Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kadraka Paparao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 July, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
APHC010762152016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[3486]
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 877/2016
Between:
Kadraka Paparao ...APPELLANT
AND
The State Of A P ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. T S RAYALU
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.82 of 2015 on the file of
the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge Vizianagaram at
Parvatipuram, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He
was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly convicted and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for "LIFE" and also to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of three (03) months for the offence under Section 302
IPC and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
two (02) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (02) months for the
offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the substantive sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on
10.01.2015 at about 7.00 P.M at the toddy shop, the accused
caused the death of the deceased by beating with a stick on his
head and further caused certain evidence of the said offence to
disappear by dragging the dead body of the deceased to Thummika
Ganganna into bushes and thereby committed offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The Accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses
are residents of Laada Village. Pw-1 went on duty to Laada Village
for supply of groceries under "Chandranna Sankranthi Sarukula
Pampini" on 11.01.2015. At about 2.00 P.M, when he was
discussing with regard to the distribution of groceries with the Village
Sarpanch, he had come to know through the villagers that the
deceased was murdered by the accused on the previous day at the
outskirts of Laada Village. Upon which, he lodged a written report in
the Police Station.
4. It is alleged that on 10.01.2015 the deceased, accused, Pw-2
and one Kantayya consumed liquor in the hut. At that time, the
accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other. The accused
beat the deceased with a stick on his head, thereafter dragged the
dead body of the deceased and left it in the bushes. Two days
thereafter, the police visited the scene of offence. It is alleged that
the motive for causing death is that the accused suspected that
Pw-3, who is son of the deceased was having illicit intimacy with his
wife. Being afraid of the accused, the deceased had sent Pw-3 to
Vizag.
5. On 11.01.2015 at about 07.00 P.M, Pw-15-Sub-Inspector of
Police received Ex.P-1 from Pw-1. Basing on the same, a case has
been registered in Crime.No.04 of 2015 for the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P.12 is the copy of FIR. Pw-15
examined Pw-1 and recorded his statement. Pw-16- Inspector of
Police took up investigation and on 12.01.2015 he went along with
special party to the scene of offence, which is situated at the
outskirts of Laada Village. Pw-15 observed the scene of offence in
the presence of Pws-10 and 13 and prepared scene observation
report. Ex.P-11 is the observation report. Thereafter, he prepared
rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P-16 is the rough sketch of
scene of offence. Thereafter, Pw-15 conducted inquest over the
dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pw-12 and others.
Ex.P-10 is the inquest report. Thereafter, Pw-15 examined Pws-1 to
9 and recorded their statements.
6. Pw-14- Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Parvatipuram.
On requisition he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased. Ex.P-13 is the preliminary Post-Mortem Certificate.
According to the Doctor, the cause of death was due to
"haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to injury to vital organs
i.e., brain and lungs".
7. Pw-16-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and on
13.01.2015 having come to know about the accused was present at
Deruvada bus stop, he along with his staff went and apprehended
the accused. Pw-16 recorded the confessional statement of the
accused. Pw-17-Inspector of Police, after obtaining RFSL report and
final opinion, filed charge sheet as against the accused.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws-1 to 17
and marked Exs.P-1 to 16 on behalf of the prosecution besides
M.O-1-stick, which was seized by the police.
9. The plea of the accused is one of the denial.
10. The learned Sessions Judge while relying upon the evidence
of Pws-2,3, 4 and 6 and other witnesses including hostile witnesses
had come to a conclusion that it is the accused who caused the
death of the deceased and convicted and sentenced the
appellant/accused as aforesaid.
11. Now the point that arises for determination by this Court is:-
Whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned
Sessions Judge is sustainable or not?
POINT:-
12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
absolutely no motive for the accused to cause the death of the
deceased. He further submitted that there is abnormal delay in
lodging the report before the police. The learned counsel for the
appellant further contended that the alleged incident said to have
taken place at about 7.00 P.M on 10.01.2015. According to him, the
alleged incident is said to have taken place in the month of January,
2015. Since it was dark and as there was no electrical light, it is
impossible for the witnesses to identify the accused.
