Cherukuri Venkat @ Kotha Venkadu vs State of A.P.

Jayachandra Reddy, J.—Two accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 23/87 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. They were convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 and Section 20-B of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable u/s 120-B, I.P.C. A-2 was further convicted u/s 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the sentences imposed on A-2 shall run concurrently. A-1 preferred this appeal.

It is alleged that they caused the death of Thotapalli George on the night of 25th June, 1986 at Vyra at about 10-30 p.m. by throttling, beating, pushing him against a wall with force and by kicking him on the chest. A-2 is the wife of the deceased, they were married at a very young age. Thereafter they started living separately. A-1 who is a resident of Vallabhi, developed illicit intimacy with A-2 and A-2 eloped with A-1. They took a house on rent at Vyra and were living there. The deceased, however, wanted to bring back his wife. At his request, P.W. 10 and other elders went to Vyra and brought back A-2. After A-2 was brought back, the deceased did not allow her to go to A-1. Near the house of the deceased, there is the house of P.W. 6 the wife of the brother of A-2. On 25-6-1986 at about 11 O'' Clock P.W. 6 noticed A-1 in the moon-light going along the road situated by the side of the house of the deceased. At about 11-30 p.m. P.W. 5 noticed A-1 coming out from the house of the deceased. On the same night A-2 went to the house of P. W. 4 and woke him up and requested him to visit her house to offer prayers saying that her husband was suffering from bodily pains. P.W. 4 went to the house of the deceased and found him dead. P.W.I, the father of the deceased, was also informed about the death of the deceased. P.W.I gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W. 15, the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W. 15 registered it as a crime and issued F.LRs. to the concerned. Inquest was held and it was found to be a homicidal death. P.W. 11, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, found some external injuries. But on internal examination he found fracture of first rib on left side, fracture of middle portion of the left shoulder blade and fracture of hyoid bone. He opined that the death was due to asphyxia, shock and haemorrhage. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.

The prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of its case. When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the offence.

The case rests mainly on circumstantial evidence. The learned II Addl. Sessions Judge found that the circumstances established by the prosecution are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

As already mentioned the prosecution came forward with the allegation that there was illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2 and A-2 eloped with A-1. As a matter of fact A-2 even went to the house of P.W. 4 and requested him to visit her house to offer prayers saying that her husband was suffering from bodily pains. Be that as it may, the most incriminating circumstance is only against the wife of the deceased, i.e., A-2 because she was supposed to be living with the deceased. So far as A-1 is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence incriminating him, except stating that he was seen while going that way. However, the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge extracted the circumstances that are said to have been proved by the prosecution in para 23 of the judgment which are as follows:-

"1. There had been illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2, the wife of the deceased.

A-2 eloped with A-1 and both of them lived for some time in Vyra, from where A-2 was brought back to Gandrai the village of the deceased. After she was brought back, the deceased was not allowing her to go to A-1.

Both A-1 and A-2 had sufficient motive to murder the deceased.

The deceased was beaten to death with hands and legs in his own house on the night of 25-6-1986 some time between 10-30 and 11-30 p.m.

A little before the above incident, A-1 was found going along the road situate by the side of the house of the deceased. A little after the incident, he was found coming out from the house of the deceased.

M.O. 4 button of M.O. 5 shirt was found lying at the scene of offence. M.O. 5 shirt was seized by P.W. 16 during the course of investigation from the person of A-1 on 9-7-1986.

There were as many as 11 external injuries with fractures of hyoid bone, rib and shoulder blade of the deceased. Yet, A-2 went to P.W. 4 and gave him false information saying that her husband was suffering from bodily pains, eventhough he was dead by the time she went to the Pastor (P.W. 4).

Both A-1 and A-2 were found at Share Mohammadpet bus stop on 9-7-1986 at 4-00 p.m. They were together even after the murder.

It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be proved by independent evidence and such proved circumstances should be complete as to establish the guilt of the accused and should be consistent only with his guilt without giving room to any other hypothesis. In this case we cannot hold that the circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. There is no evidence against A-1 worth mentioning which incriminates him. A-2, who is the wife of the deceased, could not have committed the murder of her husband and the prosecution case is not that she was directly responsible. Therefore, we find that there is no evidence on the basis of which her conviction can be sustained.

In the result, the convictions and sentence of the appellant (A-1) are set aside and he is acquitted. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cause.

It appears, A-2 did not prefer appeal. But in view of our finding given above, she is also entitled to acquittal. Accordingly the convictions and sentences against A-2 are set aside and she is acquitted. She shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other cause.

The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.