THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1556 of 2007 Dated : 11.07.2011 Between : K.Ramchandram …. Appellant-accused a n d The State of A.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1556 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellant- accused questioning the judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Case No.205 of 2007 by the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet on 11.07.2007 wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2) The Prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased Kanaka Laxmi was performed with one Matla Durgaiah- P.W.5 about 18 years prior to the occurrence and they were blessed with two sons and one daughter. Subsequently, due to disputes P.W.5 left the deceased in her parents house at Siddipet and since then she is living with her mother (P.W.1) along with her children. Accused herein developed illegal intimacy with the deceased since past five years prior to the occurrence and he also decided to marry her. Subsequently, he came to know that the deceased was moving with many persons and so he warned the deceased to change her attitude. Since four days prior to the occurrence, several persons started knocking the doors of the house of the accused calling the deceased with her name, due to which, the accused believed strongly that the deceased developed illegal intimacy with several others and decided to eliminate her. Accordingly, on the intervening night of 09/10-10- 2006 at about 0045 hours when the deceased along with her son P.W.2 was returning to the house after watching movie in Balaji Theatre, Siddipet, accused went behind them, caught hold of them in front of the cinema talkies and questioned her as to with whom she developed illegal intimacy and so saying accused pushed her down on the ground, beat her with hands. He picked up a granite stone and threw it on her head as a result of which she died on the spot. When, P.W.2 tried to interfere to rescue his mother, accused also pushed him aside. On the strength of the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased, Police registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 3) The investigation agency after completion of entire investigation and receiving necessary certificates filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the said charge sheet was numbered as P.R.C. No.14 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. 4) On committal of said P.R.C., the Court of Sessions registered the same as S.C.No.205 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and framed charge under Section 302 IPC, in which, the accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. 5) In order to prove the guilt of the accused, Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 apart from marking MOs 1 to 7. After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on appreciation of entire evidence, the learned Sessions Judge rendered the impugned judgment as stated above. 6) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 7) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and she set the law in motion on the basis of information given by P.W.2. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased, who claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. PWs 3 and 4 are the circumstantial witnesses. P.W.5 is the husband of the deceased. P.W.6 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the panch witness for scene of offence. P.W.8 is the witness to the confession of the accused. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 is the witness for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased and PWs 11 to 13 are the investigation officers. 8) P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, on information given by P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased, that when P.W.2 and deceased were returning from Balaji Talkies after witnessing movie ‘Stalin’, the accused waylaid the deceased, picked up a quarrel with her and thrown a stone on her head and thereby caused her death. Though P.W.1 set the law in motion on the basis of the information given by P.W.2, the name of P.W.2 is not found in the complaint lodged by P.W.1. If it is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence was informed to P.W.1 by P.W.2, necessarily the complaint lodged by P.W.1 should contain the name of P.W.2, but there is no mention regarding the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence in complaint. 9) In the present case, P.W.2 is the only eyewitness to the occurrence. He deposed that on the date of incident, while himself and his mother (deceased) were returning after witnessing cinema and when they reached near Balaji Talkies, accused obstructed them questioning the deceased as to with whom she was moving and when the deceased replied to the same, accused pushed her, picked up a boulder and beat on her head with boulder. Having afraid of the same, P.W.2 rushed to house of P.W.1 to bring her and by the time he reached the scene along with P.W.1 and other relatives, the deceased was found died and accused fled away. 10) Thus, according to the evidence of P.W.2, he left the place of occurrence after the quarrel started and when the accused pushed the deceased on the ground, which clearly shows that P.W.2 is also not an eyewitness to the occurrence. Even assuming for a moment that he is an eyewitness to the incident, he has not stated in his evidence any specific overt acts against the accused. 11) P.Ws.3 to 5 informed to the Court that they came to know about the occurrence and they are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. 12) The case of the Prosecution is mainly rests upon the evidence of P.W.2. But, the evidence of said witness i.e. P.W.2 is highly doubtful for the following reasons: a) he has not reported the matter to the Police even though he is aged about 16 years, b) he admitted in the cross examination that he has not prevented or intervened during the quarrel, c) he has not sustained any injuries during the quarrel and d) his presence was not mentioned by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1. 13) Further, it is also evident from the evidence adduced by doctor P.W.9 that the injury sustained by the deceased is possible due to fall on stone, which is shown as material object in the present case i.e. M.O.1. No bloodstained clothes or other incriminating objects were recovered from the possession of the accused pursuant to his confession. Hence, merely relying on other circumstances a conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant- accused is liable to be set aside. 14) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Siddipet in Sessions Case No.205 of 2007 on 11.07.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and he is acquitted for the said offence. Appellant-accused be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be returned to him. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 11th July, 2011 sur