Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Chintapalli Adeswarara Adi, Eg.Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 27 June, 2024

Author: K Suresh Reddy

Bench: K Suresh Reddy

                                       1



APHC010110792016
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                     [3486]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
                                      and

      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 339/2016

Between:

Chintapalli Adeswarara @ Adi, E.G. Dist.                     ...APELLANT

                                      AND

The State of A.P., Rep. by its P.P.                         ...RESPODENT

Counsel for the Appellant:

   1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SreenivasaReddy)

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.64 of 2015 on the file of the I

Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, is the

appellant in the present appeal. Vide the impugned judgment dated

17.03.2016 in the said Sessions Case, the learned Sessions Judge found

the appellant/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), accordingly convicted

him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for

life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment

for two years.

2. The substance of the charge, as against the accused, is that on the

intervening night of 17/18.06.2014 at about 12.00 midnight, at the house

bearing D.No.43-14-31 in Old Somalamma Temple, 1st Street, Cement

Road, Opposite to Geetha Apsara Theatre Road, Rajahmundry, the

accused, attacked the the deceased Kadiyala Gangadhar @ Ganga,with

a square shape wooden folding cot leg and beat on his head

indiscriminately, which led to instantaneous death, and thereby committed

an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the material

prosecution witnesses are the residents of Rajahmundry. PW.1 is the

wife of the deceasedKadiyala Gangadhar @ Ganga.PW.2 is the mother

of the deceased. PW.3 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased

purchased the house bearing D.No.43-14-31, in which he was residing,

from Kadiyala Lakshmi and her two sons Santhosh Kumar and Satish

under a registered sale deed, and is in possession of the said house.

One Kadiyala Vinayaka Rao, who is father-in-law of the accused, filed

O.S.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Rajahmundry against said Kadiyala Lakshmi and her two sons for specific

performance of sale agreement and the said suit is pending, and the

accused being son-in-law of said Vinayaka Rao, wanted to get the said

house alienated in his name if his father-in-law succeeds in the suit. The

deceased was pursuing the suit on behalf of the defendants in the said

suit. On that, the accused bore grudge against the deceased.

On 17.6.2014, the accused and the deceased attended the Court in

the said suit. During night on that day, the deceased slept on a folding

cot in front of H.No.43-14-31, and the accused, being neighbour of the

deceased, at about 12.00 mid night, armed with a square shape wooden

folding cot leg, arrived at the place of where the deceased was sleeping

and gave severe and indiscriminate blows successively on the head of

the deceased, which resulted in fracture of skull, brain matter and skull

bones were exposed, resulting in death of the deceased instantaneously.

When the deceased raised hue and cry, then PWs 1 and 2 went out and

asked the accused not to beat the deceased. Thereafter, the accused

pounced upon PWs 1 and 2 in order to kill them. Then, they fled away.

PW.3, who is the brother of the deceased, remained there since he was

handicapped. Thereafter, the accused threw the stick on him. Then, the

neighbours gathered there. Thereafter, the accused took the stick and

absconded towards the Somalamma Temple. Thereafter PWs 1 and 2

went to the police station and lodged a report with the police.

4. On 18.06.2014, PW.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town L&O Police

Station, Rajahmundry received a report from PW.1, and based on the

said report, he registered a case in Cr.No.328/2014 for the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all

concerned. Ex.P12 is the original FIR sent to the concerned Court.

Thereafter, PW.10 visited the scene of offence along with mediators. At

about 7.00 A.M., PW.10 inspected the scene of offence in the presence

of two mediators i.e. PW.8 and another, examined the same and

prepared a scene observation report Ex.P7. During the observation,

PW.10 seized the material objects M.Os. 1 to 6. Thereafter, PW.10

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

Inquest Panchayatdars i.e. PW.8 and another. After inquest, PW.10 sent

the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital,

Rajahmundry for the purpose of Postmortem examination.

5. PW.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Rajahmundry, on

receiving the requisition from PW.10 to conduct Postmortem examination

on the dead body of the deceased, conducted postmortem examination

and issued Ex.P11 Postmortem certificate. According to the Doctor, the

cause of death is due to "shock and hemorrhage" due to injury to vital

organ i.e. brain.

