IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the 3rd day of November, Two Thousand and Eleven PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.63 and 77 of 2008 Between: Kancherla Veera Narayana and Kancherla SRinu … Appellants And The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.63 and 77 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) These appeals, which arise out of the very same judgment in S.C.No.141 of 2007, are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants/A1 and A2 along with A3, who were all residents of Nadigadda village, were charged for the murder of one Duddekula Dargavali, S/o.Dastagiri of the same village. The learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Markapur, vide judgment, dated 05.01.2008, in Sessions Case No.141 of 2007, convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months; for the offence under Section 201 IPC he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; whereas the appellant/A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused No.3 was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Challenging the said judgment, A1 filed Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2008 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2008. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is stated as follows:- A1 and A2 are brothers, A3 is the brother-in-law of A1. The accused and the deceased are residents of Nadigadda village. Three years prior to the date of incident the deceased returned to the village having gone for work at other places. The deceased purchased Ac.2-00 of Batavia garden opposite to the cotton field of A1. In the course of time, A1 and the deceased became friends. However, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with the wife of A1, which was known to the accused. Hence, A1 to A3 bore grudge against the deceased and decided to put an end to the illegal relationship. About two months prior to the incident, A1 hatched a plan to murder the deceased and to make it appear as an accident tampered with the electricity panel box in the Batavia garden of the deceased. In the intervening night of 10/11.08.2009, when A1 and the deceased were consuming liquor in the wine shop, the wife of the deceased P.W.2 came to the wine shop and took away the deceased. Again on the same day at 10:00 PM, A1 came to the house of the deceased and took him on his T.V.S.Moped on the pretext of watering the fields, which was witnessed by P.W.s.3 to 5. After some time A2 and A3 also went along the same path towards fields, which was also witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5. A2 at the field hacked the deceased with an axe on the back of right thigh. A1 took the axe from A2 and hacked on the right leg of deceased. When the deceased raised hue and cry, A1 to A3 pushed the deceased on the live wire which was arranged around the field of A1, as a result of which the deceased died due to electrocution. Then A1 to A3 shifted the dead body of the deceased to Batavia garden of the deceased near the panel box. Later the accused cut portion of the black service wires running from the panel board to the main line and replaced them with an insulated binding wire which was cut from the field of A1 and made the wires pass through the legs of the deceased and let the current pass through the wires, thus to make it appear as if the deceased died due to electric shock. The accused cleaned the ground soaked with blood in the field of A1 with a spade and thrown the blood soaked earth upon cotton plants to cause disappearance of evidence. A3 had hidden the pieces of black service wire, which was cut from the Batavia garden of the deceased in the cotton field of Maila Kasi Reddy. A1 had hidden the axe in his father’s house. Later at 04:00 AM on 11.08.2005, the sister of A1 and A2 went to the house of the deceased and informed them that the deceased died due to electric shock in his Batavia garden. On 11.08.2005 at 12:00 PM, P.W.1 lodged F.I.R., which was registered by P.W.14 as crime No.44 of 2005 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Later altered into one under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. P.W.14 prepared scene of observation report under Ex.P22; seized the material objects; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10 and another; examined the witnesses. On 26.08.2005, P.W.11 produced A1 to A3 to whom accused made a confessional statement as in Ex.P24. P.W.13 pursuant to the confession of A1 recovered the axe in the presence of P.W.11 and another and hidden wires from the cotton field of Kasi Reddy at the instance of A3. He also seized service wires. After receiving all the relevant reports, he filed the charge sheet. 4. On filing the charge sheet before the committal court, in P.R.C.No.3 of 2006, the same was committed to the court of sessions and on such committal two charges were framed for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and also for the offence under Section 201 IPC against A1 to A3. When the charges were explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P36 and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked. When the incriminating substance in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence has been adduced, but Ex.D1 was marked. 6. The learned sessions Judge on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty on the ground that the prosecution is able to establish the homicidle death of the deceased; that the motive for the commission of the offence is the illicit intimacy between the deceased and the wife of A1; that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused; that the extra judicial confession of A1 under Ex.P24 was corroborated with the ocular and medical evidence and, accordingly, convicted them for the offences as aforementioned. 7. Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the oral and documentary evidence and contends that on lodging the complaint under Ex.P1, crime was registered for suspicious death and cause of death was not known. The last seen theory set up by the prosecution that the deceased was taken by A1 from the house of the P.W.2’s house as stated by P.W.2 do not corroborate with the medical evidence. As per the evidence of P.W.2 the deceased and A1 consumed the alcohol in the wine shop and thereafter the deceased was taken to the house by P.W.2 and again he was taken from the house by A1. The said evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by any other witness especially P.Ws.3 and 4, who were examined to prove the said fact, has not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. The evidence of P.W.5 is that while he was returning to his house from the lands he saw the deceased with A1, whereas P.Ws.6 and 7 did not corroborate the evidence of P.W.5 and were turned hostile. P.W.12, the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and who opined that the cause of death is anti mortem electrical burns and shock, has not stated that the injuries are possible with axe. The extra judicial confession of A1 under Ex.P24 is that they made the deceased to fully drink and administered heavy quantity of alcohol, and thereby they committed the offence. But the post mortem report under Ex.P28 does not support the said version, as no poisonous substance of alcohol is found in the stomach as per item Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, the entire case is set up by the prosecution and there is no link in connecting the accused with the commission of offence. Hence, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sustained the conviction stating that the deceased was last seen in the company of A1 from 10 PM onwards and on the next day morning the dead body was found. It is for A1 to explain the cause of death. Even if the extra judicial confession is not believed, the RFSL Report under Ex.P29 shows that the axe, which was recovered on the confessional statements was found with the blood stains. Therefore, the prosecution is able to connect the accused with the commission of offence and the conviction and sentence recorded needs no interference. 9. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to convict them for the offences with which they were charged? P O I N T :- 10. Admittedly, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the prosecution has to establish all the incriminating circumstances to point out the guilt of the accused. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, who have last seen the accused and the deceased together; the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.12, who conducted the post mortem examination; and also the evidence of P.W.11, before whom A1 to A3 confessed about the commission of the offence. 11. P.W.1, who is the elder brother of the deceased, deposed that on the date of the incident at about 10:00 PM A1 came to their house and took the deceased along with him to his field on a TVS Moped. The elder sister of A1 viz., Veeranarayanamma and A2 came to him at about 04:00 AM and informed that the deceased died due to electric shock in his land. Then all of them proceeded to the land of the deceased. She observed blood stains in the field of A1 and also blood bleeding from the leg of the deceased. The deceased was also having cut injuries on his body and then they suspected that the deceased was murdered. They returned to the village and found A1 to A3 absconding from the village. In the cross- examination, he deposed that he was in the house on the date of the incident. He submitted Ex.P1 report, which was given by him on the following day of the death of the deceased. He did not see whether A2 and A3 followed A1 and the deceased during the night of the incident. P.W.2, wife of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with the wife of A1 and in spite of her objection, the deceased continued the illicit intimacy. At about 09:00 PM the deceased and A1 consumed alcohol in the wine shop, then she brought the deceased to her house and the deceased had slept after taking dinner. At about 10:00 PM, A1 came to their house and took the deceased along with him to their land on a moped. The elder sister of A1 and A2 came to their house at 04:00 AM and informed that the deceased died due to electric shock. P.Ws.3 and 4, deposed that on the date of the incident at about 10:00 PM they saw the deceased going along with A1 on the T.V.S.Moped. But they did not support the case of the prosecution and they were turned hostile. 12. P.W.5, deposed that on the date of the incident at about 09:30 or 10:00 PM, while he was returning to his house from his lands, he saw the deceased with A1 proceeding on a moped towards their fields near the tank of their village. At about 04:00 AM he came to know the death of the deceased. P.W.6 deposed that the deceased did not tell anything with regard to the electricity and live current wires in his land. In his cross-examination he admitted that he stated before the S.I. of Police, that the deceased told him about two months prior to his death that live wires were placed in panel board in his land so as to cause current shock and that he advised him to be careful. P.Ws.6 and 7 were declared hostile, as they did not support the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.10, who is the inquest panchayatdar, deposed about conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.11, who is the ex-sarpanch for Madigadda village deposed that sixteen days after the incident all the three accused approached them at his land situated in the outskirts of the village and confessed before him that they killed the deceased by hacking since he was having illicit intimacy with the wife of A1 and then they placed the dead body of the deceased in the Batavia garden of the deceased and placed live wires on the dead body. The accused further stated that they approached him since they are apprehending beating in the hands of police. He drafted the report containing the confessional statement under Ex.P24 dated 26.08.2005 and produced the accused before the Thripurantakam police, where the accused were taken into custody by the police and interrogated. On the confession made by the accused under Ex.P26, M.O.7 axe was recovered. 