IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.5633, 5636, 5640, 5644, 5645, 5650, 5660, 5662 and 5682 of 2009 Criminal Petition No.5633 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in S.C. No.34 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Mahila Judge-cum-IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5636 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in P.R.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5640 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2335 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5644 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2334 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5645 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in P.R.C.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5650 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.284 of 2007 of Nandigama Police Station on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5660 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2328 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5662 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2336 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents Criminal Petition No.5682 of 2009 BETWEEN: Pidathala Sathyam Babu, S/o late P. Venkaiah ….. Petitioner AND The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 2 others ….. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2370 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bojja Tarakam, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: All the nine criminal petitions filed by the same petitioner requesting to quash the criminal proceedings in the respective cases involved identical issues and common questions of fact and are, hence, heard and decided together. Sri Bojja Tarakam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Nageswararao, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents in all the petitions are heard at length. The petitioner contended that on 09-08-2008 when he was at Gandhi Bomma Centre, Nandigama, one police constable by name Laxman Swamy of Nandigama Police Station caught hold of him and forcibly took his slippers. Again at about midnight on 11-08-2008, Nandigama police came to his house at Annasagaram, threatened him and his mother and forcibly took him away in a jeep. The petitioner claimed that he came to know that a dharna was staged in front of the offices of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Nandigama by his relatives, community people and democratic organizations for his release from illegal detention and that his mother was admitted in Nandigama hospital due to shock. He learnt that her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. He was taken away and was shown near Kodada to some of his villagers to assure about his safety. The petitioner also came to know on 15-08-2008 that his mother sent a message to the State Human Rights Commission, which issued directions to the police for his production. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama at her residence at about 6.45 P.M. on 16/17-08-2008 and was remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner further contended that he informed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, about the illegal detention and police torture when he was produced before him on 22-08-2008. When the police filed a petition for police custody for obtaining samples of handwritings, foot prints and blood, it was allowed with a condition to interrogate or take the samples in the presence of an advocate and though he was kept in the police station for three days, the samples were taken without the presence of an advocate. He was produced before the Magistrate after three days and when he was in police custody for three days, he never expressed any intention of making any confession or made any confession. He refused to sign on the papers before the medical officers at Hyderabad without his advocate. The petitioner further claimed that he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama on three or four occasions later, alleging involvement in other crimes and a test identification parade was also conducted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet in Sub-Jail, Nandigama. The petitioner contended that he finally came to know that he was ultimately involved in nine cases basing upon an alleged confession made by him in the presence of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer at Nandigama Police Station at 1.00 A.M., on the intervening night of 16/17-08-2008. The crimes are, — 1) Crime No.241 of 2008 of Nandigama police station under Sections 458 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code registered on 10-08-2008 against unknown persons about attack on matron of Government Mahila Polytechnic Hostel at Nanidigama and theft of torch light in which case, it was alleged that a pair of chappals, a blade and a torch light were recovered at his instance. 2) Crime No.224 of 2008 of Nandigama police station under Sections 450, 457 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of lurking house trespass at Government Polytechnic College-cum-Hostel, Nandigama, registered on 29-07-2008, in which a charge sheet was filed on 11-11-2008. 3) Crime No.152 of 2008 of Nandigama police station registered on 27-05-2008 under Sections 458, 509 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code relating to theft of sound box worth Rs.300/- at Don Bosco Girls High School, at Nandigama on 10-02-2007, for which a charge sheet was filed on 12-11-2008. 4) Crime No.154 of 2008 of Nandigama police station under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code about an incident at residential colony, Nandigama, on 07-01-2008, which was registered on 29-05-2008, for which a charge sheet was filed on 11-11-2008 under Sections 450, 354 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code, which was committed as P.R.C.No.18 of 2009 on 10-12-2008. 5) Crime No.153 of 2008 of Nandigama police station under Sections 452, 354 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code about an incident at Hazariya Hostel, Nandigama on 04-11-2007 registered on 28-05-2008. It was claimed that a drainage spade was recovered on 17-08-2008 at his instance and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.2220 of 2008 (2336 of 2008) on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. 6) Crime No.284 of 2007 of Nandigama police station under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code about assault on Vangapati Radha, a second year Intermediate student of Krushi Junior College at Nandigama, on 08-11-2007. One Kamisetti Suman, Principal of Krushi Junior College, was arrested under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and remanded to judicial custody as third accused on 04-12-2007 and was later released on bail. Lakshmi Prasanna shown as 2nd accused was arrested on 30-11-2007 and was released on bail. Thereafter, one Gangadhar was arrested as an accused and then the petitioner was implicated. The victim made a statement before the State Human Rights Commission that Lakshmi Prasanna and Gangadhar attacked her and caused bleeding injuries. She also made a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet to the same effect. Still the petitioner was implicated mala fide by the police. 7) Crime No.344 of 2007 of Nandigama police station under Sections 307, 347, 452 of the Indian Penal Code dated 28-12-2007. The case was altered later into one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the death of Boddu Vara Laxmi, a night watchwoman, at SC Hostel for Girls, Nandigama, about which the parents of the deceased gave a complaint implicating her husband Merugu Raju. The petitioner came to know that on the arrest of Merugu Raju and on his confession on 26-02-2008, an iron rod was recovered at his instance. Merugu Raju was deleted and the petitioner was implicated by filing a charge sheet on 17-11- 2008. Merugu Raju is listed as ninth (9th) witness and the iron rod recovered from Merugu Raju referred to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, disclosed presence of human blood stains and the same police are claiming recovery of pestle from the petitioner in P.R.C.No.27 of 2008. 8) Crime No.11 of 2008 of Nandigama police station under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code about assault on Thota Rama Devi at Ashok Nagar, Nandigama, for which a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 450, 354, 324 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code showing recovery of a crowbar also from the petitioner. A test identification parade was conducted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet on 21-08-2008, wherein the victim was said to have identified the petitioner. 