Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vemula Kiran Kumar, Ponnur Anr., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 28 August, 2024
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010624752017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3486]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH 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.151 of 2017
Between:
Vemula Kiran Kumar and another ...APELLANTS
AND
The State of AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellants:
1. MARELLA RADHA
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)
Both the accused in Sessions Case No.398 of 2015 on the
file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Guntur, are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal.
2 KSR, J & SRK, J
2. The appellants/accused were tried and convicted by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
each.
3. The substance of the charge is that, on 10.02.2011, at
about 11.30 AM, both the accused caused the death of the
deceased namely Vemula Glori Jayanthi by pressing her face
with a pillow, thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
4. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, is as follows.
i) The accused Nos.1 and 2 are none other than the husband
and wife. PW.1 is none other than the father of A-1 and husband
of the deceased. The deceased is none other than the mother of
A-1. All of them are residents of Ponnur Town. PW.1 was having
a Lab by name Rupa Clinical Laboratory, which is run by A-1. A
portion of the house property situated in Ponnur was gifted by
PW.1 to his daughter LW.2 about ten (10) years ago. In view of
the said gift, there were disputes between the accused on one
side and PW.1 and the deceased on the other side. The
deceased along with PW.1 started residing with their daughter
LW.2 at Visakhapatnam for the last eight (8) years prior to the
date of incident. Subsequently, LW.2 started constructing a
house in the property gifted by PW.1, for which both the accused
were having grouse, as the deceased is looking after the
3 KSR, J & SRK, J
construction of the said house. On 10.02.2011, at about 10.00
AM, the deceased called PW.1 and her daughter LW.2 and
informed them that the accused beat her. At about 2.00 PM on
the same day, PW.1 received a phone call stating that the
deceased died. He immediately started to Ponnur from
Visakhapatnam. PW.1 instructed PW.2 to visit the house, where
LW.2 was constructing a house. PW.2 informed PW.1 stating
that he was necked out by the accused and brother-in-law of A-1.
After arrival of PW.1 from Visakhapatnam, the cremation was
completed.
ii) While so, on 15.02.2011, at about 1.20 PM, PW.1 gave a
report to the police expressing his suspicion against the accused
over the death of the deceased. PW.11 the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Ponnur Urban Police Station, received Ex.P1 from PW.1
and registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2011, under Section 174
Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P12. On the same day, he visited
the scene of offence and prepared observation report - Ex.P19.
He also prepared a rough sketch - Ex.P13 at the scene of
offence. He also recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and
others on the same day. He seized MO.1 at the scene of offence
in the presence of PWs.7 and 9. On 17.02.2011, PW.12 the
Inspector of Police took up further investigation. On 18.02.2011,
on the requisition made by PW.12, the body was exhumated by
PW.10 - the Tahsildar. He held inquest over the dead body in
the presence of mediators. The inquest report is marked as
Ex.P6. On the same day, on the requisition made by PW.12, the
Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur
4 KSR, J & SRK, J
Medical College, Guntur, who is examined as PW.13, conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-
mortem certificate Ex.P15. After receipt of chemical analysis
report from RFSL, Guntur, PW.13 gave final opinion which is
marked as Ex.P16. He opined that the cause of death of the
deceased was due to asphyxia, due to suffocation as a result of
pressure over chest and face. After receipt of final opinion,
PW.12 altered the FIR from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 302
read with 34 IPC. The altered FIR was marked as Ex.P14.
Further investigation was taken over by PW.15 - the Inspector of
Police, CCS, Guntur Urban. On 18.02.2011, he recorded the
statements of PWs.5 and 6 and prepared observation report at
the grave of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P19. He
also got the grave of the deceased photographed and the
photographs were marked as Ex.P20. He also prepared rough
sketch of the burial ground, which was marked as Ex.P21.
iii) On 16.04.2011, PW.9 went to PW.15 along with A-1 and
A-2 and produced them before him with his report stating that
both the accused said to have made extra judicial confession
before him. The said report is marked as Ex.P22. On the same
day, at about 1.00 PM, he secured the presence of PWs.9 and 14
and recorded the confession statements of A-1 and A-2
separately under a cover of mediatornama. On the basis of the
said confession, he proceeded to the house of PW.1 and seized
the pillow - MO.2 under a cover of panchanama Ex.P24. He
arrested both the accused and remanded them to judicial
5 KSR, J & SRK, J
custody. After securing final opinion and after completion of
investigation, he filed charge sheet.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to
15, marked Exs.P1 to P24 and exhibited MOs.1 and 2.
6. When the accused were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against
them and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Smt. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the
appellants, and Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for the State.
