Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalva Maddaiah, Kurnool Dt Anr., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 5 August, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010585562016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3486]
AT AMARAVATI
MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1130/2016
Between:
KalvaMaddaiah, Kurnool Dt &Anr., and Others
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
The State Of Ap Rep Pp
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. SODUM ANVESHA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Accused Nos.1 and 7 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2016 on the
file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kurnool, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. They
along with Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos.8 to 10 were tried
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under six(06) charges i.e.,
first charge was under Section 148 of IPC against Accused Nos.1 to
10; second charge was under Section 364 of IPC against Accused
Nos.1 to 8; third charge was under Section 302 IPC against
Accused No.1; fourth charge was under Section 302 read with 34
IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 7; fifth charge was under Section 201
IPC against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and the last charge was under
Section 176 IPC against Accused Nos.9 and 10.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.05.2014 at about 7.45
A.M Accused Nos.1 to 10 formed into an unlawful assembly and
kidnapped one V. Bangarureddy (hereinafter referred to as "the
deceased") in a Scorpio Vehicle, bearing No.AP-21-AK-4646, near
old bus stand, Bethamcherla Village and attacked him at Leprosy
Colony, Dhone Mandal, which led to causing his death and in the
same process, to screen the evidence, Accused Nos.1 to 3 thrown
the dead body near railway track, Shivalayam, Dhone Village,
thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 364,
302, 302 read with 34 IPC, 201 and 176 IPC.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, convicted the Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and also to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a
period of three (03) months. He was also convicted under Section
201 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of seven (07) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted Accused No.1
under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer to Simple Imprisonment for a period of
three (03) months. He was further convicted under Section 148 IPC
and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
three (03) years.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted
Accused No.7 under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five (05) years and also to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a
period of three (03) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
further convicted Accused No.7 under Section 148 IPC and
sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three
(03) years. All the substantive sentences imposed against Accused
Nos.1 to 7 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 6 and Accused Nos.
8 to 10 of the charges levelled against them.
5. As there are no eye witness to the incident, the case of the
prosecution as stated in the charge sheet, is as follows:-
The deceased is a resident of Rudravaram Village and
Accused No.1 is a resident of Dhone town. Pws-3 and 4 are none
other than sons of the deceased. Pw-5 is younger brother of the
deceased. Pw-6 is the son-in-law of the deceased. Pw-8 is the
brother-in-law of Pw-3. Accused No.1 married the daughter of one
Bala Thimmaiah-(Lw-7) in the year-2001, who is also a resident of
Rudravaram Village. Accused No.1 purchased an extent of 3.00
Acers of land in Rudravaram Village and subsequently he wanted to
dispose of the said land for which, there was a resistance from his
father-in-law Bala Thimmaiah. The deceased used to support said
Bala Thimmaiah. As such, Accused No.1 bore grudge against the
deceased.
6. It is further alleged that the deceased questioned the
Chairman of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna,
Accused Nos.9 and 10 about the accounts pertaining to the lands of
the said temple. As such, there was dispute between the deceased
on one side and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 on the other side.
While so, on 18.05.2014, Pw-19-Constable of Bethamcherla Police
Station visited Rudravaram Village and informed the deceased
stating that the Inspector of Police asked him to bring the former.
The deceased spoke to the Inspector over phone and informed him
that he will visit the Police Station on the next day i.e., on
19.05.2014. Accordingly, on 19.05.2014 at about 9.00 A.M, the
deceased went to Bethamcherla Village. Thereafter, he did not turn
up. Pws-3 and 4 searched for the deceased till the evening of
20.05.2014 and whereabouts of the deceased were not known.
Pw-3 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-14 at about
4.30 P.M. Pw-20 received Ex.P-14 from Pw-3 and registered a case
in Cr.No.168 of 2014 under the head „man missing‟. On the same
day, he recorded statements of Pws-3 to 5. The further investigation
was taken over by Inspector of Police. In the meanwhile, having
found the dead body on the railway track, Pws-1 and 2 i.e., the
railway employees gave a report to the Police. On the basis of
Ex.P-1 report given by Pw-2, Head Constable, Dhone Railway Police
Station, registered a case in Cr.No.44 of 2014 under Section 174
Cr.P.C. On the same day, he secured the mediators Pw-13 and
another and proceeded to the scene of offence, situated between
Dhone-Malkapuram Railway Station. He prepared observation
report-Ex.P-6 in the presence of mediators. He also prepared rough
sketch-Ex.P-15 at the scene of offence. He also got scene
photographed, which were marked as Ex.P-16. He also seized
M.Os-2 and 3 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body to the
Community Health Centre, Dhone for the purpose of identification.
