HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1664 OF 2007 & 969 OF 2011 Date: 20-10-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1664 OF 2007 Between: Gajjavarapu Murali Krishna @ Murali @ Krishna. - - - Appellant/ A-1. AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. State Rep. Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town C.C.S. Kakinada. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.969 OF 2011 Between: Gajjavarapu Merry Ratnakumari @ Kumari. - - - Appellant/ A-2. AND 1. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. State Rep. Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town C.C.S. Kakinada. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. This court made the following : COMMON JUDGEMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy) These two Criminal Appeals are directed against judgment of conviction and sentences imposed in Sessions Case No.161 of 2007, dated 13-08-2007, on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1664 of 2007 is A-1 and the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2011 is A-2 in the Sessions Case. A-1 is the husband of A-2. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the Appeals are the Complainants in the Sessions Case. For convenience sake, we refer them as arrayed in the Sessions Case. 3. A-1 and A-2 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 411 IPC and were found guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month each under the first count and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default of paying the fine amount, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month under the second count with a direction to run them concurrently and the default sentences on non payment of the fine amounts consecutively and to set off their remand period under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and to return M.Os.1 to 4 in the case to the legal heirs of the deceased on production of legal heir certificate and to destroy M.Os.5 to 11 and un- marked property, if any, in the case after appeal time, whereas aggrieved by it, the present Criminal Appeals have been preferred. 4. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : One Ambati Rajeswari, W/o. Late Ramana aged about 60 years (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was resident of Koyyavari street, Kakinada. She owned a Mangalore tiled house bearing Door No.29-6- 16 along with another house bearing No.29-6-17, with 4 rooms. PW.4 (Shaik Mariyamma) and PW.5 (Padala Vijayalakshmi) were the tenants of one room each and A-1 and A-2 husband and wife were the tenants of the 3rd room of the house. A-1 and A-2 suffered loss in canteen business at Bheemavaram earlier. The deceased used to wear gold jewels. While so, on 10-10-2006 around 10-30 a.m. when the deceased alone was in their house, she was invited by A-1 and A- 2 to their portion on the pretext of eating an apple. As soon as the deceased entered the portion, A-1 tied a towel around her neck and made her to fall on the ground and sat on her chest and hit her head to the floor, while A-2 caught hold of her legs tightly. Thereafter, they committed theft of the gold jewellary from the person of the deceased worth Rs.30,000/- and left the house. On a report (Ex.P-1) given by PW.1 (Ambati Suresh) the case was registered in Crime No.204x44/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 302, and 380 IPC on the file of III Town CCC PS, Kakinada. PW.16 (K.V.N. Prasada Rao), Inspector of Police, CCS Circle, Kakinada, took up and conducted the investigation of the case and arrested A-1 and A-2 on 15-10-2006 and seized the gold ornaments which were stolen from the person of the deceased and also a pair of gold Mangalasoothrams from A-2 which were purchased by them with the sale proceeds of her stolen gold bangles and a pair of ear studs in the presence of mediators. The investigation done by PW.16 discloses that A-1 and A- 2 killed the deceased for the gold ornaments. 5. During the trial of the case, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 and MOs.1 to 11 were marked whereas on behalf of A-1 and A-2 neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was adduced apart from marking Ex.D-1 in the evidence of PW.11, whereas after observing necessary formalities and examining the evidence on record, the trial Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and sentenced them as stated supra, by reason of which, the present Appeals have been preferred. 6. The learned defence counsel mainly attacks the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court on the ground that there is no good evidence with regards to the tenancy of A-1 and A-2 in the house of the deceased and also with regards to the actual incident and further on the ground that there is no acceptable evidence with regards to the seizure of the Material Objects from the possession of t A-1 and A-2. The learned defence counsel has referred to discrepancies with regards to the seizure of the Material Objects from the possession of A- 1 and A-2 in particular. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of PWs.4, 5 including 6 and 7 who are independent witnesses is very trustworthy and their evidence is corroborated by other incriminating circumstances and absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve them. He asserts that the trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record found A-1 and A-2 guilty of committing the offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced them and absolutely there is no reason to interfere with those findings. 