6. PW.11 Inspector of Police, I Town L&O Police Station,

Rajahmundry, on receipt of the Postmortem report and FSL report, filed a

charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 12

and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and seized MOs.1 to 10. After completion

of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section

313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the

same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

accused. But, the accused filed a written statement. Upon considering

the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions

Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated supra, vide the

impugned judgment. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal

is filed.

8. Apart from the grounds raised in the appeal, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is abnormal

delay in the report reaching the Court and there is absolutely no

explanation with regard to the delay that has been caused. Apart from it,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submitted

that even before the complaint was registered, the Sub-Inspector of

Police and his staff visited the house of the deceased within 10 minutes

to half-an-hour, which is evident from the evidence of PW.2, and they

alleged to have recorded the statements of the witnesses. According to

the learned counsel, those submissions have been suppressed and they

have not seen the light of the day. Further, according to him, suppression

of earlier material is fatal to the prosecution case. Apart from it, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further submitted that there

is absolutely no motive to the accused to cause the death of the

deceased.

9. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor Sri Soora

Venkata Sainath appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there

are eye witnesses to the incident and the evidence of eye-witnesses is

cogent and convincing and nothing has been elicited in their cross-

examination to discredit their testimony. According to him, the judgment

of the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned and well founded and

calls for no interference. He placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in RameshjiAmarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat1.

10. The point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to

establish the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence alleged beyond

all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the learned Sessions

Judge calls for interference by this Court ?

11. A perusal of the entire evidence on record goes to show that the

conviction is based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are the eye

2023 Livelaw (SC) 804

witnesses to the incident. PW.1, who is none other than the wife of the

deceased, categorically deposed to the extent that on 17.6.2014 at about

12.00 midnight, the accused beat her husband on head with a square

wooden plank, upon which her husband raised cries loudly; then, herself,

P.W.2 and Kadiyala Veera Babu came out and asked the accused not to

beat the deceased, but the accused came upon them to kill them, and on

that, they went away. P.W.3 remained there since he was handicapped;

that the accused threw the stick on him, and when neighbourers gathered

there, the accused took the stick and absconded towards Somalamma

Temple.

During cross-examination, it is elicited that one Vinayaka Rao filed

a civil suit against vendor of her husband Kadiyala Lakshmi for specific

performance of agreement of sale in respect of the house purchased by

the deceased from the said Kadiyala Lakshmi, and the accused is not a

party to the said suit and he was threatening to kill the deceased for the

last four years and in that connection, her mother-in-law lodged a report

with police, pursuant to which a case was registered against the accused.

It is further elicited in her cross-examination that there were street lights

burning at the time of the incident.

12. P.W.2 who is mother of the deceased, corroborated the evidence of

P.W.1. P.W.3, who is brother of the deceased, deposed that on the

fateful day, he was sitting on a pial and the deceased was sleeping on a

folding cot; that the accused came there all of a sudden and beat the

deceased with a square wooden plank on head, and on that, he raised

cries, and on hearing the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and asked the

accused not to beat the deceased.Presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, being wife

and mother of the deceased, is quite probable and natural at the scene of

occurrence at the time of the incident. Their evidence is consistent and

convincing on material aspects.

13. P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case and they were

treated as hostile. The evidence of P.W.6 would go to show that on

17.6.2014 during night, he was sleeping, and on hearing cries of mother

of the deceased, he came out and found the accused with a stick; that by

that time, the deceased died and the accused threatened them with stick

and absconded towards Somalamma temple. It is elicited in his cross-

examination that his house was situated in the adjacent street and house

of the deceased is not visible to his house; that at the time of the incident,

he was viewing TV after dinner.

14. P.W.7 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body

of the deceased and video-graphed the event. Ex.P4 is 15 photographs

and Ex.P5 is the C.D. relating to Ex.P4.

15. P.W.8 is the mediator for observation of scene of occurrence by

police under Ex.P7-mahazarnama and also for seizure of M.Os.1 to 10.

He also acted as a mediator for conducting inquest on the dead body of

the deceased under Ex.P8-inquest panchanama. He is also a mediator

to Ex.P9-mahazar for arrest of the accused.

16. PW.9 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital,

Rajahmundry at the relevant point of time. It is the evidence of P.W.9 that

on receiving the requisition from PW.10 to conduct Postmortem

examination on the dead body of the deceased, she conducted

postmortem examination and found the following external injuries.