He also got published the photographs of the dead body in the
newspapers on 21.05.2014. Having seen the photographs in the
newspaper, Pws-3, 4 and 10 approached him at about 11.00 A.M on
21.05.2014. Pws-3, 4 and 10 identified the dead body as that of the
deceased. He recorded statements of Pws-3, 4 and 10. He held
inquest over the dead body in the presence of Pws-11 and 12 at
about 12.00 Noon at Community Health Centre, Dhone. Thereafter,
he shifted the dead body to the Government Hospital, Kurnool for
Post-Mortem examination.
7. Pw-18-Associate Professor, Kurnool Medical College conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause
of death was due to "depressed fracture of skull causing brain injury
due to blunt force application associated with signs of pressure over
the neck". He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-13.
Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police addressed a letter-
Ex.P-17 entrusting the investigation to Pw-22. On the basis of Ex.P-
17, Pw-22 re-registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2014 under Sections
364, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the
concerned. Ex.P-18 is the altered copy of FIR. In the altered FIR,
the names of suspected accused were shown as ten (10) in number.
Except the name of Accused No.9, all other nine persons were
shown as different persons unconnected with the present case. He
verified the investigation done by the previous Investigating Officers
on 10.06.2014. On the same day, he went to Malkapuram Railway
Station and recorded statements of Pws-1 and 2. On 11.06.2014, he
visited Rudravaram Village at about 8.30 A.M and recorded
statements of Pws-3 to 5 and Pw-10. On 12.06.2014, he visited
Siddanagattu Village and recorded statements of Pws-6 and 8. On
receipt of case property from Pw-21, he sent them to RFSL, Kurnool.
On 19.06.2014 at about 12.00 Noon, he received a phone call from
Pw-14-V.R.O, who informed him that eight persons came and
confessed stating that they kidnapped the deceased and committed
murder on 19.05.2014 at about 10.00 A.M at old bus stand,
Bethamcherla Village. He further informed Pw-22 that he has
recorded confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 8.
Immediately, he secured the presence of Pws-15 and 16 along with
staff and went to Ambapuram Village by 1.00 P.M, where he found
Accused Nos.1 to 8 before Pw-14. He also interrogated Accused
Nos.1 to 8 in the presence of Pws-15 and 16, who said to have
confessed stating that they kidnapped the deceased from old bus
stand, Bethamcherla Village in a Scorpio vehicle and caused his
death and thereafter thrown the dead body on the railway track.
Immediately, he arrested Accused Nos.1 to 8. On the confession
made by the arrested accused, he recovered six bamboo sticks, one
nylon rope and one axe kept under the stone pial in the garden of
one Mallikarjuna Reddy. Bamboo sticks were marked as M.O-6,
nylon rope was marked as M.O-7, which were seized under a cover
of panchanama-Ex.P-9. He also recovered Scorpio vehicle from the
possession of Pw-9, which is marked as M.O-1 in the presence of
Pws-15 and 16. On the next day, Accused Nos.1 to 8 were
remanded to judicial custody. On 20.06.2014, he arrested Accused
Nos.9 and 10 at Seetharampuram Metta, and seized two cell phones
from their possession in the presence of Pw-16 and another, which
were marked as M.Os-8 and 9. Subsequently, Accused Nos.9 and
10 were remanded to judicial custody. On 02.08.2014, Pw-24-Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool conducted test identification parade in
which, Pws-6 and 8 said to have identified the accused. Test
identification parade was marked as Ex.P-24. After completion of
investigation, Pw-22 filed charge sheet.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 25
and marked Exs.P-1 to 24 and also exhibited M.Os.1 to 8.
9. On behalf of the defence, portions of 161 Cr.P.C statements of
Pws-6 and 8 were marked as Exs.D1 to D3.
10. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
they denied the incriminating material found against them.
11. Relying on the evidence of Pws-3, 4, 6, 8 and 10, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Accused as aforesaid.
12. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri
Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the appellants contends that
there are no eye witnesses to the alleged attack on the deceased in
the present case. The prosecution purely rests on the circumstantial
evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution was
the "motive" for the accused to kill the deceased. To prove the
motive, the prosecution examined sons of the deceased i.e., Pws-3
and 4 and brother of the deceased-Pw-10. According to these three
witnesses, the deceased questioned the Chairman of Sri Anjaneya
Swamy Temple, by name Sunkanna, Accused Nos. 9 and 10 with
regard to the accounts of the temple lands. As such, the accused
have got motive to the prosecution case. The learned senior
counsel further contends that none were examined from the temple
side to show that there are disputes between the deceased on one
side and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 on the other side. The
second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the deceased
leaving Rudravaram Village at about 9.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. Pws-
3 and 4, who are none other than the sons of the deceased have
stated about the deceased boarded the bus at bus stand,
Rudravaram Village to go to Bethamcherla Village. The third
circumstance relied on by the prosecution is "last scene theory".
