HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1752 OF 2007 Dated:27-07-2011 BETWEEN: Dharavath Malsoor …Appellant AND State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1752 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellant-sole accused was put on trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C.No.377 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet. By judgment dated 04.11.2007 the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 17.3.1999 at about 11.00 p.m. at the outskirts of Burkacherla village in the thrashing floor of Mangali Ramulu did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of his wife-Dharavath Bujji (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) by beating her with a stick on the ground that she is hurdle for his illegal intimacy with one Muthamma. 3. The story of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial is as under: The accused married the deceased 10 years prior to her death and was blessed with two female children. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the parents and P.W.5 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.6 is the father of the deceased. Some time after the marriage, the accused developed illicit intimacy with another lady and eloped with her who was also blessed with a child through the accused. The deceased was living at the house of the accused by doing coolie work. Later the accused came back to the village and started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased. On 17.3.1999 the deceased went to labour work to Thotakunta village. The accused went to Thotakunta village and took the deceased back to their village. At about 23.00 to 23.30 hours, when they reached the outskirts of Burkacherla village, the accused took the deceased to thrashing floor of Mangali Ramulu, beat her with a stick and murdered. Later he carried the dead body of the deceased to his house and placed the dead body before his mother and admitted about the guilt of the offence. Meantime, the villagers-L.Ws.2 and 7 gathered there. On seeing them the accused ran away from the house. On 18.3.1999 at 9.00 a.m., P.W.1-Village Administrative Officer was informed by P.W.2 that the deceased died and that her dead body was lying infront of the house of the accused. On receipt of said information, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report with the police, on the basis of which, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.14 of 1999 and issued F.I.R.-Ex.P.8. He rushed to the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9. P.W.15-Inspector of Police took up further investigation, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10 under Ex.P.9 and sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. On the same day, P.W.13-Civil Assistant Surgeon held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.7-post-mortem certificate opining that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of blunt abdominal injury. P.W.15 laid the charge sheet against the accused. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused, read over the same and explained it to the accused in Telugu. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 5. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant- accused as aforementioned. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also learned Public Prosecutor who have taken us through the entire evidence and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that the Court must be satisfied that the circumstances from which the guilt is drawn against the accused have been clearly established by unimpeachable evidence and those circumstances should form a complete chain without any missing link and they should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. P.W.2 is the person who saw the dead body of the deceased infront of the house of accused and informed the same to P.W.1-Village Administrative Officer. On the basis of said information, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the police at 9.30 a.m. on 18.3.1999. In Ex.P.1 he stated that on 17.3.1999 in the afternoon, accused went to Thotakunta village and while bringing the deceased back to their village, when they reached a well located a kilometer away from Burkacherla at abut 11.00 night, killed her, carried her dead body on his shoulders to the house, laid the body in the house in a drunken condition, fell on the feet of his mother by weeping and when all the people of Thanda gathered there, he fled away from the house. Whereas in his evidence before the Court, P.W.1 deposed that Dharavath Panthulu-P.W.2 came to his house and informed him that the deceased died and her dead body was lying infront of the house of accused. On that, he went to the police station and presented Ex.P.1 complaint and that the complaint was scribed by him on the dictation of P.W.2. He specifically stated that the contents of the complaint were furnished by P.W.2. But, P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. P.W.2 simply stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased and he did not observe any injuries on the dead body and that he informed P.W.1 about lying of the dead body of deceased infront of the house of accused. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased, who stated that after the marriage, accused eloped with one lady belonging to Madiga caste and returned after six months and the deceased used to reside in the house of accused when he eloped with the lady of Madiga community. P.W.2 sent one person when he was at his house, who told him that the deceased was killed by the accused and her dead body was lying at the house of the accused. On that, himself and his family members rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead body of the deceased with pool of blood. He observed injuries on the legs, hands and all over the body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not state before the police in his statement that the accused eloped with one lady belonging to Madiga community and returned home six months later. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is also similar to that of the evidence of P.W.3. P.Ws.6,7 and 9 to 12 have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W.8 is the witness to the inquest panchanama. He stated about his observing injuries on the head, leg and all over the body of the deceased. He signed Ex.P.5-inquest panchanama. P.W.13 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found 12 external injuries including two lacerated injuries and one abrasion. He issued Ex.P.7-post-mortem certificate opining that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of blunt abdominal injury. P.W.14 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation into the crime. He deposed in the cross-examination that the distance between Burkacherla village to Mothey Police Station is about 8 k.ms. and the journey time by a motorcycle is about 30 minutes. He admitted that P.Ws.2 to 5 have not stated in their statements before him that the accused had illicit intimacy with a Madiga lady. They have not stated before him that the accused begot a male child through Madiga lady and that the deceased begot two female children and with that intention and motive the accused killed the deceased. 8. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused eloped with a lady belonging to Madiga community and came back to the village six months prior to the incident and was living with the deceased, the same was not stated by P.Ws.2 to 5 at the earliest point of time in their statements. In the evidence, P.W.1 clearly stated that upon the dictation of P.W.2, Ex.P.1 complaint was drafted, but P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. By examining the other witnesses, the prosecution could only establish that the deceased met with homicidal death but failed to establish that it is the accused who killed the deceased. On careful scrutiny of the evidence we find that there are various missing links in the chain of circumstances and on the basis of the evidence it cannot be said that the appellant alone had caused the death of the deceased. Thus basing on the above scanty evidence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustainable. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant-sole accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. by II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in S.C.No.377 of 2006 are hereby set aside. The appellant is found not guilty of the said charge and he is acquitted of the same. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J JULY 27, 2011 Tsr.