"1) A deep laceration of 11 cm x 10 cm x 8 cm deep extending from forehead to back of neck exposing the meninges and are torn into pieces and fracture of frontal and parietal and occipital bones of skull with blood clots on the surface exposing the brain matter which is shattered into pieces and blood clots on its surface. Cranial cavity filled with around 200 ml of fluid blood."

According to P.W.9, the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and the

cause of death is on account of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to

vital organ i.e. brain.Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate issued by

P.W.9.

17. P.Ws.10 to 12 are police officials, who registered the case,

conducted investigated into the same and filed charge sheet.

18. According to the learned counsel for appellant, there is absolutely

no motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Motive is

not an integral part of crime. It is only an aid in assessment of criminality.

When there is direct evidence to the incident in question, motive loses

significance. PWs. 1 to 3 categorically stated to the extent that it is the

accused who caused the death of the deceased and nothing has been

elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony.

19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further

submitted that PW.2 categorically stated in her cross-examination that

immediately after the incident i.e. within a span of ten minutes to half-an-

hour, they informed the same to the police narrating the sequence of

events and they have reduced the same into writing. The learned

counsel strenuously contended that those submissions which have been

made by the witnesses have not seen the light of the day. According to

him, those statements, which have been recorded by the police, have

been suppressed and not seen the light of the day, and suppression of

the earlier material is fatal to the prosecution case. It is pertinent to

mention here that on a perusal of the evidence of PW.10, it goes to show

that in the cross-examination, PW.10 categorically stated that between

04.00 A.M. and 05.00 A.M. firstly PW.10 visited the scene of offence and

further added that it must have been after 04.30 A.M after dispatching

FIR. According to him, lighting was not sufficient even by 05.00 A.M. at

the scene of offence.

20. In the criminal cases of this nature, some minor discrepancies and

embellishments would occur, and as long as those discrepancies would

not go to the root of the case, the same cannot be given much

credence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in RameshjiAmarsingh Thakor v.

State of Gujarat(1 supra), held as under:

"7)On being taken through the depositions and the judgment of the Trial Court, we are satisfied that the Trial Court had ignored the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and referred to very minor contradictions in support of its judgment of acquittal. The contradiction in number of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution case. Nor can the prosecution case altogether be negated because the fatal injuries, in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon could not have been caused by the recovered knife. Eyewitness account is consistent that the deceased was stabbed by the appellant and on this count there is no inconsistency. The PW2 also described the injury spots on the body of the deceased. Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution version. Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor's evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. The evidence on post-occurrence events is consistent. The other point of inconsistency pointed out by Mr. Ray is about the position in which the deceased was lying after collapsing on sustaining injuries. PW2 had stated that he fell in the supine position, whereas PW4 and PW5 stated that he was lying in prone position and was brought to supine position.

9) In our opinion the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor ones. An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay. We find nothing which could establish that the eyewitness or post-occurrence witnesses were not present at the place of offence or PW2's description of the incidence was imaginary. On the other hand, we find sufficient corroborations of the eyewitness account with the depositions of post-occurrence witnesses of fact, so far as narration of the sequence of events subsequent to inflicting of injuries on the deceased are concerned.

As regards the dying declaration, PW3, PW4 and PW5 broadly have given the same narration and there is no reason to disbelieve them. In the judgment of this Court reported in Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10 SCC 476], this Court has given greater importance to ocular evidence over opinion of the medical expert. This principle applies to the case before us. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing for the State has relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Anvaruddin v. Shakoor reported in [(1990) 3 SCC 266] on the same point. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. It has been held in the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, reported in [(1990) 1 SCC 445] that exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not

nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. In this appeal, we follow the same course. It is a fact that two other accused persons, against whom there were allegations of holding the deceased at the time when the appellant was striking knife blows on the deceased, have not been convicted. They were given benefit of doubt by the High Court, while the High Court opined that presence of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. As there is no appeal by the state against the said judgment as regards the other two co-accused persons, we refrain from making any comment on that aspect of the High Court judgment."

21. In the case on hand, there is direct evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Their

evidence is consistent with regard to the incident proper. Minor

inconsistencies or discrepancies, if any, in their evidence would not go to

the root of the case and the main substratum of the prosecution case

remains undisturbed. The ocular testimony is corroborated by medical

evidence of P.W.9. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the

prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused of the

charge levelled against him. The learned Sessions Judge, after an

elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly convicted and

sentenced the appellant/accused, and there are no grounds to interfere

with the same.

22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the