14. The relevant portion in the confessional statement made by A1 under Ex.P24 are as follows:- “that himself and his brother are having lands of cotton crop and the lands of the deceased were adjacent to each other. The deceased used to talk with his wife and developed illicit intimacy. Thereby they decided to do away the life of the deceased. On 10.08.2005 himself and the deceased consumed liquor and he took slightly and made the deceased consume heavily. At that time the wife of the deceased came and took away her husband to her home. Again at 10:00 PM he went to the house of the deceased and induced the deceased for watering the fields and took him on his T.V.S.Moped to the fileds. While proceeding they have taken two liquor bottles and after reaching the place, his brother A2 and brother-in-law A3 also came there all sat together at the northern ridge of their cotton field near acacia tree and opened the liquor bottle and got administered heavy quantity to the deceased and he consumed lightly. Then A1 asked the deceased about the illegal intimacy with his wife and caught hold of his shirt and his brother A2 hacked on the back of the right leg of the deceased with the axe which is in his hand. Immediately he picked up the same axe from his brother and again hacked on the back side of right leg of the deceased and when the deceased cried loudly, all of them thrown the deceased on the current wires which were placed for protection in the cotton fields from wild animals. Thereafter, they went to the bore situated in their cotton field, A2 cleaned the blood stained axe and cleaned the blood fell on the ground where they have hacked the deceased with the spade nd the said earth sprinkled on the cotton plants. 15. The Doctor, who conducted, the post mortem examination, P.W.12 deposed that he conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and found the following:- External appearance:- 1. Cut injury of 10 X 8 X 6 inches on posterior aspect of cover 1/3 of right thigh. Oblique in shape. The edges are sharp. The under lying tissue i.e., sub- cutuneous fat and muscles are black and burnt. On deep dissection of the wound the underline structures are congested. Thus injuries are ante- mortem. 2. Cut injury of 8 X 6 X 4 inch oblique shape seen over the right knee joint posterior the edges are sharp and cut the under line tissue i.e., fat and muscle are black chared and burnt and on deep section of the wound the underline tissues congested. 3. Ante-mortem burnt:- Burnt injury of 5 X ½ inch on left leg anteriorly the underline tissues are pale and deep dissection. 4. Post mortem burnt:- Burnt injury 4 X 5 X 1/1 X ½ just below the left knee joint anteriorly and dissection the underline tissue is pale. 5. Whole scrotam is swollen on cut section congested. Internal examination: Brain and meaninges are intact and congested on cut section. Live spleen kidneys congested on cut section. Spinal and pelvis normal. Following organs sent to RFSL Guntur. 1. Hyoid bone, liver, spleen, kidneys, lungs, stomach intends conteitas and small intestines. He further deposed that he issued Ex.P28 post mortem certificate opining that the cause of death is ante-mortem electrical burns and shock. The final opinion given under Ex.P28 also shows that the deceased would have appeared to have died at ante mortem electrical burns and shock. Further item Nos.1 to 6 are analysed, but no poisonous substance and alcohol were found in them. The post mortem report under Ex.P28 falsifies the confessional statement, if any, made by A1 with regard to the administering of heavy dose of alcohol to the deceased. 16. This Court in Koki Prabhakara Reddy v. State of A.P., where the case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and the so called extra judicial confession made by one of the accused observed that the extra judicial confession is so meticulously drafted about commission of the offence and that it is not recorded in the language spoken by the accused. When the confession made after 17 days with regard to the commission of the rape has not been supported by the medical evidence, confessing the guilt for the offence not committed does not arise. Therefore, the confessional statement shrouded with suspicion unless corroborated cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused. 17. The same is the case on hand, where A1 confessed about the making the deceased to heavily drink, which has not been substantiated with the medical evidence. The post mortem report under Ex.P28 discloses that no alcohol or any poisonous substance was found in item Nos.1 to 6. 18. The extra judicial confession made by A3 before P.W.7 has been disbelieved by the sessions court, whereas with regard to the extra judicial confession made by A1, the learned Judge observed that the confessional statement made by A1 receives corroboration from the ocular and medical evidence, which in fact is not correct as stated above. 19. The case of the prosecution that M.O.7 axe was sent to RFSL for examination by serologist and blood was detected on it, cannot be believed for the reason that as per the extra judicial confession made by A1 before P.W.11, after commission of the offence they have cleaned the blood stained axe. Further, when P.W.11 stated that he was in the lands at the outskirts of the village and the accused confessed before him about killing of the deceased, he has not explained as to how he recorded the confessional statement in the lands situated at the outskirts of the village. Therefore, there is missing link to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. When the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution, it is unsafe to convict the accused only on the ground that the deceased was last seen in the company of A1 at 10:00 PM on the previous night and the dead body was found on the next day morning in the fields of A1. Further, as per the opinion of the Doctor, P.W.12, the cause of death is also due to anti mortem electrical shock. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the link in the chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the commission of offence. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Markapur in S.C.No.141 of 2007, dated 05.,01.2008, are hereby set aside. The appellants are found not guilty of the charges with which they stood charged and they are acquitted of the same. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants, shall be refunded. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 03-11-2011 LMV HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.63 and 77 of 2008 (Order of the Bench delivered by Sri AGR, J) 02-11-2011 lmv