13. Per contra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that in general, the villagers are rustic and they would not
give proper account of the alleged incident. In a criminal case of this
nature, discrepancies would certain to occur and the same would not
go to the root of the case. He further submitted that there are eye
witnesses to the alleged incident and they categorically stated that it
is the accused who caused the death of the deceased by beating the
deceased with a stick. Pws.2, 4 and 6 have categorically stated to
that extent. The learned Sessions Judge rightly placed reliance on
the said evidence and convicted the accused and the same calls for
no interference by this court.
14. In order to appreciate the same, this Court perused the
evidence of all the witnesses. Pw.1 is the V.R.O of Beerupadu
panchayat of G.L.Puram Mandal. He went on duty to Laada village
on 11-01-2015 for supply of groceries under "Chandranna
Sankranthi Sarukula Pampini". There he was given information by
the villagers that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
Thereafter, he went to the scene and found the dead body of the
deceased in the land of somebody. He saw a bleeding injury on the
head of the deceased. Thereafter, he lodged a report with the
Pw.15-Sub-Inspector of Police, Elwinpeta Police Station. Ex.P-1 is
the report.
15. Pw.2 is related to the deceased. According to him, about one
year back at about 7.00 P.M, the accused is alleged to have caused
the death of the deceased with a stick in the land of the Timmaka
Peddayya. The deceased, accused, Pw.2 and one Kantayya had
consumed liquor in his hut. The accused and the deceased
quarrelled with each other. The accused beat the deceased with a
stick on his head in the land of Peddayya. Thereafter, the accused
dragged the dead body and left it in the bushes. Two days
thereafter, police came there. In the meanwhile, Pw.2 and others
were guarding the dead body of the deceased.
16. Pw.3 is none other than the son of the deceased. According to
him, the accused murdered the deceased. At the time of incident he
was present in Visakhapatnam. He deposed that the accused beat
him stating that he was appearing in his dreams. As Pw.3 is not
supporting the prosecution case, the prosecution has declared him
as hostile.
17. Pw.4 is another son of the deceased. According to him, the
accused suspected Pw.3 that he had illicit intimacy with his wife.
Being afraid of the accused, the deceased had sent Pw.3 to Vizag.
About one year back, at about 7.00 P.M, the accused and the
deceased had consumed liquor at Mandiramma paka in their village.
Near Peddayya land, the accused beat the deceased with a stick on
the backside of his head and accused had thrown the deceased in
the Valley (Loya). A bleeding injury was seen on the head of the
deceased.
18. Pw.6 is another eye witness to the alleged incident. He too
reiterates what Pw.4 has stated. According to him, the accused and
Pw.3 had quarrelled with each other on the ground that the accused
had suspected Pw.3 about his illicit intimacy with his wife.
Thereafter, being afraid of accused, the deceased sent Pw.3 to
Vizag. On the date of incident i.e., on 10-01-2015 at about 7.00 P.M,
the accused and deceased consumed liquor at Mandiramma paka of
their village and at about 8.00 P.M at a distance of 50 feet, the
accused beat the deceased with a stick on his head. He further
stated that he has not seen the accused beating the deceased.
19. Pws-5, 7, 8 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution
case and they were declared as hostile.
20. On a conspectus of the entire material on record, it goes to
show that the learned Judge, while relying upon the evidence of
Pw.2, 4 and 6 and along with the hostile witnesses, convicted the
accused. On a perusal of the evidence on record, it goes to show
that all the witnesses, who were alleged to have witnessed the
incident, did not take steps to lodge a report before the police. The
alleged incident is said to have taken place on 10-01-2015. Quite
surprisingly, Pw.4, who is none other than the son of deceased,
though he was present at the scene of offence, he did not take steps
to lodge a report in the police station. By virtue of the same, there is
any amount of ambiguity whether the incident is said to have taken
place as suggested by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution has
suppressed the genesis of the attack. When an incident is said to
have taken place right infront of Pw-4 and others, the immediate
action would be either they would prevent the accused in causing
injury to the deceased or immediately rush to the police station to
lodge a report. Quite surprisingly, Pw.4 and others have not taken
any steps in that regard. Irrespective of the same, when the
deceased is none other than the father of Pw.4 and others ought to
have carried the injured to the nearby hospital. Pws.5,7 to 9 did not
support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile.