8. In order to dispose of the Appeal, the following points are to be answered : 1) Whether there is sufficient material with regards to the tenancy of A-1 and A-2 in the house of the deceased? 2) Whether there is sufficient evidence with regards to causing the murder of the deceased, theft and recovery of the gold ornaments? 3) Whether the trial Court examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? 9. Point Nos.1 to 4: Significantly, there is no direct evidence with regards to the incident in question. It is well settled that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests : (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established, (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, which form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by A-1 and A-2 and none else. 10. The evidence of PW.1, who is the elder son of the deceased, is as follows : Himself, his wife, his children, his brother and his mother used to reside in one portion among the four portions of the house, which consists of one varandah, one room and one kitchen and the remaining three other portions in the house were let out to PW.5, PW.4 and A-1 and A-2, whereas the third portion in the house was let out to A-1 and A-2 on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- just 15 days prior to the incident in question and they joined in the portion paying one month rent in advance. A-1 and A-2 used to stay in that room without doing any work. He (PW.1) and his wife used to work in the shop of one Gurram Adinarayana situated at the main road Kakinada, leaving the house for their work by 10-0 a.m. and his brother, who was studying M.Sc. used to go to his college by 10-00 a.m. and his children used to go to school by 09-00 a.m. and his mother i.e. the deceased alone used to stay in the house. He also deposed that the husband of PW.5 was working as coolie in the port leaving his house by 08-00 a.m. and PW.5 used to go to the house of her mother situated nearby along with her small children and PW.4 used to leave her house for preaching Christianity by 08-30 a.m. Further, he deposed that on 10-10-2006 himself and his wife returned to their home by 02-00 p.m. and noticed that the doors of their house were opened and his mother was not found in the house and then he started searching for her, in the meanwhile, at about 04-00 p.m. PW.2 returned to the house and informed that by 01-00 p.m. he came for lunch and did not find the deceased and as there was no time for him at that time, he took lunch and rushed to the college. He further deposed that himself and his brother started searching by going to various places and around 07-00 p.m. they returned to the house and then they noticed that A-1 and A-2 were not present in the room let out to them and also noticed a bulb switched on in that room and on suspicion went to the rear portion of the room and peeped through its window and saw the legs of their mother inside. Further, immediately, he broke open the locks of the doors of the room and opened the doors and found that a towel was tied around her neck and a mattress was placed on her and also noticed injuries on her head and on the back of her head. He also deposed that he did not find her 3 rows of chandraharam chain, 4 gold bangles, one gold ring with Lakshmidevi idol and two ear studs, which she used to wear. Further, he deposed that after informing the incident to his relatives, he went to the III Town CCS Police Station, Kakinada and gave report as in Ex.P-1. He specifically identified that A-1 and A- 2 were the persons who were the tenants of the third portion of their house. He also identified the ornaments before the Court marked as Mos.1 to 3. He admitted that the ornaments appeared to be new but denied that they were not belonging to the deceased. 11. PWs. 2 and 3 brother and sister of PW.1 corroborated the evidence of PW.1. PWs. 4 and 5 tenants of the house, PWs.6 and 7 mother and brother of PW.5 and also PW.8 who runs kirana shop nearby deposed about the tenancy and finding the dead body. Further, PW.5 also deposed that on the date of offence around 11-00 a.m. she saw that both A-1 and A-2 were leaving their room and when she questioned them as to where they were going, they informed that they were going to beach and she also deposed that they were leaving their room hurriedly and A-1 was carrying a handbag. She particularly stated that as she was housewife, she used to stay in their house. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she never questioned A-1 and A-2 as to why they were not doing any work and also did not suspect them when she found them going hurriedly from their premises. 12. Further, PW.6 who is the mother of PW.5 who claims to be resident of house situated abutting the rear side of the house of the deceased having corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 about the tenancy of A-1 and A-2 also identified the ornaments of the deceased marked as Mos.1 to 3. Further she deposed that she saw both A-1 and A-2 going hurriedly from their portion on the relevant day and then questioned A-2 as to where they were going, for which she replied that they were going to beach and also deposed that A-1 was carrying a hand bag at that time. It seems that the incident took place later PW.5 seeing that and questioning them. 13. PWs.1 to 7 denied that A-1 and A-2 never resided in the said portion as tenants and that the deceased was killed by some others and a false case was foisted against A-1 and A-2. 