IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL :1051of 2007 Between: State of A.P.,,rep. by its Public Prosecutor,, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.,., ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Puchakayala Ramanjineyulu,,S/o Late Venkataramudu, Chinnampalli Village,,Anantapur Rural Mandal., .....RESPONDENT(S) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (PER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU) This Criminal Appeal, by the State under Section 378 (3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment dated 15th December, 2004 in S.C.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ananthapur, whereunder and whereby, the sole respondent/accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC'). 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal may be stated as follows: Kamma Puchakayala Nallappa (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) is aged about 70 years and was doing milk business along with his second wife PW-1. One Jayamma is the first wife of the deceased. The accused is the grand-son of the deceased through his first wife. Three years prior to the incident, an amount of Rs.4,000/- was lent by the deceased to one PW-10 as a loan. The accused was a vagabond and he demanded the deceased to give the pro-note so as to recover the same from PW-10, but the deceased refused to handover the same. Three days prior to the incident, the accused threatened the deceased to handover the pro-note. As the deceased did not handover the pro-note, on 20- 04-2003 at about 3.00 a.m., at Chinnampalli village, the accused hacked the deceased with an axe on the chest and on the throat. Then the deceased raised cries and on hearing cries, PW-1 woke up and saw the accused standing with an axe and also dealt a blow on the deceased on his chest. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence after throwing the axe at a distance of 20 feet. She waited till 6 a.m. in the morning and went to the house of PW-11 who was the Panchayat Secretary and got drafted Ex.P-1 report. They both went to the Police Station and presented report before PW-15, who registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2003 under Section 302 of I.P.C. and issued express F.I.Rs. to all the concerned including the original First Information Report to the Court. On coming to know about the registration of the case, the Inspector of Police took up investigation and proceeded to the village and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and observed the scene of occurrence and seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased, bed sheets, pillow covers and also the axe. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cut laceration on the chest. The accused was arrested on 22-05-2003 and in pursuance of his confessional statement, his blood stained clothes namely Lungi and shirt were seized. The material objects have been forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and report. After receipt of report from Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following charge against the accused: That you the accused on the night of 21st day of April, 2003 at about 3.00 A.M. at Chinnampalli village, did commit murder intentionally causing the death of the deceased namely Kamma Puchakayala Nallappa, S/o.Late Pedda Venkatappa, aged 70 years, by hacking him with an axe on his throat, while the deceased was sleeping on the pial infront of his house, and that you there by committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 besides case property M.Os.1 to 11. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. The trial Court upon considering the evidence of PW-1 came to the conclusion that it is not safe to place any implicit reliance on the solitary testimony of PW-1 and accordingly acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the State preferred present appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt ? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW-1 is very clear that it is the accused who caused two injuries on the body of the deceased which resulted in his death, that the accused being a closely related to PW-1 and deceased, PW-1 would not have implicated the accused falsely leaving the real assailant, if really she has not witnessed the incident in question. That there is no other reason for PW-1 to foist a false case against the accused, that immediately within two or three hours of the incident, she went and narrated the incident to PW-11, who is the Panchayat Secretary and to the narration of PW-11, PW-1 drafted Ex.P-1 complaint, that they both went to Police Station and presented the same to PW-15 who registered a case and therefore, there are no suspicious circumstances in the evidence of prosecution to doubt the presence of PW-1 at the time of incident, that without assigning any reason the trial Court simply discarded the evidence of PW-1 and therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused contended that there is absolutely no motive for the accused to kill the deceased, that the motive as stated by PW-1 is that accused was demanding the pro-note from the deceased with a view to recover the amount due and the said pro- note was barred by limitation, that therefore, no useful purpose would be served even if the accused takes the pro-note from the deceased, that the presence of PW-1 appears to be doubtful, that according to her, her clothes were stained with blood when the accused hacked the deceased with an axe, but the Investigation Officer who visited the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, did not find any stains of blood on the clothes of PW-1, that it is not the case of PW-1 that she changed her clothes before the arrival of Police and therefore, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of PW-1 alone so as to base a conviction, that the arrest of the accused and recovery of Lungi and the shirt M.Os.10 and 11 respectively do not indicate that those blood stains were that of the deceased, that there are absolutely no other evidence to show that the accused is assailant of the deceased, that the trial court after elaborate consideration of evidence on record rightly found the accused not guilty and there are no compelling or substantial reason so as to interfere with the well reasoned judgment. 10. PW-14 is the Inspector of Police who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-11 in the presence of PW-11. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased was murdered with an axe. PW-11 also stated that in his presence Police completed inquest. 11. PW-12 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found the following two injuries: 1. A cut laceration of 7 x 3 cm bone deep is present on the left side of front of chest at upper part on inner end of left collar bone. Margins are babraded and contused. Left sterno clavicular joint fractured and dislocated. Fracture bone edges blood stained. A cut laceration of 5 x 2 x 1½ cm is present on the anterior aspect of apex of left lung. Wound filled with blood clots. 