Gandi Bujji vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—All the three accused in S.C. No. 78 of 2005 on the file of the I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence handed out to them by the trial Court.

The incident that gave rise to the prosecution of the accused is said to have taken place on 06.10.2004. The deceased by name Marisetti Kranthi Kumar @ Nani, son of P.Ws.2 and 3, was a painter by profession. A-3 is also said to be a painter. On 06.10.2004, A-3 is said to have taken the deceased for work and knowing that the deceased did not return home even by 7.00 p.m., P.W.-2 is said to have sent her daughter to A-3, for enquiry. A-3 is said to have come to the house of P.Ws.2 and 3 and stated that he paid the wages for the day, and that he may return, may be late in the night. P.Ws.2 and 3 are said to have waited for two more days and submitted a complaint on 09.10.2004 to the Police, Gajuwaka. They are said to have came to their house and verified the matter. On the next day, P.Ws.2 and 3 said to have gone to Police Station and there they found the accused, and that their statements were recorded.

The registration of the crime in the case actually took place at 11.00 a.m., on 10.10.2004 on the basis of information in Ex. P.2 by P.W.-1, a part-time Assistant in the Mandal Office, Podagantyada. In Ex. P.2, he stated that when he was in the office at 10.30 a.m. on 10.10.2004, A-1 to A-3 came to him and stated that they took the deceased to the house of A-2 suspecting that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the wife of A-1; they made the deceased to consume liquor at about 6.30 p.m., and thereafter killed him by beating with hands, empty liquor bottles and dumbbells. They were also said to have twisted an electrical wire around the neck of the deceased and buried the dead body in a pit, dug with the available crew-bar in the house of A-1.

The police registered Crime No. 278 of 2004 under Sec. 302 and 201, read with Sec. 34 IPC. The body was exhumed, and the steps provided under law, such as preparation of scene of offence panchanama, inquest and post mortem examination were completed and on the basis of further investigation into the matter, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) filed the charge sheet.

The trial Court framed charges by invoking Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 IPC. The accused denied the charges made against them. In the trial that ensured thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined, Exs. P.1 to P.48 were filed; and M.Os.1 to 22 were taken on record. Through its judgment dated 24.8.2009 the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 120-B, 302 and 201 I.P.C. It has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. Similar punishment was imposed for the offence under Sec. 120B IPC. Imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs. 500 was imposed for the offence under Sec. 201 IPC.

Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that the very initiation of the proceedings against the accused is without any basis and the so called circumstantial evidence is not at all sufficient to convict the accused. She contends that even though her son was missing from 06.10.2004 itself, P.W.-2 did not make any complaint till 09.10.2004, and even that complaint did not form part of the record. She further submits that the entire case is rested upon the so called confession of the accused, that too before P.W.-1, and with the declaration of that witness as hostile, hardly there exists any basis for the prosecution. It is also pleaded that though the prosecution endeavoured a lot by gathering the medical and other circumstantial evidence, by examining quite a large number of witnesses, and by filing voluminous records, they failed to connect the crime to the accused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that not only the deceased was killed but also his body was clandestinely buried and in such cases it is difficult to expect immediate reaction from anyone including the parents. She submits that though P.W.-2 approached the police, may be after three days from the date on which the deceased was missing, the crime was not registered, awaiting specific and definite information about the matter. She submits that circumstantial evidence in this case is clinching and the trial Court has taken the same into account.

The motive attributed to the accused to kill the deceased was that the latter was having illicit intimacy with the wife of A-1. Not a single witness was examined to speak about that. Everything was in the realm of speculation.

The parents of the deceased, P.Ws. 2 and 3 noticed their son, who went to work of painting on 06.10.2004 did not return, as usual. Since he was said to have accompanied A-3, P.W.-2 was expected to verify from him, and she in fact sent her daughter, Nandana Kumari, to A-3 to enquire the whereabouts of the deceased. A-3 is said to have replied to the daughter of P.Ws. 2 & 3 that he would come to their house and speak to her parents.

Since A-3 was the person, who is said to have taken the deceased along with him for the work, P.Ws.2 and 3 ought to have verified the matter on the same day. It is only on 07.10.2004 that P.W.-2 said to have sent her daughter Nandana Kumari to A-3 for verification. No timing is mentioned about it. It is only at 10.00 p.m. on 07.10.2004 that A-3 said to have come to them and informed that the wages were paid to the deceased and thereafter he did not see him. Non-examination of the daughter of P.W.-2, Nandana Kumari leaves certain gaps to be filled. The failure of P.Ws.2 and 3 to take any steps in reporting the matter to the police, at least by the morning of 07.10.2004, is a serious lapse. Though in her chief-examination, P.W.-2 stated that they submitted a complaint on 09.10.2004 to the police, the so called complaint did not form part of the record. She did not even mention the timing thereof. It is curious to note that A-3 is said to have accompanied P.W.-2 to the police station when the complaint was submitted, and when their statement was reduced into writing. The police is also said to have taken a photograph of the deceased, for making investigation.

When according to P.W.-2, A-3 has accompanied her to Police Station on 09.10.2004, one does not expect him to be afraid of appearing before police station in case he wanted to confess. Further, if A-3 is so truthful that he intended to confess about the commission of the offence, he would have straight away told P.Ws.2 and 3 or any of his family members. P.W.-1 is a part time Assistant in a Mandal Revenue Office. The office of M.R.O. has nothing to do with the investigation of crimes, much less a part-time Assistant, working in that office. The confession is said to have taken place on 10.10.2004.

P.W.-1 did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile at their instance. Once he disowned Ex. P.1, there does not exist any other source of information to the police to connect the crime with the accused. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are panch-witnesses or officials of the Government. The record, no doubt, discloses that the Investigating Officer has taken pains to investigate the matter since there did not exist any direct evidence. However, we do not find any basis or circumstantial evidence to hold that the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused. Accordingly we allow the appeal.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 78 of. 2005 on the file of I-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 24-08-2009, 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. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.