Then, there remains the evidence of Pw.6, who happens to be an
independent eye witnesses to the alleged incident. According to him,
though he stated with regard to the incident, but he too has not taken
any steps to lodge a report in the police station. Apart from the
same, he is said to have witnessed the incident at a distance of 50
feet from Mandiramma paka. Pw-6 further deposed that he had not
seen the accused beating the deceased. Therefore, there is any
amount of inconsistence in the evidence of Pw-6.
21. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
(Twenty Second Edition), According to Tidy in a Moon light, the best
known persons cannot be recognized in the clearest moonlight
beyond a distance of 15 ½ meters (17 yards). Further, Colonel
Bary, IMS, is of the opinion that at distances greater than 10.9
meters (12 yards), the stature or outline of the figure alone is
available as a means of identification. To define the features at even
shorter distance is practically impossible by moonlight.
22. When such is the case, it would be difficult for anyone to
identify a person beating the other person from a distance of 50 feet.
In his cross examination, Pw.6 categorically stated that there were
no lights near Mandiramma paka or at their field. On the next day of
the incident, he came to know that deceased had died. On the next
day of the incident, he was examined by the police. When the
evidence shows that there are no lights, it is very difficult to a witness
to identify the accused. In the opinion of this Court, Pw.6 is not the
trustworthy witness in order to rely on, in convicting the accused.
23. Pw.16-Inspector of Police arrested the accused on
13-01-2015. In pursuance of arrest, the accused is alleged to have
made confessional statement that he caused the death of the
deceased. In addition to that the accused is said to have stated that
he had thrown the stick, which was used for murdering the
deceased, and thereafter he has taken the plea that he along with
others went to the place where the accused is said to have
recovered the stick from the open place. The said recovery cannot
be relied for the reason that any material object that is seized from
the open place cannot be taken into account since a stick like Mo.1
can be recovered at any place. Apart from the same, confession
made before a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence. To sum
up, since the eye witness to the alleged incident did not come
forward in lodging the report or taking steps to prevent the accused
in dealing blows on the deceased, this court is of the considered
opinion that the said witnesses are not trustworthy and their
evidence cannot be relied upon in convicting the accused.
24. Apart from the same, this court has perused the evidence of
Pw.14, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon. According to ocular
witness, it is alleged that the accused have dealt a single blow on the
head of the deceased, but insofar as the injuries that have been
received by the deceased are as many as four(4) external and
seven(7) internal injuries. The injuries read as under:-
External Injuries:-
1. A deep seated lacerated injury over left side fore head to
temporal region of 12x3x1 cm.
2. A deep seated lacerated injury over occipital region of
8x3x1 ½ cm.
3. A deep seated lacerated injury from left side of lower lip to
angle of mandible of 4x2x1 cm.
4. An abrasion over left thigh of 5x3 cm.
Internal Injuries:-
1. Fracture in left side mandible
2. Fracture in zygomatic bone
3.Fracture left side of frontal bone
4. Fracture of left temporal bone in V-Shape
5. Fracture of occipital bone
25. In view of the above, the medical evidence is not corroborated
with the ocular evidence, which goes to the root of the case as to
whether the said incident is said to have taken place as suggested
by the prosecution or not. Further, Pw-14 the doctor did not rule out
the possibility of sustaining external injuries if a person falls down
from a height in hillock region.
26. On the above analyses, we are of the considered opinion that
the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the Criminal
Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge.
27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside
the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the
learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram at Parvatipuram,
vide S.C.No.82 of 2015, dated 24.03.2016. The appellant/accused is
found not guilty of the offences with which he was charged and is
accordingly acquitted of the same. However, since the appellant is
released on bail, the appellant/accused is directed to surrender
before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, 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).
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
______________________________
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Date: 04.07.2024
RSI/TSNR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.877 of 2016
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
Date: 04.07.2024
RSI/TSNR
