THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.Nos.1482 & 1661 of 2007 Date of Judgment: 18-08-2011 CT in Crl.A.No.1482 of 2007 Between: Komati Raghavendra Reddy @ Raghu (A2) ..Appellant and State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent The Court made the following Common Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.Nos.1482 &1661 of 2007 Common Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Appellants—A1 and A2 along with A3 were put on trial for the charges under Sections 120B, 302, 394 and 201 IPC, found guilty for the said offences and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to suffer simple imprisonment for two years respectively by judgment dated 20-09-2007 in S.C.No.574 of 2004 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rangareddy District. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the same, A2 filed Crl.A.No.1482 of 2007 and A1 filed Crl.A.No.1661 of 2007 whereas Crl.A.No.192 of 2008 filed by A3, which was heard along with W.P.No.19910 of 2008, was partly allowed confirming the conviction, but since he being a juvenile offender he was directed to be released from the Central Prison, Cherlapally forthwith if he is not required in any other case. 3. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 04-02-2004 they entered into conspiracy and on 05-02-2004 caused the death of two practicing advocates—Swarna Kumari (hereafter referred to as “deceased No.1”) and Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as “deceased No.2”) and committed robbery of ornaments from the person and further caused the disappearance of the evidence by throwing the dead bodies in thorny fencing and bushes respectively. 4. The prosecution story as unfolded from the charge sheet and evidence during the course of trial briefly stated as follows: P.W.3 is the husband of deceased No.1. P.W.9 is the husband of deceased No.2. P.W.10 is the father-in-law and P.W.11 is the mother- in-law of deceased No.2. Deceased No.1 was practicing as advocate in Nampally Criminal Courts. At about 2 to 3 days prior to the date of incident, about three persons went to the house of deceased No.1 and altercated with her, on that P.W.8, who is the landlord of deceased No.1 intervened and advised them not to make ghalata on that they left the premises. Again about ten days prior to the date of incident, A1 visited the house of deceased No.1 and demanded to refund the fee paid to her for getting a bail to him. There was altercation between them as the amount cannot be returned back. On that accused threatened her saying “Nee Sanghathi Choostanu” (I will see you) and left the place. On the date of the incident i.e. 05-02-2004 as usual deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 went to the Court at about 10.30 A.M.; at about 3.30 P.M. deceased No.1 met P.W.4, her friend and a practicing advocate and informed her that she (deceased No.1) and deceased No.2 along with her clients going to Ibrahimpatnam Court in Indica Car. As deceased Nos.1 and 2 did return back till late hours, P.Ws.3 and 9 tried to trace out them by contacting P.W.4. On 06-02-2004 at 8 A.M., on receiving information about the presence of dead body of a woman in Sy.No.60, West side of Devakamma Thota, Battu Yadagiri Reddy—P.W.1, who is the Secretary of Sriram Colony Welfare Association, rushed to the scene of offence and lodged a report—Ex.P2. Basing on the same P.W.20— Sub-Inspector of Police, L.B.Nagar Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.96 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC and issued Ex.P40—FIR to all the concerned. On receiving telephonic information from P.W.20, P.W.23—Inspector of Police called for finger prints expert and dog squad; rushed to the scene of offence; prepared observation report in the presence of P.W.14; got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.12; conducted Panchanama and seized M.O.8—Black coat, M.O.10—white band, M.O.11—marker pen, M.O.12—red sketch pen, M.O.13—visiting card and M.O.15—blood stain white paper; held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 in the presence of P.W.14, which is marked as Ex.P19; examined P.W.3 and on his (P.W.3) information about missing of gold jewels from the person of the deceased, he added Section 379 IPC. Ex.P48 is the memo filed in the Court. R.Srishailam Chary—P.W.2, who is the Sarpanch of Nadhargul village, Saroornagar Mandal on receipt of information that a female dead body thrown in bushes in the lands of Laxma Reddy, on the same day made a report—Ex.P1 with the Vanasthalipuram Police Station. On which basis Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC and handed over the CD file along with FIR to P.W.21—Sub-Inspector of Police. Then P.W.21 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 9 and others; got identified the dead body of deceased No.2 by her husband—P.W.9; got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.13; draw rough sketch—Ex.P20 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.15. On a requisition, P.W.19—Inspector of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate rushed to the scene and collected blood stained folded paper to find out any chance finger prints. Ex.P32 is the report. On 07-02-2004, P.W.18—Professor, Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical College held autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 and opined that the cause of death of deceased No.1 was due to cut throat injury and cause of death of deceased No.2 was due to strangulation. Exs.P30 and P31 are the postmortem reports of deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 respectively. P.W.23 arrested