Chunchu Lakshmi Narayana vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—A1 and A2 in S.C. No. 520 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, Prakasam District, filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 07.05.2012, rendered therein. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC i.e., of causing the death of the deceased i.e., Chintaginjala Nagaraju, on 06.11.2008, and sentenced both of them, to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months respectively. Hence, this appeal.

A1, and the deceased are related to each other. P.W. 2 is the younger brother of A1. The deceased, and P.W. 3 are the sons of P.W. 2. All of them are residents of Chimakurthy Village of Prakasam District. One Sri Venkata Pathy, is junior paternal uncle of P.W. 2 and A1. The said Venkatapathy is said to have gifted a house site of Ac.0.05 cents to P.W. 2. A1 is said to have been dissatisfied with the conferment of the entire benefit to his brother, P.W. 1, alone. He is said to have warned P.W. 1 and his children i.e., the deceased, and the P.W. 3, that unless a share is given in the property to him, he would not keep quiet. The mediation in this behalf, is said to have failed. The marriage of P.W. 3 was said to have taken place on 8.11.2008.

On 06.11.2008, A1 is said to have taken the help of A2, and both of them, have proceeded on motor cycle i.e., Yamaha Gladiator, bearing No. AP 27 AA 3173, said to have been borrowed from P.W. 9. They are said to have called the deceased, through a coin box telephone, to go to a particular place, so that they can meet, and discuss certain matters. The deceased is said to have acceded to the request, and all the three are said to have proceeded on the motor cycle, towards Markapur, and they are said to have taken consumed liquor. After crossing Podili, the A1 and A2, are said to have caused the death of the deceased, near Veligonda Chalivendram, within the limits of Markapur Village. The dead body is said to have been first noticed by P.W. 1, Village Revenue Officer, on 07.11.2008, at about 3.00 p.m., and he submitted a report at 7.30 p.m., in Konakanamitla P.S. Unable to identify the body, the police is said to have simply registered a case in Crime No. 67 of 2008. No person was mentioned as accused. The photo of the deceased person is said to have been published in the newspaper, on 08.11.2008. On seeing the news item, P.Ws. 2 and 3, and another are said to have come to Markapur Village, and identified the dead body, as that of late Nagaraju.

During the course of inquest on the body, P.Ws. 2 and 3, are said to have suspected the involvement of A1. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Taking note of the mention of A1, in Ex. P3, i.e., the inquest report, the police altered the provision in the FIR, investigation was taken up.

The break through in this case occurred, when the A1 is said to have appeared before the Village Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy, P.W. 11, confessed to the commission of the crime. P.W. 11 is said to have recorded confessional statement, Ex. P11, and forwarded the same, together with the accused, to C.I. of Police, Podili, who has jurisdiction over Konakanamitla P.S. A1 is also said to have confessed about the involvement of A2, in the crime. With these and other particulars, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. The trial Court framed the charge, and on the denial of the same, by the accused, and the trial was conducted.

On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P19 were filed. M.Os. 1 to 6 were also taken on record. Ex. D1 was identified as contradictory portion in the statement recorded from P.W. 7. The nature of the disposal given by the trial Court to the case, has already been indicated in the preceding paragraphs.

Sri T. Sreedhar, and Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for A1 and A2 respectively, submit that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence, and that, though it is too weak, the trial Court convicted the accused. They submit that the prosecution first sought to emphasize upon the theory of the deceased last seen in the company of accused, based on evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 7 and the trial Court itself found that, such evidence is, totally unbelievable. They contend that the trial Court completely rested its conclusions, upon the extra judicial confession, Ex. P11, is said to have been recorded by P.W. 11. Learned counsel further submit that, if in fact, A1 confided any incriminating information with P.W. 1, the latter was expected to pass on the same, to the police station, which is very much, within that Village, but instead he has chosen to take the A1 to the police station, Podili, which is at the distance of 40 K.Ms. They submit that the extra judicial confession is totally, inadmissible in law. They further submit that though the recovery is said to have been made on the information furnished by P.W. 1, the medical evidence did not support the same.

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the death of the deceased was shrouded mystery, and naturally, several steps, not with any definite target, had to be taken, before the mystery, is unravelled. She contends that the accused, and in particular, A1, had clear intention to cause harm to P.Ws. 2 and 3, and the deceased, and in that process, he killed the deceased. She further contends that P.W. 11 had to pass on the information to the C.I. of Police Podili, P.W. 16, on account of the fact that the investigation is being undertaken by that officer, and there is nothing unnatural about Ex. P11.

It is rather unfortunate that the death of the deceased occurred at a time, when his elder brother, P.W. 3, was getting married, and the entire family had to perform the marriage, even while, being concerned about the deceased. The first information about the death of the deceased, reached P.S. Konakanamitla, with submission of Ex. P1 by P.W. 1, Village Revenue Officer. In Ex. P1, he simply stated that the dead body of an unknown person is found on 07.11.2008. Naturally, the police registered a crime, but was almost, at cross roads, in forming opinion about the cause of the death. The photograph of the deceased was published in the news paper, and on seeing the same, the father and brother of the deceased, and others i.e., P.Ws. 2, 3 and others, arrived at the spot. They identified the body, and it is during the course of inquest, that they suspected the involvement of A1. The formalities, such as, causing Postmortem, were completed.

It appears that, no serious efforts were made to apprehend A1, or the efforts, did not fructify. The manner in which, A1 came into picture, is a bit peculiar. He is said to have appeared before P.W. 11, Village Secretary of Chimakurthy, on 21.11.2008, and confessed before him that, he committed the murder of the deceased, 15 days earlier, with the help of A2. If in fact, A1 committed the murder, and there was a change in the mind, he could have shared those views, with any of his relations, or well wishers. If he was particular in that, a confession must be made, before an appropriate of the government officer, the police station was very much in that Village.

Assuming that A1 appeared before the P.W. 11, any duty minded officer, in place of P.W. 11, would have taken A1, to the nearest police station, which is very much in the village, in this case. Instead P.W. 11 felt himself, as a Court of law, or a judicial officer, and had recorded the statement. Added to that, he decided the jurisdiction of police, and forwarded the accused and P.W. 1 to P.W. 16. An attempt was made to add strength to Ex. P11, by incorporating the element of recovery of a sphere like weapon i.e., Badisa, MO. 5, and blood stained clothes of A1, MO. 6. Only MO. 5 can be treated as recovery, referable to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that too, if the confession was, otherwise valid. However, the recovery of MO. 5, was not supported by P.W. 1, the first person, who is said to have visited the scene of occurrence. With that, the acceptability of Ex. P11, suffered a serious dent.

The prosecution made a serious effort to introduce the theory of the deceased, having been last seen, in the company of the accused. For that purpose, evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6 and 7, was relied. However, on a detailed consideration thereof, the trial Court itself, recorded the finding to that effect, the theory of last seen together, cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution. Having eliminated that possibility, the trial Court rested its conclusion, on the extra judicial confession of the accused, before P.W. 11.

We have already point out the various infirmities, and short comings in Ex. P11. The result would be that there is no reliable evidence in the case, to hold that the accused are the guilty of the offence, alleged against them.

Therefore, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 520 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur, dated 07/08.05.2012, against the appellants-A1 & A2, are set aside. The appellants-A1 & A2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-A1 & A2 shall be refunded to them.

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.