HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2008 Date: 12.04.2010 Between: Pathivada Sreenu .. Appellant/Accused And The State of A.P, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam Circle through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent/Complainant HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2008 Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) The appellant is the accused in Sessions Case No.213 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. By judgment dated 14.03.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.213 of 2007, the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under each count and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal. 2. The specific charge against the accused is that on 25.05.2007 in between 14.30 hours and 15.30 hours he murdered his second son Pathivada Sankar and his sister’s son (nephew) Reddi Rambabu by beating them with stones on their heads, since he bore grudge against his wife for not giving sufficient money for performing the death ceremony of his mother. 3. As seen from the evidence let in, PW.4 is the sister of the accused. She had two children i.e., one daughter and one son. Her deceased son Rambabu was aged about 9 years as on the date of the alleged incident. According to PW.4, on one Friday, she went to her parents house at Idanada Talavalasa to attend the death ceremony of her mother. Her husband and son also went along with her. At about 12.00 Noon the accused came there and informed PW.4 that he was taking his son and also the son of PW.4 Rambabu to his in-laws house at Lingannapeta village and at about 1.00 PM the accused took his son and the son of PW.4 (deceased Nos.1 and 2) on his bicycle. PW.6 is the wife of the accused. According to her, she had two children by name Pathivada Raju and Pathivada Shankar, who were aged about 5 years and 3 years respectively as on the date of incident. Her mother-in-law died in the month of April 2007. According to PW.6, on 25.05.2007, the accused (her husband) took her son to B. Talavalsa village where they had to perform the monthly ceremony of her deceased mother- in-law. She says that the accused took Rs.100/- from her to perform the ceremony. According to her, PW.4 also came to her in-laws house. According to PW.7 Moori Chinna he went to the house of PW.5 on one Friday at about 11.00 AM for cow dung and while he was talking with PW.4 near the house of PW.5 and while PW.4 was enquiring him about the monthly ceremony of her mother, the accused was taking both the deceased i.e., the son of PW.4 and the son of the accused on a bicycle. According to PW.8, he is a resident of Lingannapeta and working in a Jute Mill. He says that he knows the accused and that on the date of incident at about 12.30 PM the accused informed him on a phone that both the children died in the auto accident and he survived and requested him to convey the same to his wife and in-laws. Then PW.8 conveyed the same immediately to PWs.5, 6 and also to the parents of PW.6. Then they all went to the place where the dead bodies were lying and found some stones lying by the side of the dead bodies and one of the stone was stained with the blood. MO.1 is the said stone. According to PW.9, on 25.05.2007, at about 7.00 or 8.00 PM, the accused made a phone call to his cell phone and informed him that his nephew and his son died in auto accident and he escaped from the accident while going in the auto. The accused further informed him that the police may suspect him and so he was scared and going away. According to PW.10, he is a resident of Lingannapet. He knows the accused and he is working as a labour in a lorry. He says that on 26.05.2007 the accused made a phone call to his cell phone at about 9.00 AM and stated that he killed his son and his nephew by beating with a stone and that the accused further informed him that he became angry upon his wife as she did not give sufficient money to attend the monthly ceremony of his deceased mother. According to PW.11, on 25.05.2007 the accused met him at about 12.00 Noon along with his son and nephew on a bicycle and requested him to lend an amount of Rs.1500/- on the ground that his wife was fell sick and admitted in the hospital. PW.11 further deposed that he gave Rs.1000/- against the security of his bicycle and the said cycle was pledged with him. MO.2 is the said Atlas company cycle. 4. PW.2 Meesala Ramarao deposed that about 7 months back on one Friday at about 3.30 PM while he was proceeding to Dakamarri village from Rellipeta on the gravel road on the way near the cashew tope of one B. Appanna, he had seen the dead bodies of two boys lying by the side of the road. Then he telephoned to Talyari Ramakrishna and informed him about the same. According to PW.3, he was working as Village Talyari and that on 25.05.2007 at about 3.30 PM he received a phone call from PW.2 that there were two dead bodies of two boys near the cashew tope of B. Appanna and then he informed the same to PW.1. According to PW.1, who is working as Village Revenue Officer, on 25.05.2007 at about 3.30 PM while he was at his village PW.3 informed him over phone that the dead bodies of two children were laying by the side of the gravel road near the cashew tope of B. Appanna. Then he immediately proceeded to that place, seen the dead bodies of two boys and the dead bodies were having bleeding injuries over the head. Then he prepared report Ex.P1 and presented the same to Bhemili Police. 5. PW.17 K.N.S.V. Prasad was working as S.I of Police, Bhemili during the relevant period. According to him, on 25.05.2007 at about 4.30 PM, PW.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1 report. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1 report, he registered a case in Crime No.192 of 2007 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P11 is the FIR sent to the Court. PW.18 M. Deva Prasad, who was working as Inspector of Police, Bhemilipatnam, having received information about the registration of the case, took up investigation, secured the mediators Chinnuru Krishna Rao and Kankala Lakshmanrao, observed the scene of offence and prepared observation report and seized the blood stained earth, controlled earth and blood stained stone from the scene of offence. Ex.P4 is the scene of offence observation report. He also got the scene of offence photographed. Ex.P12 is the rough sketch prepared by PW.18. Then he sent both the dead bodies to the Government Hospital, Bhemili. On the next day PWs.4 and 6 came to the hospital and identified the dead bodies of the deceased. Then he conducted inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of panchayatdars and after examining PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 he sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. On 29.05.2007 the accused was arrested at about 5.00 PM and the confession statement of the accused in Ex.P10 was recorded in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused. 6. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. On behalf of the accused none were examined, except marking the portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 as Ex.D1. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there are strong circumstances against the accused and all the circumstances point out the guilt of the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the alleged offence and it is also submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that there is no satisfactory evidence to convict the accused. It is also submitted that the accused has been suffering from AIDS and a doctor certificate has been filed in support of the said contention. 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are witnesses who deposed that both the deceased were last found in the company of the accused and the evidence on record shows that initially the accused gave false information that both the deceased died in the auto accident and that the accused made extra judicial confession before PW.10 and all these circumstances clinchingly point out the guilt of the accused. 10. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the circumstances point out the guilt of the accused. 11. No doubt, the wife of the accused did not specifically depose that there was a dispute with regard to payment of money to perform the ceremony of the mother of the accused. However, she had categorically deposed that her husband (the accused) took a sum of Rs.100/- from her to perform the ceremony on that day. PW.4 is no other than the sister of the accused. PW.6 is no other than the wife of the accused and PW.5 is no other than the father of the accused. All these witnesses have categorically deposed that on the date of offence at about 1.00 PM the accused had taken away both the deceased along with him on his bicycle. Thus, all the natural witnesses, who have no enmity with the accused and who are rather interested in the accused, have categorically deposed that it is the accused, who had taken both the deceased along with him on the fateful day. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that both the deceased were last seen in the company of the accused on the date of offence. Further, the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 also clinchingly establishes that initially the accused informed over phone that both the children died in auto accident and that he himself survived. Thus, the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 proves that initially the accused had given a misleading and false information that both the deceased died in the auto accident. Even according to PW.5, the father of the accused, initially he had received a phone call that both the children sustained injuries in the auto accident and that his son i.e., the accused survived. He says that subsequently he received another phone call stating that it is the accused who beat both the children with stone and killed them. PW.10 appears to be an independent witness. He was having a Cell phone No.9908439690 on the date of the offence. PW.10 had categorically deposed that on the date of offence the accused made a phone call at about 9.00 AM and confessed that he killed his son and nephew i.e., both the deceased by beating them with stones. According to PW.10, the motive for commission of the offence, as informed by the accused, is that the accused became angry towards his wife as she did not give sufficient money to perform the ceremony of his mother. Except giving a bald suggestion to PW.10 that he was speaking falsehood, no specific motive has been attributed against him to speak falsehood against the accused. There is no need for PW.10 to speak falsely against the accused. He appears to be a trustworthy witness. If the three circumstances i.e., (1) both the deceased were last seen in the company of the accused, (2) initially the accused had given a false information that the deceased received injuries in auto accident, which subsequently proved to be false and (3) the evidence of PW.10 that the accused made extra judicial confession before him, are put together, the only reasonable inference in the logical conclusion that can be drawn is that it is the accused who had committed the heinous offence. The evidence of the Doctor, who conducted Post- mortem examination, and the evidence of inquest witnesses etc., proves that the accused committed the homicidal death and the same is not in dispute. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion and there is no need to interfere with the same. 13. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________ D.S.R. VARMA, J. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 12.04.2010 Nsr