in the presence of said mediators and incorporation of the same in the mediatornama prepared in respect thereto.
(b) It got mentioned in the written arguments filed on behalf of prosecution that Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem examination stated in his evidence that it may be possible when a person who was in semiconscious state was thrown into waters of a well, such person may swallow the water, therefore, prosecution proved the guilt of the accused in view of the extrajudicial confessions made by accused before PW.6 Panchayat Secretary-
Ch.Thirupathi.
16
(c) The learned defence counsel submitted that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and same has to be proved like any other material fact. He further submitted that the evidence of PW.6 during cross examination established that PW.6 was unknown to accused and the version of prosecution that accused approached such an unknown person and made extra-judicial confession, cannot be believed. He further submitted that there is no any other corroborative evidence in support of the case of prosecution that accused had killed the deceased and threw the dead body of deceased in to a well and that the accused cannot be convicted basing on such extra judicial confession, which is not trust worthy. In support of his contention in that regard, he referred the following two decision i.e., Koki
Prabhakara Reddy and Others V., State of A.P., rep., by its Public
Prosecutor and another (2006(3) ALT (Crl.) 179 (D.B.) (AP) (2)
Gellela Thirupalu V., State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Itikalapalli
Circle, Ananthapur District rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Hyderabad(2011(1) ALT (Crl.).340 (DB) (AP).
15.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor also referred the following decisions in support of his contention that accused can be convicted basing on the extrajudicial confession ie., (1) Baldev Raj, Appellant V. State of
Haryana, respondent (1990 CRI.L.J. 2643) ; (2) Arumugam V. State
rep.by its Inspector of Police ( 2011(1) ALT (Crl.) 43 (SC); (3) Pallapu
Raju @ Pedda Raju V. State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor
(2013(1) ALT (Crl.) 91 (DB) (AP).
16.PW.6-Ch.Thirupathi, Panchayat Secretary stated in his evidence during cross examination admitting that he mentioned in Ex.P4 that accused introduced himself on that day. As contended by the learned defence counsel, if really there was an acquaintance between accused and PW.6 prior to 17 22.3.2011 i.e., date of Ex.P4, there was no necessity for the accused to introduce himself to PW.6 when he allegedly approached PW.6 to make alleged extra judicial confession. In view of the same, it can be inferred safely that there was no prior acquaintance between accused and PW.6. As seen from Ex.P4 alleged extra judicial confession of accused, signature or thumb mark of accused or the signature of PW.6 is not appearing on the remaining pages except at the end of said statement at the last page. PW.6 stated in his evidence during cross examination that usually he will take the signature of the party on each page of the statement recorded by him. As per the version of PW.6 that he has been working as Panchayat Secretary, Vedullacheruvu since 2006 and he was also in-charge of Ramalinga Puram @ Bapanapalli,
Immadicheruvu, Rallapalli, Motupalli Jallapalem. He further stated in his evidence that he used to perform his duties by sitting at the veranda of the house of Sarpanch of Ramalingapuram, as there was no separate office for discharge his duties. It is the evidence of PW.15-Gajjala Peda Lakshmi Reddy that his wife was elected as Sarpanch of the village of R.L.Puram for the period ending with 2011 and that there was no gram panchayat office at their village and activities of gram panchayat office used to be attended at the veranda of his house. As mentioned above, the accused got suggested PW.15 that father-in-law of PW.1 belongs to his group and on account of the same, he deposed false hood.
17.In the aforesaid decisions referred by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor i.e., 1) Baldev Raj, Appellant V. State of Haryana, respondent, the marriage of deceased and accused took place a year before death of deceased and that the deceased left for her parents house, which is 75 km., away from her matrimonial home and stayed with her parents for some days complaining ill-treatment by the husband and she was sent back with her husband hardly a couple of months before the incident on 14.2.1975 on the 18 assurance of her father-in-law and on that fateful day, it was said that deceased took meals to the appellant, who was working in the wheat fields near his tube well and she did not return home and her dead body was discovered in the drain on 16.2.1975 with multiple injuries on her person and complaint was lodged at police station on 16.2.1975 at 5.30 pm., against accused and that the accused said to have made extra judicial confession in the presence of his father-in-law Ishar Dass(PW.3), Ramji Dass(PW.4) and
Satnam Dass(PW.5) at the panchayat on 16.2.1975 and that the incriminating articles at the instance of appellant were also recovered. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as “ An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the
Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. It is true that the Court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness to accept the evidence or not. When the Court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, conviction can be founded on such evidence. In the instant case, the confession has been properly accepted and acted upon by the lower Courts and there is no scope for any doubt regarding the complicity of the appellant in the crime. The confession of the accused appellant was voluntary. The testimony of witness being responsible persons could not be doubted in the absence of any material to show that they had been motivated to falsely implicate the appellant. There was no infirmity in the confession which had been accepted and relied upon by the Courts and hence has to be maintained.”
