Edulapally Mallaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—One Sri Edulapalli Yadagiri, of Shepherd community, resident of Nawabpet area of Medak Town, had three sons, namely, Edulapalli Mallaiah, Edulapalli Beeraiah and Edulapalli Venkat Ramulu. All the three sons had established their own independent families. It appears that in the context of division of joint family properties, acute differences existed among them. There were attacks and counter-attacks up to the level of attempt to murder against each other by 2006. It so happened that the two elder sons were on one side and the youngest was on the other.

Mallaiah and Beeraiah, the two elder brothers are said to have come to the Medak Town police station on 02.06.2006 at about 10.00 a.m., and stated that they have committed murder of their own brother Venkat Ramulu (D1) on 31.05.2006 at about 8.00 p.m., and have thrown the dead body on the bicycle of their brother, in a nearby irrigation canal. They are also said to have informed the police on 01.06.2006, that they killed Yashoda, the wife of Venkat Ramulu (D2) and Madhu, son of Venkat Ramulu (D3) at about 4.00 p.m., and have kept the dead bodies at a place known as Giddakatta area.

Crime No. 85 of 2006 was registered against Mallaiah and Beeraiah i.e., A1 and A2. The police visited the respective sites. Scene of offence of panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted in respect of all the accused and postmortem reports are obtained. After completing the investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak as S.C. No. 107 of 2007. Relevant charges were framed against both the accused in relation to the three deaths. On the accused pleading not guilty, a detailed trail was conducted, wherein, PWs.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.Pl to P40 were filed, and MOs.1 and 2 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 26.02.2010, the trial Court held both the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, separately for each death. They were also held guilty of offence punishable u/s 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed, for that offence. Hence, this appeal by A1 and A2 (for short "the accused").

Smt A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that the very submission of complaint, Ex.P1 is turned out to be a fictitious event with PW.1, the author thereof, being declared as hostile. She contends that almost every witness including the alleged adoptive mother and brother of D2, did not support the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that there is not even a single circumstance that can be used as a link between the accused and crime, and still the trial Court convicted the accused. Learned counsel submits that while the dead bodies are said to have been recovered on the strength of a confession, said to have made on 02.06.2006, the material objects were recovered only on 16.06.2006, and this only shows the hollowness of the confession, said to have been recorded from the accused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though there is no eye witness to the ghastly incident of triple murder, the prosecution was able to establish the existence of motive in A1 and A2 to do away with the family of their brother D1, and the execution of the plan prepared by them. She contends that the confession recorded from the accused was used only to the extent of recoveries, and the rest of the matters depend upon the other circumstances, such as, the existence of serious disputes, attacks and counter-attacks between the parties.

A1 and A2 are said to be in the business of brokerage of arranging the sale and purchase of second hand tractors and their informal place of business is said to be near the showroom of Escort Tractors in Medak Town. Even from the charge sheet, it is evident that the disputes between A1 and A2 on the one hand, and their brother D1 on the other hand, are so serious that at one point of time, D1 attempted to cause the murder of A2 with a knife, and Crime No. 25 of 2004 u/s 307 IPC was registered in relation thereto, and A1 and A2 on the other hand are said to have poured Acid upon the deceased in June, 2004 leading to registration of Crime No. 63 of 2004 u/s 307 IPC. The incident in relation to the deaths of D1 to D3 did not reach the police in the usual course. Ex.P1 is a statement said to have been recorded from PW.1, the maternal uncle of A1, A2 and D1. However, in Ex.P1, PW.1 did not mention that he has seen the accused committing the offence of causing the death of Dl to D3. He has only expressed his anguish and deep concern about the death of innocent persons, particularly, D2 and D3. He has also observed that A1, A2 and D1 are very stubborn people, and they never heeded to the advice of the elders.

Even if, Ex.P1 is taken as true, nothing useful to the prosecution can be culled out from it. It is rather unfortunate that neither the remaining children of D1 and D2, nor anybody related to them, have submitted any formal complaint. Though PW. 1 made an attempt to bring the incident to the notice of the police, he did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile.