8. We have perused the entire material on record.
9. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged
murder by the accused. The prosecution rests its case on the
circumstantial evidence. PW.1 is none other than the husband of
the deceased and father of A-1. Having set the criminal law into
motion by lodging a report Ex.P1 with the police, PW.1 did not
support the prosecution and he was declared hostile by the
prosecution. PW.2 is neighbour of the deceased and he also did
not support the prosecution and he was also declared as hostile
by the prosecution.
10. PW.3 is working as a Compounder in the Hospital
belonging to Dr. Venkata Krishna Dev. In his evidence in chief,
he stated as follows.
6 KSR, J & SRK, J
"On 10.02.2011, at about 12.00 Noon, A1
came to the hospital of LW.8 and informed me, that
deceased Vemula Glori Jayanthi fell down in her
house. At the request of A1, I went to the house of
deceased Vemula Glori Jayanthi and was unable to
feel her pulse, and I informed the same to LW.8/Dr.
Venkata Krishna Dev, then LW.8 came along with
me and A1, to the house of deceased Vemula Glori
Jayanthi and on examination declared deceased
Vemula Glori Jayanthi dead. I was examined by
police."
11. PW.4 is the Doctor, who initially examined the deceased.
In his evidence he also stated as follows.
"I know deceased Vemula Glori Jayanthi
approached me complaining weakness in her
physical condition. I administered saline to
deceased Vemula Glori Jayanthi and sent her home.
On next day 10.02.2011, my Compounder/PW.3
came to me at 12.00 Noon and informed me that he
is unable to feel the pulse of deceased Vemula Glori
Jayanthi. Immediately I went to the house of
deceased Vemula Glori Jayanthi and found her lying
flat in her room. I examined deceased Vemula Glori
Jayanthi and found her dead. Police examined me
in this case."
7 KSR, J & SRK, J
12. PW.5, who is working as a Mason and who buried the dead
body of the deceased, did not support the prosecution. PW.6,
another neighbour of the deceased, also did not support the
prosecution.
13. PW.7 is working as a Village Revenue Officer, Ponnur
Town and he acted as a mediator for recovery of MO.1 and also
mediator for exhumation of dead body and also mediator for
inquest. His evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution in
proving the guilt of the accused. PW.8 also did not support the
prosecution.
14. PW.9 is the person before whom A-1 and A-2 are said to
have confessed about the commission of offence. He is also
mediator for the observation report. In his evidence, he stated
that he only signed on the observation report - Ex.P8 and he does
not know the contents of the observation report - Ex.P8. In his
evidence in chief, he also stated that he did not visit burial
ground. In his evidence in chief, he has specifically stated as
follows.
"It is incorrect to suggest that A1 and A2
confessed before me, they killed deceased Glori
Jayanthi and on hearing their statements I prepared
report dated 16.04.2011 and presented before
police."
15. PW.10 is working as Tahsildar, Karlapalem of Ponnur
Mandal, who got exhumed the dead body of the deceased.
PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered Crime
8 KSR, J & SRK, J
No.21 of 2011, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. PW.12 is the Inspector
of Police, who altered the FIR on receipt of Ex.P15. PW.13 is the
Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased. PW.14 did not support the prosecution and he
was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW.15 is the
Investigating Officer.
16. As seen from the above evidence, PW.1, who is the crucial
witness, did not support the prosecution. The motive for the
accused to kill the deceased is for giving part of house site by
PW.1 and the deceased to their daughter LW.2. For the reasons
best known to them, LW.2 was not examined by the prosecution.
So far as the recovery of pillow is concerned, it is not helpful to
the prosecution in any way, as the same cannot incriminate the
accused in any manner, as pillow is available in each and every
house.
17. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
so called extra-judicial confession said to have been made before
PW.9. In his entire evidence, PW.9 did not whisper about the
extra-judicial confession. As already pointed out, PW.9 in his
evidence in chief has clearly stated that both the accused did not
confess before him. Of course, this PW.9 was not declared as
hostile by the prosecution. Absolutely, there is no evidence, at
least prima facie evidence to connect both the accused with the
alleged offence. As there is no evidence adduced by the
prosecution to connect the accused with the murder of the
deceased, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal by setting
9 KSR, J & SRK, J
aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused
by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.
18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside
the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in
Sessions Case No.398 of 2015, dated 19.09.2016, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
19. As both the appellants/accused were already released on
bail by this Court, vide orders dated 21.12.2021 and 27.04.2022
respectively, they are directed to appear before the concerned
Superintendent, Central Prison, and complete the formalities in
terms of the orders of the combined High Court in Batchu
Rangarao and others v. State of AP1.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
_______________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date: 28.08.2024
Nsr
2016 (3) ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)
10 KSR, J & SRK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2017
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)
Date: 28.08.2024
Nsr