2) Arumugam V. State rep.by its Inspector of Police, while PW.5 step- sister of accused and deceased were attending to their daily agricultural operation at the field accused called the deceased to help him to lift the bundle of firewood, then deceased and appellant went into the sugar cane field, thereafter short time, appellant alone returned and said PW.5 that he 19 had strangulated and killed the deceased and that the accused also appeared
before PW.1 VAO., and made an extra judicial confession that he had
murdered his step-mother and the same reduced into writing by PW.1 and took the accused to police and handed over the accused along with Ex.P1 statement medical evidence brought on record shows that post mortem had conducted at 4.00 pm., and the finding was of fracture in the body of hyoid bone and that the deceased would appear to have been died due to strangulation 27 to 30 hours prior to post mortem examination. Considering the said evidence on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court and the High Court.
3) Pallapu Raju @ Pedda Raju V. State of A.P., rep.by its Public
Prosecutor, where PWs.1 and 2 have no acquaintance with the accused and the accused after committing the murder of his wife at the Gundlakamma
Vagu went to PW.1 and 2, who were going on Gandhi Road, Addanki with bloodstained cloths and knives and made an extra judicial confession without any delay and that PW.1 had got reduced said extra judicial confession made by accused into writing by PW.2 under Ex.P1 and after completing the same along with his report Ex.P2, he handed over the accused along with weapon to the police. Considering the same, the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of
A.P., observed as “ ... In view of the accused making the extra judicial confession
before PW.1 immediately after the commission of the offence by coming
straight away from the scene of offence with bloodstained clothes and knife, the same inspires the confidence of the Court and as such the same can be relied upon. Therefore, in the above circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to rely upon the extra judicial confession of the accused for convicting him. Thus, the trial Court has rightly relied upon the extra judicial confession and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC., and the said conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in this appeal.” 20
18.In the decisions referred by the defence counsel i.e., Koki Prabhakara
Reddy and Others V., State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor and
another, where there were no eyewitness to the occurrence and the conviction was based on the circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession statement by A1 before PW.10.
The Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of A.P., having noticed basing on the facts that PW.10 was not a person, who had intimate relationship with the appellants and that PW.10 admitted that he was a witness for observation of the scene of offence and preparation inquest report and also attested it and that PW.10 had no personal acquaintance with accused prior to that day and that the story narrated looks like a charge sheet observed as “At this stage we could state that there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence and extra- judicial confessional statement made by A1- before PW.10. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution are as under:
1. That the deceased was last seen in the company of A1 who took her in an auto.
2. A-2 had the motive for committing the murder of the deceased as he bore grudge against her for spoiling the family life of his relative-
Venkateswaramma.
3. Accused No.1 made an extra-judicial confession of his guilt before PW.10 on 13.4.2003 and the same was recorded by PW.10 under Ex.P17.
4. On accused No.1 pointed out the place of M.Os. 7 to 9-Knife, zeans pant and shirt respectively were recovered in the presence of PW.11 which were stained with human blood as per FSL report.
5. A-1 was absconding after the incident and appeared before PW.10 on 13.4.2003.” “Once the prosecution failed to explain the reason as to why the accused reposed confidence on PW.10, went to him after 17 days and made confessional statement and the medical evidence do not support the confessional statement recorded under Ex.P17 about commission of rape on 21 the deceased confession the guilt for the offence not committed does not arise. In view of the same, it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of confessional statement shrouded with suspicion without its corroboration.”
Gellela Thirupalu V., State rep.by the Inspector of Police, Itikalapalli
Circle, Ananthapur District rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Hyderabad, where exceptEx.P7 alleged extra judicial confession of accused, there is no other evidence to show that accused was the assailant of deceased, the Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of A.P., on the aspect of said confession statement observed as “ No doubt, PWs.9 and 10 are disinterested witnesses, but, at the same time, Ex.P7 is not shown to be written by the scribe to the narration of the accused so as to infer that there was a clarity of words spoken to by the accused. The accused in the first instance allegedly narrated the incident to
PW.10 and thereafter, PW.10 narrated the incident to the scribe to write Ex.P7.
So, in those circumstances, it cannot be said that it is a true and correct version of the accused. Furthermore, there is no need for the accused to go to the office of PW.10 to give such a lengthy statement, especially when several other Government officers are available in around the place, where the accused was residing. If really the accused wants to give a confessional statement apprehending that he may be killed by police, he would have gone to any one of Government officers available in the district headquarters and confessed about his guilt. This creates any amount of doubt with regard to the truthful and correct nature of the statement of the accused. Barring Ex.P7, there is no other evidence to show that the accused is assailant of the deceased. In view of these infirmities in Ex.P7, we are unable to place any implicit reliance on this document, so as to base a conviction on the accused.