According to the prosecution, Pws-6 and 8 said to have witnessed
the accused kidnapping the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle at about
10.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. The learned senior counsel further
contends that the evidence of Pws-6 and 8 cannot be relied on as
they were planted by the prosecution belatedly. So far as the
evidence of Pw-10 is concerned, he did not state anything except
saying that there are disputes between the deceased and Accused
Nos.9 and 10. The mediators for the arrest and seizure, who were
examined as Pws-14, 15 and Pw-16, did not support the prosecution
version. As such, the learned senior counsel states that except the
belated evidence of Pws-6 and 8, there is no other evidence on
record.
13. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the Appeal contending inter alia that by the evidence of
Pws-3, 4 and 10, the prosecution is able to prove the motive on the
part of the accused to kill the deceased. He further contends that as
per the evidence of Pws-6 and 8, the deceased was last seen in the
company of the accused at about 10.00 A.M on 19.05.2014. As
such, he sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
14. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
15. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10, who are none other than the
sons and younger brother of the deceased, only show that there are
disputes between the deceased and Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9
and 10 with regard to accounts of the Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple.
But, the prosecution did not examine any witness or placed any
material from the temple authorities to the effect that there are any
misappropriations by Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10. The
evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10 is not at all useful to the prosecution in
any manner. The evidence of Pws-3, 4 and 10 did not disclose
motive for the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 7 to kill the deceased.
At one stage, the prosecution alleged motive stating that the father-
in-law of Accused No.1 is objecting the sale of Ac.3.00 of property
which was suppressed by the deceased. As such, Pws-3, 4 and 10
did not give clear version for motive. If at all there is any motive to
kill the deceased, it is for Sunkanna, Accused Nos.9 and 10 and not
for Accused Nos.1 and 7. The prosecution came up with the
evidence of Pws-6 and 8 to show that the deceased was kidnapped
by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle at Bethamcherla Village. Pw-6
is none other than son-in-law of the deceased and Pw-8 is the
brother-in-law of Pw-3. Though both these witnesses said to have
witnessed the accused kidnapping the deceased, curiously they did
not inform anyone. Pws-6 and 8 were closely related to the
deceased. Admittedly, the photo of the dead body appeared in the
newspaper on 21.05.2014. Though Pws-6 and 8 said to have
witnessed the kidnapping of the deceased on 19.05.2014, they kept
quite. At least, they did not even inform to Pws-3 and 4, who are the
sons of the deceased. Curiously, the Investigating Officer-Pw-22
has stated in his evidence that he recorded statements of Pws-6 and
8 on 12.06.2014 though the incident took place on 19.05.2014. As
such, it is very difficult to place any reliance on the evidence of Pws-
6 and 8, who came forward with the version that they saw the
accused taking the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle. Pws-6 and 8 tried
to state that they have not suspected the accused as they have only
taken the deceased in a Scorpio vehicle. But, the defence
suggested to both Pws-6 and 8 stating that they have stated before
the Investigating Officer-Pw-22 that the deceased was forcibly taken
by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle. The defence also marked
Exs.D1 to D3 portions of 161 Cr.P.C., statements of Pws-6 and 8,
wherein they have categorically stated that the deceased was taken
forcibly by the accused in a Scorpio vehicle. If really, they have
taken him forcibly and if really these Pws-6 and 8 witnessed the
kidnap, they ought to have informed at least to the sons of the
deceased-Pws-3 and 4. But, curiously their statements were
recorded only after twenty three (23) days from the date of incident.
As such, the evidence of Pws-6 and 8 did not inspire the confidence
of this Court. Except the evidence of Pws-3, 4, 6 and 8, absolutely
there is no other material to connect the accused with the alleged
offence. In the altered FIR, dated 10.06.2014, the suspected
accused were altogether different, except Accused No.9. As such,
the prosecution is not able to prove and fix up as to who were
responsible for the alleged kidnap and murder. As such, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have placed any reliance on
the belated version of Pws-6 and 8, who were examined twenty
three (23) days after the alleged incident.
16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution did not able
to prove a single circumstance to connect the accused with the
alleged offence. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the Criminal
Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside
the conviction and sentence recorded against appellants/Accused
Nos.1 and 7 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Kurnool, vide S.C.No.83 of 2016, dated 10.11.2016. As the
appellant/Accused No.1 was already released on bail, he is directed
to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kadapa,
YSR Kadapa District, and complete the formalities as per the
guidelines enunciated in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The
State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in
Crl.A.No.607 of 2011). His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
_____________________________
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Date: 05.08.2024
RSI/TSNR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.1130 of 2016
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Date: 05.08.2024
RSI/TSNR