accused 1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.17 on 07- 02-2004. In pursuance of statement made by A1, gold pusthela thadu, two bangles, three gold rings, one steel and one plastic Tiffin boxes, one pair of chappals of deceased No.1; advocate gown, bands, two knives, one toy pistol and blood stained clothes of A1 were recovered. He further seized Indica Car bearing No.AP10 AA 485 under a cover of Panchanama—Ex.P25. At the instance of A3, one gold chain, one gold bangle and two rings, Reliance Cell phone stained with blood; one wrist watch and blood stained clothes of A3 were recovered under a cover of Panchanama—Ex.P26. At the instance of A2 one gold bangle, one gold pustalathadu, one pair of gold ear studs, one pair of silver anklets and blood stained clothes were recovered under a cover of Panchanama—Ex.P28. P.W.19, on receipt of intimation, visited L.B.Nagar Police Station to examine Tata Indica Car and collected chance fingerprints from the rear mirror of the car. P.W.16, the doctor who is working in Medicare Hospital on requisition examined K.Raghavender Reddy—A2, M.Raju—A3 and issued Exs.P23 and P24 wound certificates respectively during the course of investigation P.W.23—Inspector of Police examined P.Ws.4 to 8 and further examined P.Ws.10 and 11 in Cr.No.78 of 2004. On 19-02-2004, a requisition was filed before the Court for sending the accused to FSL for taking their blood samples for DNA test. He also sent mother of deceased No.1 to FSL for DNA test. On 05-03-2004 P.W.23 filed a requisition before the Court for conducting test identification parade. On 20-03-2004, on receiving requisition from P.W.23, P.W.22, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, West and South, Rangareddy District held test identification parade wherein P.W.4 identified A1 to A3; P.W.5 identified A1; P.W.7 identified A2 and P.W.8 identified A3. Ex.P47 is the test identification proceedings. The chance finger prints lifted from the blood stained folded paper marked as “A” is identical with the specimen right thumb impression of A3, and the chance print lifted from the rear view mirror of the car marked as “B” is identical with the specimen left thumb impression of A1. Ex.P35 is the opinion given by P.W.19. All the material objects were sent to RFSL. Exs.P49 and P50 are the opinions. After receipt of relevant document and on completion of investigation P.W.23 laid the charge sheet. 5. The learned Magistrate took the same as PRC.No.122 of 2004 and committed the case to Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge on appearance of the accused, after considering the material on record and after hearing both sides framed four charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 394, 201 r/w 34 IPC and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses—P.Ws.1 to 23 and got marked 52 documents—Exs.P1 to P52 besides case properties—M.O.1 to M.O.50. On behalf of defence Ex.D1—news item published in daily newspaper was marked. 7. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence was of the view that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for all the offences beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them for the offences aforementioned. 8. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 in Crl.A.No.1482 of 2007 brought to our notice that the prosecution mainly relied upon two circumstances and the evidence of P.W.4, who has last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. P.W.4 admitted basing on the version in the newspaper she added the name of the accused in the statement before the police; P.W.8 landlord of deceased No.1 speaks about altercation between A1, A2 and deceased No.1 and identified only A3, but could not identify the other accused. He therefore contends when the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence such evidence should be tested on the touch stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence and it must satisfy the four tests laid down by the Supreme Court in PADALA VEERA REDDY v STATE OF A.P.[1]. The prosecution failed to complete the chain of events that it is only the accused who committed the crime but none else. The test identification parade cannot be given any importance in view of the fact that P.W.8 admitted that photos of A1 to A3 were published in the newspaper prior to his participation in the identification parade. Recovery of M.O.4 was identified by P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 as it (M.O.4) belongs to deceased No.2. P.W.23—Investigating Officer stated that their investigation reveals that amount was paid by Saleem Javeri to deceased No.1 and P.W.4 informed about the details of the case in which amount was collected by deceased No.1. P.W.4 did not speak of said fact. At the instance of owner lodging compliant about missing of car Cr.No.43 of 2003 was registered but the same has not been marked nor the progress in the said crime, which is a vital fact to the case, has been informed to the Court and the same has been suppressed by the prosecution. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict the accused. 9. Mr.G.Vijaya Sarathi, learned counsel for appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.1661 of 2007 adopted the arguments of the senior counsel and contended that the evidence of prosecution witness is unnatural and unbelievable. Recovery of M.Os.1 to 7 do not establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302, 120B and 394 IPC. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentence in all respects contending that P.W.4, a colleague advocate of deceased No.1, has last seen both the deceased accompanying accused on 05-02-2004 at 3.30 P.M. in the Court Compound and the recoveries of M.Os.1 to 7 made on the confessional statement of the accused were identified by P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 belongs to deceased No.2, which has been corroborated with the evidence of P.W.17. Further, the evidence of P.W.19— Inspector of Police, Finger print bureau, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate also supported the case of the prosecution. The blood samples of mother of deceased No.1 were sent for DNA test. The clothes of accused seized from them were also sent to FSL. The report under Ex.P51 corroborates the evidence of P.W.19. Further, the scientific evidence of P.W.32 also clinchingly establishes the involvement of the accused in committing the murder of deceased Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the conviction and sentenced requires no interference. 11. In the light of the above submissions the point that arises for consideration in these appeals is: “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges, and conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside or modified? 12. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has to satisfy the four tests laid down by the Supreme Court in PADALA VEERA REDDY’s case (1 supra) they are: "(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. Each circumstance has to be proved by evidence not by surmises. Strong suspicion, however, cannot substitute the legal proof. 13. Battu Yadagiri Reddy—P.W.1, who is the Secretary of Sriramana Colony Welfare Association, stated that on receiving information from one of the residents of their colony about the dead body of a woman on the west side of Devakamma Thota, he rushed to the spot and found dead body of women wearing white Punjabi dress with a cut injury on her throat. There are injuries on the face, cheeks, nose, ears and stomach of the dead body. He also noticed advocates wearing black coat, white band at a distance of 2 to 3 yards from the dead body. He presented Ex.P2—report to the police. In the cross- examination he stated he informed the police by telephone at 8 A.M. and presented Esx.P2—report to the police at the spot. 14. R.Srishailam Chary—P.W.2, who is the Sarpanch of Nadargul village stated that on 06-02-2004 one Lingamaiah Mastry came to his house and informed that he found a dead body of a woman in the lands of Laxma Reddy thrown in bushes; immediately he visited the spot and noticed the dead body of a woman in full black Pujabi dress and black sandals; on seeing the dead body he thought that she might have been killed by some body tightening her neck with a rope. He informed the same to the Vanastalipuram police through telephone and police rushed to the spot. He prepared compliant— Ex.P1 and presented to the police. In the cross-examination he stated that police did not seize any material in his presence. Counsel for A1 alone cross-examined both the witnesses and there is no cross- examination on the side of A2 and A3. 15. Eadukondalu, who is the husband of deceased No.1, (Swarna Kumari) was examined as P.W.3. He stated that on 06-02-2004 after his return to the house around 3 P.M. from duty, his wife was not in the house; 10 days prior to that date Prashant Kumar (A1) approached his wife and there was altercation between deceased No.1 and A1; during the said altercation, A1 demanded refund of fee paid by him for getting bail; deceased No.1 replied that she spent the said amount for the case; then A1 threatened her saying “Nee Sangathi Chusta (I will see you). Four days prior to the incident, Satyavathi (deceased No.2) joined with deceased No.1 as junior and both of them used to go to the Court in auto. On 05-02-2004 at about 10.30 A.M., both the deceased went to the Court as usual; he went to the police station to attend his duty; on return from the duty at 3 P.M., Roopa Singh (P.W.4) informed through phone that while deceased No.1 was in Nampally Criminal Court, three persons took her along with deceased No.2 in a Tata Indica Car to Ibrahimpatnam Court. He again attended to duty. On 05-02-2004, in the late hours when he contacted deceased No.1 there was no response. On 06-02-2004 also deceased No.1 did not return and he received a phone message from police station stating that one lady advocate found dead at the outskirts of Hasthinapurm and asked him to go over to the spot. Immediately he rushed to the spot and identified the dead body as that of his wife. There is cut injury on the throat and injuries all over her face; mangalasutram, gold chain, gold rings and also silver anklets found missing. In the cross- examination he stated that on 06-02-2004 around 9.30 A.M., the husband of deceased No.2—P.W.9 informed him that he was told by P.W.4 that both the deceased accompanied their clients to go to Ibrahimpatnam. Neither himself (P.W.3) nor P.W.9 reported the matter to the police. When he reached the spot at 10.00 A.M., 500 persons were gathered there; he stated to the police about missing of gold rings, gold chain and silver anklets of deceased No.1. 