PWs.2 to 8 includes a photographer and persons said to be acquainted with the incident. All of them have turned hostile. The other witnesses, who are proximate to the deceased are PW.9, the adoptive mother of D2, and PW. 10, the adoptive brother of D2. Even these two witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

The entire case of the prosecution rested upon the confessional statements, said to have been recorded from A1 and A2. Here again, there is dichotomy. While the confession that lead to recovery of dead bodies of D1 to D3 said to have been made on 02.06.2006 at 10.00 a.m., under Exs.P34 to P36, the confessions that lead to the recovery of stick and bicycle are said to have been made on 16.06.2006. It is important to note that all the confessions are before the officials of the police department or of the revenue department. Not a single independent witness was folded in.

It is not necessary to emphasize the precautions, which are required to be taken by a Court, in the context of evaluating the confessional statements. If one takes into account, the note of caution sounded by legislature, in Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act (for short "the Act"), it becomes clear that the confession made to a police official cannot at all be taken into account. Even where the confession has lead to recovery of such objects, whether or not, used in commission of crime, only that part of the confession, which is in relation to the discovery, becomes relevant, and not the one, that relates to the commission of crime. Viewed from this angle, the confession is said to have been made by A1 and A2 on 02.06.2006, does not acquire any legal value at all. It has already been mentioned that the confession was made either to a police or the revenue Officials. The discovery, in relation to one confession was dead body. It cannot be related to Section 27 of the Act. The confession, which to certain extent, can fit into Section 27 of the Act, is said to have been made on 16.06.2006. The objects are a stick and a bicycle. Once the police and prosecution formed an opinion that A1 and A2 caused the deaths of D1 to D3, on the basis of confessions, marked as Exs.P33 to 35, the so-called confession marked as Ex.P37 leading to recovery of stick and bicycle, virtually became redundant.

The inquest report and postmortem reports in relation to D1 to D3 disclose that the bodies were in a totally decomposed condition, so much so, even the injuries were not noticed on the bodies. The version presented by the prosecution on the basis of the confession was to the effect that A1 and A2 were returning from the showroom at about 5.00 p.m., on 31.05.2006, and when they have gone up to some distance, their brother, who was hiding in the bushes by the side of the canal, suddenly came and made an attempt to attack them, and on noticing some sound, A1 and A2 turned back. Immediately, both of them are said to have taken away stick from the hands of D1 and attacked him and that he died on the spot. They are said to have thrown away the dead body and bicycle in the nearby canal. It is just unimaginable as to how, in a busy town, like Medak, such an incident, if committed at that time, can go, unnoticed. It is also elicited from the prosecution witnesses that the washer-men would be present in the canal, and that the area is busy.

The manner in which, A1 and A2 are said to have committed the murder of D2 and D3, is equally curious. Here again, the police had to fall back upon, the confession of the accused. It was stated that the accused apprehended that D2 would raise hue and cry, if she comes to know about the death of her husband, and to prevent that it is better to liquidate her also, before any development takes place. D2 and D3 were said to be coming across A1 and A2, at about 4.00 p.m., on 01.06.2006 and the accused have killed both the deceased, by pressing their throats. The bodies are said to have been initially kept in the bushes, and thereafter, taken to Giddakuntum area. This incident is said to have taken place in the outskirts of Medak Town at 4.00 p.m. One cannot imagine that if in fact the incident has taken place, it would not be noticed by the third parties.

Another factor, which makes this Court to disbelieve the confessional statements, is that, as already mentioned, D1 and accused were inimical to each other, and both of them attempted to liquidate the other. If in fact, the accused killed the deceased, it was with a clear motive and intention. When such is the background, the question of perpetrator of crime turning out to be a saintly person, appearing before the police and confessing to the commission of crime, is beyond anybody''s imagination. Things would have been different, had there been any support from other evidence. When the adoptive mother and brother have not subscribed to the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the case against the accused is proved, as required under law. Viewed from any angle, we do not find that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 107 of 2007 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak, dated 26.02.2010, against the appellants-accused, are set aside. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.