14. It is testified by PW.15 (S. Sriramulu), the Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town CCS, Kakinada that at about 10-45 p.m. on 10-10- 2006, PW.1 approached the police station and presented Ex.P-1 report, on the basis of which, he registered the case in Crime No.204x44/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and issued Ex.P-8 F.I.R. 15. PW.16 (K.V.S.N. Prasad), the Inspector of Police CCS, Korukonda circle, Kakinada deposed that on 11-10-2006 he took up the investigation of the case and inspected the scene of offence along with mediators namely G. Gantayya (PW.13) who was a Village Revenue Officer, and K. Venkata Rao. He further deposed that the scene of offence was situated in a house bearing No.29-6-17 and he found the dead body in the southern portion of the house and also found injury on the head of the deceased and further found that a towel was tied around her neck and a mattress near the dead body and accordingly prepared observation report as in Ex.P-4 and got photographed the scene of offence (Exs.P-2 and P-3) and also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence as in Ex.P-10 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.13 and another itself and examined PWs.1 to 7 and then it was opined that the deceased died of receiving the injuries and seized MOs.1 to 4 (3 Gold Bangles, 3 rows of gold chandraharam, Lakshmidevi ring and pair of Gold Mangala Soothrams with gilt chain) and accordingly prepared a report as in Ex.P-5 and seized Mos.5 to 10. The evidence of PW.16, Investigation Officer and PW.13 coupled with the evidence of PWs. 2 to 7, clearly establish the scene of offence about which there is no dispute in fact. 16. PW.17 (P. Saratkumar Babu) Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, KMC, Kakinada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries : “1) Ligature mark present on the front of the neck, running traversely over the thyroid cartilage and completely encircling the neck with a total length of 42 cms without gap. On the front of neck, it was 6 cms and with a width of 4 to 6 cms below the center of the chin and on the right side of the neck it was 6 cms below the lower attachment of right ear and on the back of neck it was just below the hair line and on the left side of the neck, it was 6 cms below the lower attachment of left ear with bruises and abrasion above and below the margins of ligature mark without definite pattern of the ligature mark and the sub contentious tissues were ecchymosed. ON DISSECTION OF NECK FOUND: Severe engorgement and Hemorrhages to the tissues corresponding to the ligature mark. The ribbon muscles of the neck were severely contused. There was effusion of blood into tonsilar fossae and base of tongue. The left superior horn of thyroid cartilage showed in ward fracture, the fractured piece was bending inwards and the fractured ends were blood stained. There were vertical fractures of both the thyroid and cricoids cartilages with echymosis at the fractured cartilaginous sites. The Hyoid bone was intact. 2. A split laceration of 1 ½ x 1 cms size present on the back of the head on the occipital region of scalp with corresponding reddish contusion under the scalp with blood clot present in the wound. 3. A reddish abrasion of 1 x 1 cm size present on the front mid chest region 5 cms below the supra sternal notch. 4. A reddish scratch abrasion of 1 ½ cms and x 1 cms size present on the outer aspect of right forearm 10 cms below the right elbow. 5. A areocentric nail mark of 0.25 cms x 25 cms present 1 cm below the injury No.4 6. Two areocentric nail marks of each 0.25 x 0.25 cms present on the front of right elbow, 2 cms apart from each other. Red in colour. 7. Four areocentric nails marks of each .25 x .25 cms size present on the back and dorsal aspect of middle of right hand. 8. A horizontal reddish abrasion of 3 x 1 cms size present at the bases of dorsal aspects of right middle and ring fingers. 9. An encircling linear scratch abrasion of 10 x 5 cms size present on the back and inner aspect of lower 1/3rd region of left upper arm, red in colour. 10. An linear scratch abrasion of 7 x 0.5 cms size present on inner aspect of left upper arm connecting with injury No.9 region. Red in colour. 11. A horizontal linear scratch abrasion of 7 x 0.5 cms size present on the front left upper arm at its middle 1/3rd region. Red in colour. 12. Diffused contusions of palmers aspects of tips of all 5 fingers of left hand present. Reddish blue in colour. 13. A reddish cresentic nail mark of 0.25 x 0.25 cms present on the linear aspect of right leg 10 cms below the right knee. 14. A areocentric nail mark of 0.25 x 0.25 cms present 3 cms below the injury No.13 red in colour. 15. A areocentric nail mark of 0.25 cms x 0.25 cms present 2 cms below the injury No.14. Red in colour. 16. A scratch abrasion of 3 x 1 cm size present on the front of middle of right leg. Red in colour. 17. Fracture of middle 1 1/3rd regiion of body of sternum (Breast bone) present with contusion of surrounding tissues. Fractured bone edges. Blood stained. 18. Fractures of both the right and left 2 to 5 ribs present at their anterior angles with contusion of surrounding tissues and blood staining of the fractured bone edges.” The medical evidence is not challenged and accordingly it is to be accepted as true and correct. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the actual assailants caused several and severe injuries and it is a homicidal death of brutal nature. The fact that so many injuries were caused on a poor old woman sufficiently establishes the grave complicity of the culprits in doing so. It also describes the sadistical tendency of the culprits in deriving benefit by doing so apart from their brutal criminal mind. It by itself tells that the injuries were caused with some vengeance for the reasons best known to the assailants. 17. There is substantial evidence with regards to the tenancy of the A-1 and A-2 in one of the portions of the deceased. It is true that there is no documentary evidence with regards to the tenancy, but there can be oral evidence of tenancy, which can be established by placing satisfactory evidence before the Court. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 makes it very clear that A-1 and A-2 joined in one of the portions as tenants just 15 days prior to the incident. It also makes it very clear that prior to that A-1 and A-2 were strangers to the family of the deceased. Further PWs.4 to and 8 are quite independent witnesses and got no enmity with A-1 and A-2 to speak falsehood. Nothing was elicited against the claim of PWs.1 to 8 which is favourable to the claim of A-1 and A-2. On the other hand, their evidence is quite cogent, natural and credible and accordingly it is to be accepted. Therefore, it is established that A-1 and A-2 joined as tenants in the third room of the house of the deceased just 15 days prior to the date of the incident and further, it is established in view of the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 that on the date of the incident both of them saw A-1 and A-2 in separate incidents leaving their room hurriedly and when the first of them asked as to where they were going they informed that they were going to beach and further when PW.6 asked A-2, she also replied similarly. When the tenancy is established and it is also established that PWs.5 and 6 found them leaving the house hurriedly and specifically the dead body was found in the same portion which was given to A-1 and A-2 on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.400/- and there is clear and acceptable evidence from PWs.1 to 3 that the deceased was found missing from their house, A-1 and A-2 have to explain as to whether they were in the house or not and how the dead body was found in their portion of the house. Absolutely there is no explanation from them in that context, whereas in fact they totally denied the tenancy of the room and other incriminating circumstances. Therefore, these circumstances are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the death was caused only by A-1 and A-2. 18. About the seizure of the properties, which is another important or paramount incriminating evidence, it is the testimony of PW.16 that on 15-10-2006 on credible information he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Samalkot railway station and reached there by 03-00 p.m. and found A-1 and A-2 there and on seeing them they tried to skulk away and they apprehended them in the presence of mediators and seized a hand bag containing MOs.1 to 3 from A-1 and also MO.4 from A-2 and then A-2 produced Ex.P-6 with regards to the purchase of MO.4 and obtained slips containing the signatures of the mediators and kept the objects and slips in a polythene cover. He admitted in his cross-examination that he did not obtain the signatures of A-1 and A-2 on the slips. PW.13 corroborated the evidence of PW.16 in this context. According to him, a report was prepared as in Ex.P-7 (Admissible portion). 19. Whereas, it is according to PW.16, A-1 and A-2 were found and arrested at 03-00 p.m. according to PW.13 at 11-30 a.m. he went to the police station and at about 12-00 noon they reached Samalkot railway station. Further, he deposed that he could not see in which direction A-1 and A-2 were found within the railway station and also did not say whether any train entered the railway station during such arrest and he did not give the particulars of dresses wore by A-1 and A-2. PW.16 and so also PWs.1 to 3 denied that the MOs.1 to 3 happened to be new ornaments and they were different from those ornaments said to be worn by the deceased and he got engraved words AR on all those ornaments before producing them in the Court. 20. In fact, learned defence counsel contends that there are grave discrepancies with regards to the time of arrest and further the evidence of PW.13 is un-natural because he could not say in which direction A-1 and A-2 were found there and whether any train arrived there during the period of those proceedings and he also could not say about the dress particulars of A-1 and A-2 and further in fact the ornaments appear to be new which totally demolishes the prosecution version of snatching the properties from the deceased. 21. The discrepancies pointed out with regard to the arrest of A-1 and A-2 and seizure of MOs.1 to 4 are only minor in nature because such discrepancies do occur after lapse of time.