IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1531 OF 2008 Between: Naidu Venkatarao and another ..... APPELLANTS AND The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1531 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Sessions Case No.315 of 2007, convicting Accused No.1 (A.1) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and convicting Accused No.2 (A.2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The appellants before us are A.1 and A.2. The case of the prosecution before the Sessions Court was as follows: A.1 is the father of A.2. A.1, the deceased and P.W.6 are brothers. There was a partition amongst the brothers but there were property disputes between A.1 and the deceased. The deceased developed his properties, but A.1 being addicted to vices such as gambling and drinking, could not develop his properties. Further, after the death of their father, the deceased insisted for partition of the land allotted to the father amongst the three brothers, which was not to the liking of A.1, who harboured feelings of enmity towards him. A.1 also entertained the suspicion that the deceased was using witchcraft against him and his family and was at the root cause of their economic crisis. A.2 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.71 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Judge, Kovvur, for repartition of the family properties while A.1 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.68 of 2006 for a similar relief. These suits are pending before the trial Courts. Owing to these disputes, both the accused bore a grudge against the deceased and hatched a plan to do away with the deceased. They tracked the movements of the deceased for three days prior to the date of the offence and on 11.08.2006 evening, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention to murder the deceased, followed the motor cycle of the deceased when he was returning from his fields at Perampet Village and was proceeding to his house at Chenchugudem Village via Srinivasapuram Village Centre. A.1 collected a long knife (Maru Kathi) and both the accused followed the deceased from Srinivasapuram Village Centre on their motor cycle. A.2 was driving the motor cycle while A.1 rode pillion. When the deceased reached Srinivasapuram – Pattennapalem road near Akkampet cross road, A.1 kicked the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down along with his motor cycle. Immediately both the accused alighted from the motor cycle and A.1 hacked the deceased indiscriminately with the long knife (Maru Kathi), while A.2 stood beside him. P.Ws.3 and 4, who were following the deceased on their motor cycle at some distance for the purpose of obtaining a hand loan from the deceased, witnessed the occurrence in the light cast by their motor cycle. Upon seeing the motor cycle of P.Ws.3 and 4, the accused fled from the scene of the offence. P.Ws.3 and 4 rushed to the deceased but by that time, the deceased was dead in a pool of blood with multiple injuries. Due to fear, P.Ws.3 and 4 went to their houses situated at Jangareddigudem Village and in the wee hours on 12.08.2006 they went to the house of the deceased at Chenchugudem Village and informed the matter to the wife of the deceased. Basing on the report given by the wife of the deceased (P.W.1), the case was registered at about 7.00 a.m. on 12.08.2006. The report of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.120 of 2006 and issued the FIR (Ex.P.17). Thereupon, P.W.13 the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared an observation report (Ex.P.12) and held an inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P.13). During the course of investigation, P.W.13 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6. Meanwhile, a dog squad was also utilized at the scene of the offence and the dog led the police to Akkampet cross road and then returned back to the scene of the offence. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination and P.W.10, the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Jangareddigudem, held an autopsy over the dead body and opined that death was caused due to multiple injuries. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P.6. On 13.08.2006, P.W.13 arrested the accused and at the instance of A.1, the long knife (M.O.1) and the towel (M.O.9) in which it was wrapped, were recovered and at the instance of A.2, the clothes worn by the accused at the time of committing of the offence (M.Os.10 to 13) were also recovered. On 20.08.2006, the M.Os. were referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory for report. Ex.P.19 is the FSL report. After receiving the relevant documents and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed arraigning A.1 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and A.2 for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 to prove its case. Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked on behalf of the defence. The plea of the accused was one of denial. After considering the evidence on record and the submissions made on either side, the Sessions Court, by the judgment under appeal, convicted the accused as charged and sentenced them to undergo the imprisonment as aforestated. Hence, this appeal by A.1 and A.2. