HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.A.No.781 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
ORDER
No DATE
0. 21.09.2022 MGR, J & TMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
This application has been filed under Section
389(1) of Cr.P.C to release the
petitioner/appellant/accused No.1 on bail by
suspending the sentence passed in Sessions Case No.410 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge Court, Rajampet.
Vide judgment, dated 29.06.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner/Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
The main ground urged by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed more than 5 years of actual sentence after conviction by the trial Court and in view of the judgment in Batchu Rangarao & others v. State of A.P.1, he would be entitled for bail.
He further submits that even on merits, all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses. There is no direct witness to the alleged incident. The entire
1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P).
2
prosecution cases rests on circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession said to have been made by the petitioner-A1 before the Village Revenue Officer. There is no enmity between A1 and the deceased and there is no motive to the petitioner -A1 to kill the deceased. The medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution. The trial Court failed to see that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved. The trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the depositions of PW6, PW11 and PW12. In support of his contentions, he also placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal Nos.2, 16/2017, 72/2016 and 1/2019 [between Ravindra Jha and others v. State and others], dated 08.02.2019, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.329 of 1979 [Between Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and others v. State of Gujarat], dated 09.01.1981.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, states that the conduct of the petitioner in the jail is satisfactory. However, he strongly opposed the application stating that the case of the prosecution is that deceased spread rumors against the wife of the petitioner - A1 that she had illegal intimacy with PW6 and for the said reason she committed suicide. Therefore, petitioner - A1 developed grudge against the deceased and petitioner - A1 hatched a plan with A2, who is the 3
friend of the deceased, and killed the deceased. The trial court having considered the entire evidence on record and the extra judicial confession, held that the prosecution proved the motive for the petitioner - A1 to do away the life of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He placed on the orders dated 21.09.2021 in IA.No.1 of 2020 in Crl.A.No.131 of 2020.
We have perused the material on record. The facts that the petitioner has completed 5 years of actual sentence after his conviction and his conduct in the jail are not in dispute. The same cannot be only grounds for entertaining the prayer for bail in view of the parameters laid down in Batchu Rangarao & others case.
Having gone through the judgment of the trial Court and considered the case of the prosecution that the petitioner-A1 had motive to kill the deceased, who was responsible for suicide of his wife, basing on the extra judicial confession which is held to be proved by the trial Court, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
_________ MGR, J
_________ TMR, J Continued.....
4
..continuation
Crl.A.No.781 of 2017
Post for final hearing in the usual course as per its turn.
_________ MGR, J
_________ TMR, J Vjl