16. Smt. Roopa Singh, a colleague advocate who last seen both the deceased going along with A1 to A3 is an important and crucial witness to the prosecution. She stated that deceased No.1 is her colleague; she also stated that deceased No.2 joined with deceased No.1 as junior four days prior to the date of incident; both the accused used to go to the Court in an auto practicing in Criminal Courts, Nampally. On 05-02-2004, around 3.30 P.M. she saw deceased No.1 along with deceased No.2 in the Court Compound and she talked to them; during the conversation deceased No.1 informed that she along with deceased No.2 going to Ibrahimpatnam; and deceased No.1 specifically informed that she is going along with her clients, who were also present during their conversation. All the five persons i.e. deceased Nos.1 and 2 and three accused boarded Indica Car and left the Court Compound. A1 to A3 who are in the Court hall are clients of deceased No.1. On the same day i.e. on 05-02-2004 at about 8.30 or 9 P.M., P.W.9—husband of deceased No.2 called her on phone and enquired about deceased No.2; then she informed that deceased No.2 and deceased No.1 along with clients left the Court Compound in Indica Car at 3.30 P.M. on the pretext that they have to attend the Court at Ibrahimpatnam. On the next day morning she noticed a news item was published that deceased Nos.1 and 2 were found murdered. Police called her to police station and recorded her statement on 08-02-2004. She also participated in the test identification parade and identified A1 to A3 in Cherlapally jail premises on 20-03-2004. In the cross examination, she stated that on coming to know the death of deceased No.1 in the news item she did not prefer to go to the spot and she did not inform the police suspecting the accused. She is not an eye-witness to the incident. She did not remember whether her statement was recorded prior or subsequent to the arrest of the accused. She did not notice the photos of accused were published in the newspaper. Basing on the version in the newspaper she added in the statement before the police that A1 to A3 took two lady advocates and murdered near Hasthinapurm and Nadhargul. It is true that she did not state before the police the person who drove the car on that day. She was standing near the gate that was abutting the canteen compound; A1 was driving the vehicle but she did not remember the registration number of Indica Car. 17. A.Srinivas was examined as P.W.5 for the purpose of accused purchasing Sutili (country twine), but he could not identify them. When examined by Court he stated that he cannot say the persons who purchased the jute threat among the accused. His evidence is of no use to the prosecution. 18. Md. Salman, who was examined as P.W.6, stated that around 5 P.M. on 05-02-2004, one person came to his shop and offered wrist watch and asked to fill up diesel in Indica Car but he refused to do so. 19. Barla Ganesh—P.W.7 stated that at 6 P.M. when he was at the shop, one person came and asked P.W.6 for diesel and paid money, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.6. He saw 4 or 5 persons in the car, among them two are male members and the other two are female members. Out of five persons one person got down from the car and purchased 7 liters of diesel. He could not identify the person who purchased diesel from P.W.6 on that day. He also stated two watches now shown to him are not that of watches received by P.W.6. At that stage he was declared hostile. 20. M.Raghava Reddy, at whose house deceased No.1 along with her husband are residing as tenants in a portion deposed that on 05-02-2004, husband of deceased No.1 stated that his wife was killed. Twenty days prior to the death, three persons came and altercated with deceased No.1; he came out from his portion and advised not to make ghalata in the residential premises; thereafter three persons disbursed. When he asked deceased No.1 the reason for altercation, she informed that persons paid money to her in connection with case and she spent the amount for the case, but they demanded her to refund the money received from them. On seeing the three persons, A1 to A3, in the Court Hall, he pointed out that they are the three persons altercated with deceased No.1 on that day; but in test identification parade he identified only A1 as suspecting “C” group as stated by P.W.22—Magistrate. In the cross-examination he stated that he has not informed the police about the age group of persons altercated with deceased No.1, but not stated about the other particulars like complexion, height etc. During the test identification parade he identified A1 to A3 who are in the Court Hall and photos of A1 to A3 were also published in the newspapers prior to his participation in the test identification parade. 21. K.Vamshi, husband of deceased No.2 (Satyavathi) was examined as P.W.9, who stated that he set up his family in the house of P.W.8; deceased No.2 joined the office of deceased No.1, who is neighbour, just two days prior to her death and attending Criminal Courts, Nampally. On 05-02-2004, he left the house to attend the duty and deceased No.2 accompanied deceased No.1 but did not return till 7.30 P.M.; when he tried to contact deceased No.1 on cell phone, he could not reach. As deceased No.2 did not turn up, he was sleep less during that night. In the late hours of 06-02-2004, P.W.3 furnished the phone number of P.W.4, a colleague advocate; then he contacted P.W.4, who informed that both the deceased left the Court Compound at 3.30 P.M. on the previous day to Ibrahimpatnam or Bhongir Court. Thereafter, at 9.30 A.M. he received a phone call from P.W.4 stating that deceased No.1 was murdered and deceased No.2 was found missing. Five minutes thereafter, he received a phone call from the Assistant Commissioner of Police to attend L.B.Nagar Police Station. Accordingly, when he went to L.B.Nagar Police Station where the police informed that they found a dead body in Vanastalipuram area. Immediately he rushed to the spot and on seeing the dead body he felt unconscious and he identified M.Os.1 to 7—gold ornaments belongs to deceased No.2. 22. P.Ws.10 and 11, father and mother of P.W.9 stated in the same lines to that of P.W.9. On