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the Sessions Court erred in relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 which was highly suspicious, going by their admitted conduct. The learned Senior Counsel also assailed the time lag between the registration of the FIR at 7.00 a.m. on 12.08.2006 and the dispatch of the same to the Magistrate at 12.30 p.m. on that day. This delay is said to be fatal to the case. He further asserted that in the absence of the highly suspect testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, the evidence placed on record by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt against his clients as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that there was no material to show the involvement of A.2, so as to support a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. He therefore submitted that the judgment under appeal was unsustainable on facts and in law and prayed for acquittal of his clients. As regards the contention that the delay in the dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate should be viewed seriously and that it would have a disastrous impact on the prosecution proceedings, it is to be noticed that Ex.P.1 report was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangareddygudem, (P.W.11) at 7.00 a.m. on 12.08.2006 and the same was received by the Magistrate at 12.30 p.m. on 12.08.2006. It is however to be noticed that the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.11), having received Ex.P.1 report stated to the effect that he sent express FIRs to all concerned. He also stated that he informed the incident to his Circle Inspector through telephone and then went to the scene of the offence. It is also elicited from him that after the Circle Inspector of Police (P.W.13) came to the scene of the offence and took up investigation, he assisted him in his investigation. It is brought out from the material placed on record that the inquest proceedings were only concluded at about 12.00 Noon on 12.08.2006. In the light of this sequence of events, demonstrating that the police authorities were involved in the investigation at the scene of the offence and the conduct of the inquest, the lapse of five hours between the registration of Ex.P.1 report and the dispatch of the same to the Magistrate cannot be viewed as a serious delay. As the Circle Inspector and the Sub-Inspector were at the scene of the offence, all the subordinate staff would have also been active in assisting them. The receipt of Ex.P.1 by the Magistrate at 12.30 p.m., after the conclusion of the inquest proceedings, cannot therefore be viewed as a serious circumstance having an adverse effect on the prosecution’s case. This contention is therefore rejected. It is relevant to note that this is a case where there were eye witnesses to the alleged offence, viz. P.Ws.3 and 4. However, Sri Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, contended that their testimony was liable to be discarded as the same was fraught with doubtful and suspicious circumstances. P.W.3 had stated that P.W.4 requested a loan from the deceased and that the deceased had asked P.W.4 to visit his house during the evening time to receive the loan. This event is said to have occurred on the fateful day, 11.08.2006. P.W.3 also stated that the deceased himself informed him of this at around 7.30 or 8.00 p.m. on that day. He stated that about 10 or 15 minutes thereafter, he and P.W.4 followed the motor cycle of the deceased. According to him, he was sitting as a pillion rider while P.W.4 drove the motor cycle. P.W.3 stated that after crossing Srinivasapuram near Akkampet cross road, when they were at about a distance of 20 yards, they observed A.1 and A.2 and that A.1 has hacking the deceased with a knife. He stated that when they stopped there, A.1 and A.2 left the scene. P.W.3 stated that he then observed the injury on the neck, chin and other parts of the deceased and that they returned back to their house. According to him, at about 4.30 a.m., he and P.W.4 went on a motor cycle to the house of the deceased and related the incident to P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. P.W.4 stated that he had asked the deceased to lend him an amount of Rs.5,000/- and that the deceased had informed him that he will give the said amount when P.W.4 visited his house at Chenchugudem. P.W.4 further stated that when the deceased was going on his motor cycle in the evening at 8.00 or 8.30 p.m., he followed him on the motor cycle and picked up P.W.3 on the way. He further stated that after Srinivasapuram Village near Akkampet cross road, he saw that A.2 had caught hold of the deceased and A.1 was hacking him. P.W.4 stated that the deceased sustained injuries on his neck, chin and other parts of the body, including the cutting of the fingers of the right hand. He stated that they raised an alarm and after seeing them, A.1 and A.2 went away. P.W.4 stated that they had observed all this with the help of the light as the scene was within 20 yards distance. He also stated that there was moon light on that day. According to P.W.4, the deceased died on the spot. P.W.4 further stated that due to fear, he and P.W.3 returned to Jangareddygudem and in the early hours of the morning, at 4.30 a.m., he and P.W.3 visited the house of P.W.1 and informed them about this incident. The above testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4 is attacked on the ground that their conduct, upon seeing the commission of the offence and thereafter returning home without doing anything, is quite unbelievable. The learned Senior Counsel stated that this delay on the part of the alleged eye witnesses in reporting what they had seen, renders their very presence at the scene of the offence doubtful and invalidates their so-called eye witness account. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the deposition of P.W.6, who is no other than the brother of the deceased and A.1, to attack the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4. According to P.W.6, he received a telephone call on the night of 11.08.2006 itself, at around 9.30 or 10.00 p.m., about the death of the deceased. He further stated that in the early hours at around 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. he visited the scene of the offence along with an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. However, it is to be noticed that it was not elicited from P.W.6 as to who had called him at 9.30 or 10.00 p.m. on 11.08.2006 to apprise him of the death of his brother. He was also not examined on the details of his so-called visit to the scene of the offence at 2.00 or 3.00 a.m. on 12.08.2006 in the presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. In any event, we are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.6 does not run contra to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. In the absence of the details as to who had called P.W.6 at 9.30 or 10.00 a.m. on 11.08.2006 the testimony of P.W.6 does not in any manner taint or weaken the depositions of P.Ws.3 and 4. It is very well possible that A.1 himself called his brother PW.6 to tell him of what had happened. Equally possible, P.W.3 or PW.4 may have called P.W.6 to inform him of what they had seen. In so far as the behaviour of P.Ws.3 and 4 is concerned, it is difficult to slot human behaviour into set patterns. Given the same set of circumstances, different individuals react differently. Therefore, there can be no fixed expectation as to how a person accosted with a ghastly crime would or should behave. It is elicited from P.W.4 that owing to fear, he and P.W.3 returned towards Jangareddygudem. Further, P.W.4 also stated that the deceased had died on the spot. Therefore, it is very much possible that P.Ws.3 and 4, being under the impression that the deceased had already expired and labouring under feelings of intense fear, took no further action till the next morning i.e. at 4.30 a.m. It is also possible that being wary of involvement in a family matter, one of them could have called P.W.6 to inform him of the incident, hoping that the law would be set in motion by P.W.6 himself. However, having realized that no such steps had been taken, they may have worked up courage and gone to the deceased’s house at 4.30 a.m. on 12.08.2006. The mere delay on the part of P.Ws.3 and 4 in reacting to what they had witnessed cannot by itself be a ground to discredit their testimony. The testimony of P.W.3 is also attacked on the ground that he himself was a suspect and that he was taken into custody along with others by the Police and detained till noon on 12.08.2006, as per the statement of P.W.6. However, the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) stated that P.W.3 was one of the inquest witnesses and that the inquest went on till noon on 12.08.2006. P.W.3 himself denied the suggestion that he had been detained at the Police Station and asserted that he was present till noon at the scene of the offence till the inquest was over. The inquest report (Ex.P.13) also records the presence of P.W.3 at the scene of the offence during the inquest proceedings. Further, P.W.6 himself did not state as to what was the source of his information that P.W.3, along with others, was detained at the Police Station till noon on 12.08.2006. In such a situation, there is no credible evidence to support the contention that P.W.3 himself was a suspect, and therefore, his evidence has to be viewed with suspicion. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is also attacked on the ground that they were the friends of the deceased and were hence, interested parties. Exs.D.1 and D.2, contradictions in their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which speak to that effect, are relied upon. It is however to be noticed that there is no material on record to show that P.Ws.3 and 4 were inimical to the accused. There is no reason forthcoming as to why P.Ws.3 and 4 should implicate the accused in the offence. In such circumstances, the mere friendship of P.Ws.3 and 4 with the deceased does not, in any manner, dilute the credibility of their testimony. Further, it is relevant to note that the case of the prosecution does not rest on the eye witness account of P.Ws.3 and 4 alone. P.W.13 stated that upon receiving credible information of the whereabouts of the accused, he secured the presence of the Sub-Inspectors of Jangareddygudem and Buttaiahagudem and the staff and went to the tobacco barn of the accused at Chenchugudem Village at about 3.00 p.m. on 13.08.2006 and arrested both the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of a mediators report (Mahazar), marked as Ex.P.14. Based on the information given by the accused and upon their leading the police to their house, along with the mediators, material evidence was obtained. A.1 took out the long knife (M.O.1) covered with a towel (M.O.9) and A.2 entered into the house and handed over the clothes (M.Os.10 to 13) worn by them at the time of commission of the offence. Needless to state, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this information is held proved and can be taken into account. What is necessary is that the discovery should be in consequence of the information given by the accused. In this regard, reference may be made to the original