9) Crime No.477 of 2007 of Ibrahimpatnam police station about the rape and murder of one Ayesha Meera, a student of B. Pharmacy at Limra College, Ibrahimpatnam, on the intervening night of 26/27-12- 2007 at 2.00 A.M., at Sri Durga Ladies Hostel, Ibrahimpatnam. The case was registered against unknown persons on the complaint of the parents of the deceased and several persons, who were taken into custody, were interrogated and let off. Specimen handwritings were taken from 400 suspects and 47 blood samples were collected for DNA test. Finally, one Guruvindar Singh @ Laddu was remanded to custody on 09-05- 2008 on prima facie evidence. The petitioner came to know that his foot prints tallied with the foot marks obtained at the scene and that a polygraph test was conducted on him. The sensational case with political dimensions led to the police filing a memo on 12-11-2008 seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution against the said Guruvindar Singh on which notice was ordered by the Court to his counsel. Though the matter was posted to 17-11-2008, a charge sheet was filed on 14-11-2008 showing the petitioner as the sole accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session and is pending in S.C.No.34 of 2009 before the Mahila Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner learnt that the suspicion of the mother of the deceased about the involvement of some named persons was ignored and that attempts were since the beginning to shield the real culprits. The mother of the deceased complained to the State Human Rights Commission, Mahila Commission and Minorities Commission about the police shielding the real accused and she also filed a petition before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, naming five persons as the accused and requesting for fresh investigation. She never named the petitioner and he was implicated for political reasons. The petitioner claimed that he was involved in all the nine cases solely based on the alleged confession said to have been made by him before the police, on the basis of which no prosecution could be launched. Except the alleged confession inadmissible in evidence, there is no other direct or indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. The pestle allegedly recovered from him is a common object found at any place in the villages and his prosecution is violative of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and Articles 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution. As held in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajanlal and others[1], the express legal bar and the mala fides make the proceedings liable to be quashed. The petitioner stated that the nine cases are at different stages, but he cannot be compelled to face criminal trials upon, ex facie, inadmissible evidence and he, therefore, prayed for quashing of further proceedings in all the nine cases. The alleged confession of the petitioner was recorded under a mediators report on the intervening night of 16/17-8-2008 at 2.15 A.M. claiming that the mediators were sent for to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, where the petitioner was sitting in front of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is, thus, evident that the mediators were not present before the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the mediators at his office to ascertain the particulars of the petitioner sitting before him and that the mediators were consequently unaware of what happened before they reached the said place as to how the petitioner came to be present there. The petitioner was claimed to have given a graphic description of the background for his psychological state and his committal of the various offences involved in nine cases respectively. The petitioner was claimed to have further stated about showing physical objects concerned with different cases, if he were taken to those places. The mediators’ report stated that the confessions of the petitioner were identified as relating to the nine cases involved in the present criminal petitions. The blade said to have been recovered from the petitioner on search of his person was one allegedly stated by the petitioner to have been kept with himself for use in case of necessity while committing crimes, but the said blade does not relate to any of the nine cases. The mediators’ report also stated the mediators to have noted injuries on the person of the petitioner, which were healing. The mediators’ report was attested by the mediators, scribed by one of them and appeared to be containing the signature of the petitioner also, apart from the signature of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nandigama. Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act lay down the law relating to the evidentiary status of such confessions and the learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar[2], in which the Apex Court stated that the law relating to confessions is to be found in general in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Sections 162 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Apex Court also stated that a confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused and it covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody as also a confession made before any investigation has begun. The Supreme Court also pointed out that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is in the form of a proviso and partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as relates to distinctly the fact thereby discovered may be proved. It was also pointed out that confessions made by an accused to a police officer or made by him, while he is in the custody of a police officer are not to be trusted and should not be used in evidence against him. If proof of the confession is excluded by any provisions of law such as Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the entire confessional statement in all its parts including the admission of minor incriminating facts must also be excluded unless proof of it is permitted by some other Section as Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As such, it is clear that it is only so much of such information as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered that may be proved with reference to a confession before or while in the custody of a police officer. The celebrated decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1 supra) reiterated the concern of the Apex Court for personal liberty of a citizen and warned about the serious consequences that would flow when there is non-observance of procedure by the police while exercising their unfettered authority. The Apex Court referred to its earlier dicta that it is of utmost importance that investigation into criminal offence must always be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to the grievance of the accused that the work of investigation is carried on unfairly and with any ulterior motive. The Supreme Court made it clear that unlimited discretion in the realm of powers defined by Statutes can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom and if a police officer transgresses the circumscribed limits and improperly and illegally exercises his investigatory powers in breach of any statutory provision causing serious prejudice to the personal liberty and also property of a citizen, then the Court, on being approached by the person aggrieved for the redress of any grievance, has to consider the nature and extent of the breach and pass appropriate orders as may be called for without leaving the citizens to the mercy of police echelons, since human dignity is a dear value of our Constitution. The Apex Court also laid down the parameters for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash any criminal proceedings and the learned senior counsel for the petitioner more particularly relied on the following, — (a) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (b) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (c) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The Supreme Court made it clear that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. It was also pointed out that when there are only allegations and recriminations but no evidence, the Court cannot anticipate the result of the investigation and render a finding on the question of mala fides on the materials available to the Court. In that case, the Supreme Court also reiterated that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant. On an analysis of the facts and circumstances in that case, the Apex Court only quashed the commencement as well as the entire investigation, but not the first information report itself and gave liberty to the State