2. A bone deep cut laceration of 7 x 2 cm is present on left side of front of chest 6 cm below and outer to injury No.1 and 6 cms above the nipple in 3rd inter costal space placed across the chest. The margins are abraded and contused. 2nd and 3rd fractured in mid clavicular line. Fractured edges are blood strained. A cut laceration of 6 x 2 x 2 ½ cm is present on the upper lobe of left lung on its anterior aspect. Left thorasic cavity contained 2500 cc of blood and blood clots. He opined that the deceased appear to have been died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of cut laceration on the chest and he issued Ex.P-12 postmortem examination certificate. Practically the evidence of PW-12 and the recitals of Ex.P-12 remained un-challenged. Therefore, the medical evidence leaves no room to doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now it has to be seen whether the accused is the assailant of the deceased or not? 13. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though the Appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 14. The entire case rests on the evidence of PW-1 alone. PWs.2 to 10 turned hostile. Even PWs.2 to 10 were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court after taking permission from the Court nothing has been elicited in their evidence so as to connect the accused with the charge leveled against him. When a case rests upon the solitary evidence of a witness, it must be true, trustworthy, convincing and un-impeachable. When evidence of solitary witness is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty in accepting the evidence of solitary witness to base a conviction on the accused. On this aspect it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in VADIVELU THEVAR V THE STATE OF MADRAS [1], wherein it was held thus: “Generally speaking oral testimony in this context may be classified into these categories, namely: (i) Wholly reliable (ii) Wholly unreliable (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach on suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.” 15. Bearing the above principle in mind it has to be seen whether PW-1 can be put in the category of wholly reliable or not. PW-1 is no other than the wife of the deceased. There is no doubt about the scene of occurrence. The incident has taken place in the verandah of the house of the deceased in Chinnampalli village. According to PW-1, she was sleeping along with her husband at the time of incident. Though there are other rooms in the house, but her contention is that she was sleeping in the verandah. The motive as spoken to by otherwise is that prior to the incident, the accused was demanding the deceased to give the pro-note whereunder the deceased lent an amount of Rs.4,200/- under original of Ex.P-16 to PW-10. PW-10 did not support the case of the prosecution, as he stated that he did not borrow amount from the deceased. Even assuming for a moment that the deceased lent an amount of Rs.4,200/- to PW-10 as seen from Ex.P-16 pro-note, there was endorsement of a part payment of Rs.3,000/- on 04-01- 1997 and remaining amount due was Rs.2,500/-. 16. As on the date of the incident, the debt due to the deceased by PW-10 was barred by limitation. PW-1 stated that on 20-04- 2003, the accused threatened to kill the deceased if the pro-note was not handed over to him. Deceased has not handed over the pronote. This evidence of PW-1 cannot be accepted, as the prudent man demands a pronote barred by limitation. Therefore, there would not be any useful purpose derived by the accused in insisting the deceased to hand over the original of Ex.P-16. The amount recoverable under the original of Ex.P-16 is negligible. Therefore, that cannot be the immediate motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. No doubt motive is not an integral part of the crime, but it is only aid and assessment of the criminality. The proof of motive lends assurance to the case of the prosecution. Absence or non-proof of motive by itself is not a ground to acquit accused. Coming to the actual incident, the incident alleged to have been taken place at about 2.00 a.m. If really PW-1 was sleeping along with the deceased, her clothes must have been stained with blood, as there was a possibility of spilling of blood of deceased. As a matter of fact PW-1 also stated that her clothes namely saree and jacket were stained with blood. It is not her case that before arrival of Police, she changed her clothes and worn different clothes. The evidence of PW-14 is to the effect that when he visited scene of occurrence he did not find any bloodstains on the clothes of PW-1 and therefore, he did not seize the clothes. This circumstance would give rise to a suspicion whether PW-1 was really sleeping at the time of incident along with the deceased in the verandah of the house. Further more, if really she was present at the time of incident, she would have raised cries drawing the attention of the neighbours including the other family members residing in the same house. No doubt other family members and neighbours rushed to the scene of offence, but at the same time the other witnesses have completely given a go by to their earlier version as stated to Police during the course of investigation. Therefore, except solitary evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence. 17. Further more, if really the accused is the assailant of the deceased and his shirt and lungi were stained with blood of the deceased, certainly Serologist would have noticed the same group of blood of the deceased. When the wearing apparel of the deceased was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, the Serologist found ‘B’ group of blood on the clothes of the deceased, but whereas no such group of blood was noticed on M.Os.10 and 11 which are the clothes of accused. Except the solitary evidence of PW-1 there are no other circumstances at all to show or infer that the accused is assailant of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be put in the category of wholly reliable. Hence, her evidence requires corroboration. But such supporting evidence is lacking in this case. We are unable to place an implicit reliance to the evidence of PW-1 alone to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the reason why the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling and substantial reason so as to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal under challenge is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 15-12-2005 in S.C.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Division, Anantapur. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J ________________​____​_________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J January 20, 2011 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1051 of 2007 (JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU) January 20, 2011 [1] AIR 1957 SC 614