Therefore, if Ex.P7 is eschewed from consideration, there is no other evidence to show that the accused is the assailant of the deceased. The true and voluntary nature of Ex.P7 statement is doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the trial Court in a right perspective. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be said to be proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under
Section 302 IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.” 22
19.In the aforesaid decisions referred by the Addl.Public Prosecutor, accused made a confession immediately after the incident and in those referred decisions apart from extra judicial confession incriminating material objects were recovered basing on the disclosure statement of accused. But in this particular case on hand, as mentioned above, prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive for commission of offence and there is no other circumstantial evidence corroborating the alleged extra judicial confession of accused, which said to have been made by the accused long after the date of death of deceased. Medical evidence on record shows the death of deceased was due to asphyxia due to drowning. Absolutely, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence on record establishing the version of prosecution that accused killed the deceased by strangulation. Medical evidence on record gives scope to believe the version of defence that deceased accidently fell into the well and died due to drowning. Therefore, the above said decisions referred by Addl.Public Prosecutor have no application to the facts of the case on hand.
a) Even the evidence of PW.6-Ch.Thirupathi, Panchayat Secretary does not inspire confidence as no explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why he being the Panchayat Secretary of Vedullacheruvu had been at the house of Sarpanch of Ramalingapuram without sitting at his regular place of work i.e., at the pachayat office, Vedullacheruvu, further the evidence on record discloses that there was no prior acquaintance between accused and
PW.6, which improbabalises the version of prosecution that accused approached PW.6 long after the date of death of deceased and made such a confession.
a) In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is not safe to base conviction of the accused solely basing on Ex.P4 alleged extra judicial confession of accused, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, in 23 the view of the observations of Hon’ble Division Bench of High Court of A.P., in the aforesaid referred decisions by the defence counsel i.e., Koki
Prabhakara Reddy and Others V., State of A.P., rep., by its Public
Prosecutor and another (2) Gellela Thirupalu V., State rep.by the
Inspector of Police, Itikalapalli Circle, Ananthapur District rep.by the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad,
b)Therefore, it can be concluded safely that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences charged under Section 302
IPC., and 201 IPC., and accused is entitled to be acquitted of said charges by extending benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this Point is answered.
20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC., and he is acquitted of said charges under Section 235(1)
Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2013)
Sd./- K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, III Addl.District & Sessions Court, (Fast Track Court), Ongole. FAC:Judge, Family-cum-Addl.District Judge, Ongole
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution : For Defence:
PW.1: 3-12-2012:Konatham Bala Kriahna --None-- PW.2: 4.12.2012:Konatham Vasantha PW.3: 4.12.2012:Kandula Venkata Reddy PW.4: 6.12.2012:Kandula Venkataswamy PW.5: 7.12.2012:Daggupati Suresh PW.6: 7.12.2012:Chakka Thirupathi PW.7: 10.12.2012:K.Bala Kesavulu PW.8: 11.12.2012:Chagani Chinnamma PW.9: 11.12.2012:Gurujepalli China Chennaiah PW.10: 11.12.2012:Chapani Tirupathamma PW.11: 11.12.2012:Rayalla Thirupathamma PW.12: 12.12.2012:Kakerla Naga Lakshmamma PW.13: 12.12.2012:Polamreddy Sriramulu PW.14: 12.12.2012:Polamreddy Ramanamma PW.15: 13.12.2012:Gajjala Peda Lakshmireddy 24
PW.16: 13.12.2012:Kanaparthi Padmanabham PW.17: 14.12.2012:Erramalli Chandravathi PW.18: 17.12.2012:Uerraboina Ramakrishnaiah PW.19: 18.12.2012:S.Subba Reddy PW.20: 8.1.2013:Shaik Md.Musthafa PW.21: 6.2.2013:K.Prakasa Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution :
Ex.P1: 3-12-2012:Report given by PW.1 to S.H.O., Veligandla P.S. Ex.P2: 6-12-2012:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 recorded by Inspector of Police Ex.P3: 7-12-2012:15(fifteen) photographs with two C.Ds. Ex.P4: 7.12-2012:Statement (oppukolunama) recoreed by PW.6 Ex.P5: 7-12-2012:Admissible portion of mediator report Dt.22.3.2011 Ex.P6: 10-12-2012:164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6 recorded by PW.8 Ex.P7: 10-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.7 Ex.P8: 11-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.8 Ex.P9: 11-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.9 Ex.P10: 11-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.10 Ex.P11: 11-12-2012:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.11 Ex.P12: 12-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.12 Ex.P13: 12-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.13 Ex.P14: 12-12-2012:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.14 Ex.P15: 13-12-2012:Scene observation report Dt.15.3.2011 Ex.P16: 13-12-2012:Inquest report Dt.16.3.2011 Ex.P17: 14-12-2012:FIR in Cr.No.5/2011 of Veligandla P.S. Ex.P18: 18-12-2012:Preliminary report of PW.19 Ex.P19: 18-12-2012:RFSL report, Guntur Dt.2.6.2011 Ex.P20: 18-12-2012:Final opinion issued by PW.19 Ex.P21: 9-1-2013:Rough sketch prepared by PW.20 Dt.15.3.2011 Ex.P22: 8-1-2013:Rough sketch prepared by PW.20 Dt.16.3.2011 Ex.P23: 8-1-2013:Altered memo under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P24: 6.2.2013:Letter of advice
For Defence : Ex.D1:4-12-2012:Portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 recorded by Inspector of Police.
Ild./-K.V.R.R.
III A.D.& S.J.,
FAC:Judge, Family Court, Ongole. To The Hon’ble Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Copies to:
1.The District & Sessions Judge, Ongole,
2.The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri
4.The Inspector of Police, Kanigiri Circle.
5.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole.