IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, the First 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 No.488 OF 2007 Between: A.Ramu and another … Appellants And The 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 R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.488 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Kantha Rao) The appellant/sole accused, who was put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.350 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Siddipet was found guilty, was convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to suffer imprisonment for three months by judgment, dated 10.01.2007, preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence recorded against him. 2. The graveman of the charge against the appellant is that on the intervening night of 01.06.2006, at Dubbak village shivar, the appellant committed murder intentionally causing the death of Istharigalla Rajaiah father-in-law of the appellant, by beating him with a stick on the head and neck due to personal grudges. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded during the course of trial is briefly stated as under:- One Istharigalla Rajaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the father-in-law of the appellant. The appellant was brought to the house of the deceased as illetam son-in-law. It is said that the appellant was addicted to vices and was not attending to any work. On that there used to be some differences between the deceased and the appellant. A Panchayat was also held about the conduct of the appellant wherein it is said that the elders chastised him. The version of the prosecution is that the appellant bore grudge against the deceased and on account of the same he killed the deceased on the night of the incident. According to the prosecution, on 01.06.2006, the deceased went to the agricultural land to clog the sheep. Sometime thereafter the appellant went there taking meal to the deceased. At about 03:00 AM, the appellant informed P.W.5-D.Rajaiah that the deceased slept and fell down in the agricultural field. Thereafter P.W.5, his brother and family members of the deceased, rushed to the place and found the deceased with severe bleeding injuries. They immediately shifted the deceased to their house on a tractor. On examining the deceased, they found him dead. There were injuries on the left side of the cheek, back of the neck, back of the head and on the left shoulder. Suspecting the involvement of the appellant when they questioned him as to how the incident took place he did not reply and ran away from the house. Thereafter on 02.06.2006 P.W.1 Santamma went to the police station and presented written report, basing on which a case in crime No.61 of 2006 was registered. The offence was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid against the appellant. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 12. The incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to the appellant when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court and the appellant denied the same. On behalf of the appellant, no witnesses were examined. 5. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that the entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were that on the night of the incident the appellant was with the deceased and that the appellant was the first person who informed about the death of the deceased by stating that he slipped in the agricultural field and received injuries and died. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of M.O.8 by P.W.15, the investigating officer, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant in the presence of mediators. According to the prosecution, M.O.8 stick was used by the appellant in the commission of the offence. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, however, stated about the appellant going to the field where the deceased was guarding the sheep and that he was with the deceased during the said night. P.W.5 in particular stated about the appellant informing him about the deceased sleeping in the field, receiving injuries and died. P.W.13 mediator spoke about the recovery of M.O.8–stick in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the appellant before the police. Basing on the said evidence, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is:- Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of the appellant by bringing about all the circumstances leading to the conclusion that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime? P O I N T : - 7. In the first place it has to be seen whether the deceased was beaten by the appellant on the back of his head with a stick. The prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.13 mediator and P.W.15 the investigating officer to prove the recovery of M.O.8–stick said to be used in the commission of offence by the appellant. But if we examine the medical evidence, it goes contra to the theory put forth by the prosecution that the deceased was beaten up with a stick, received a severe head injury and died. P.W.14, the autopsy surgeon, stated in his deposition before the trial court that he noticed the following anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:- 1. A big deep cut injury over the occipital region. Length about 5 X 2 inche deep into the brain, coupled with fracture of occipital bone. 2. Laceration over the left ear, measuring 2 X 1 X ½ inches. 3. Abrasion over the left jaw. The cause of death according to P.W.14 is the head injury, which is a chop wound. In the cross-examination, P.W.14 specifically stated that injury No.1 was not possible if a person suddenly falls on a sharp edged stone and it is only possible with a sharp edged weapon like axe or sickle or knife. Therefore, the medical evidence in this case rules out the possibility of the happening of the incident as projected by the prosecution. 8. Further, the prosecution relied upon recovery of blood stained clothes. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 reveals that there was rain on the night of the incident. If that is so, there is no possibility for the investigating officer to recover the blood stained stick and blood stained clothes basing on the alleged confession of the appellant and, therefore, the evidence in relation to recovery also does not appear to be convincing. 9. The only circumstance, which is established by the prosecution, is that on the night of the incident the appellant took food to the deceased to the field where he was guarding the sheep. The evidence on this aspect even if believed, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellant was alone with the deceased till the death of the deceased took place. Nobody witnessed the appellant in the company of the deceased in close proximity to the time of the death of the deceased. The prosecution, therefore, in our view failed to establish the required circumstances showing that the appellant alone committed the murder of the deceased. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt and the learned trial court has fallen into error in convicting the appellant for the charge of murder on surmises and conjectures. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant is thus liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet in S.C.No.350 of 2006, dated 10.01.2007, against the appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant- sole accused is found not guilty of the charge with which he stood charged 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/accused, shall be refunded. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 01.11.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.488 OF 2007 01.11.2011 lmv