Telugu version of Ex.P.14, the mediators report, with regard to the arrest of the accused on 13.08.2006 and the extra judicial confessions elicited from them. P.W.9, one of the mediators, spoke of the fact that when he, along with the police, went to the tobacco barn of A.1, A.1 and A.2 tried to escape by running away and there upon, the police party apprehended them. The mediators report (Ex.P.14) speaks of the fact that A.1 and A.2 voluntarily gave their confessional statements and in the course of these statements, they spoke of the secreting of the knife and the blood stained clothes worn by them at the time of the offence. Ex.P.15 is the mediators report dated 13.08.2006 recording the recovery of the knife (M.O.1), the towel in which it is wrapped (M.O.9) and the clothes worn by A.1 and A.2 at the time of the offence (MOs.10 to 13). Ex.P.15 records the fact that A.1 himself took out the knife which had been secreted away, wrapped in a towel and hidden in the pandal in front of his house. The knife is marked as M.O.1 and the towel as M.O.9. A.2 brought the clothes which were hidden inside the house in a cardboard box and thereupon, A.2 and A.1 pointed out the specific items of clothing worn by them. M.Os.10 and 11 are the shirt and trouser worn by A.2, while M.Os.12 and 13 are the shirt and dhoti worn by A.1. A.1 himself pointed out the clothes worn by him, as recorded in Ex.P.15. It is also brought out in Ex.P.14 that after commission of the offence, the clothes worn by the accused (M.Os.10 to 13) were washed and then put away in the cardboard box. These MOs were sent to the FSL for report and as per the FSL report (Ex.P.19), blood of human origin was detected on M.Os.9 to 13, but the blood group could not be determined. Similarly, the report showed that on the knife (M.O.1) also, blood was detected, but the origin of the blood could not be determined. These recoveries, proved under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, are a strong piece of evidence supporting the eye witness account of P.Ws.3 and 4. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, stressed upon the fact that the M.Os were not immediately sent to the Court, but were retained by the Police and sent directly for examination to the FSL. When called upon to cite a Rule or Regulation which requires the Police to immediately send the MOs to the Court, instead of retaining them at the Police Station, the learned Senior Counsel stated that the Police Standing Orders speak to that effect. However, no such material has been produced before us and in any event, the binding nature of such a standing order would have to be established before serious note is taken of the retention of the M.Os. by the Police in this case and their direct dispatch to the FSL for examination. We therefore find no substance in this contention. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, also pointed out that the blood group of the blood detected on M.Os.9 to 13 was not determined and the origin of the blood itself on M.O.1 was not found. He therefore submitted that in the absence of such correlation, the mere presence of blood on these MOs was not of any assistance to the prosecution’s case. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAGHUNATH V/s. STATE OF HARYANA [(2003) 1 SCC 398], wherein the Supreme Court held that presence of blood stains, being of human blood, was not conclusive evidence that the same belonged to the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that in the absence of correlation of the blood group in the present case also, the conviction could not be sustained on the sole premise that blood was present upon the clothes of the accused and the knife produced by them. It is however to be noticed that RAGHUNATH was a case involving clashes between two groups and it was therefore necessary to identify the blood group of the blood found on the weapons so as to pin point the offence as there were many participants involved in the clash. Such are not the circumstances in the present case. It is also relevant to note that in HEMANT TRIVEDI V/s. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [(2007) (14) SCC 513], the Supreme Court negated a similar attack as is being advanced before us. In that case, the trousers of the accused was recovered and the blood stains thereupon were found to be of human origin, but it could not be determined whether the blood was of the same group as the blood group of the deceased. In spite of the same, the Court held that the accused had not given any cogent and acceptable explanation as to the presence of human blood on his trousers, and therefore the same would be an incriminating circumstance. In the present case also there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the clothes of A.1 and A.2 were stained with blood of human origin. Further, the recovery of these clothes under Exs.P.14 and 15, being admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly incriminate the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The further fact that the accused tried to run away when the police party, along with the mediators, arrived at A1’s tobacco barn, as is evidenced by P.14 and spoken to by P.W.9, is another incriminating circumstance. In the totality of the circumstances, i.e. the depositions of P.Ws.3 and 4, the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (M.Os.1, 9 to 13), the evidence of the mediator (P.W.9) and the mediators’ reports Ex.P.14 and P.15, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 attacked