Case: Mondri Sreenu Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

the appellant who are independent witnesses, to a large extent, supported the prosecution case. The strained relationship between appellant and the deceased must be held to have been proved. PW-2 who is the wife of the appellant, had completely supported the prosecution case in that regard. The prosecution case must also be considered from another angle. PW-6, although is a resident of Chinthalagudem Village, who had been earning his livelihood by working as a mason, used to visit Bhadrachalam. He found the appellant talking with his brother at Bhupathiraopeta Colony at about 7.30 P.M. on 22.10.1999. Appellant made an extra judicial confession before him. The reason that the deceased did not allow him to live with his wife (PW-2) was said to be the reason for commission of the offence. It was at that point of time he caught hold of appellant and handed him over to the S.H.O. of the Bhadrachalam Police Station. Yet again in the Police Station, the appellant made a confession. Apart from the Investigating Officer (PW-18), a confession was also made before PW-14 Yalam Kondal Rao, a resident of Bhadrachalam. Appellant did not raise any contention that he did not make any extra judicial confession or a confession before the Judicial Officer as also before the PW-14. Indisputably, he was produced before the Mandal Officer. The investigation of the case was taken up by PW-18 Devadas. He produced the appellant before the Mandal Magistrate R. Veera Reddy on 4.11.1999. His statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chowdhary that PW-15 Veera Reddy did not comply with the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.P.C. may not be of much significance. Bhadrachalam falls within a scheduled area in the State of A.P. The State of A.P., this Court can take judicial notice, had not extended the provisions of the new Cr.P.C. to the scheduled areas of the State of A.P. This fact would be evident from the fact that appellant was examined in terms of Section 342 of old Cr.P.C. As there is no separation of the Judicial and Executive Officers, appellant was produced before the Executive Officer for recording his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As the provisions of the old Code were applicable, the precautions which were required to be taken in terms of Section 164 of the 1973 Code were not complied with. Be that as it may, appellant never retracted the said confession. A statement made by the accused under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is admissible in evidence. Apart from the judicial confession, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant has also made extra judicial confession before PW-6. PW-17 Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam, who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body of Chandramma, found the following ante-mortem injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 2 cms. over the forehead. 2. Loss of right eye-ball. 3. Lacerated would 3 x 4 x 1 cms. over dorsal aspect of left foot. 4. Lacerated would 3 x 1 x 1 cms. over left side of abdomen. 5. Abrasion 3 x 2 cms. over right elbow region. 6. Contusion 5 x 6 cms. on right temporal region. 7. Contusion 3 x 3 cms. over right cheek. The said Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi was examined as PW-17. In her deposition before the learned Sessions Judge, she categorically stated that those ante-mortem injuries were possible to have been caused by a blunt object like stone or stick. She found a fracture of ribs on the right side of the deceased, as a result of which a laceration of the right lung was found to be present. She also found 300 CC fluids blood in the right plural cavity, ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, congestion and haemorrhage by the side of the ligature mark and sub-dural haemotoma on right temporal region. In the aforementioned background, PW-1 had not been able to specifically state the cause of death and he must be held to be a truthful witness. The exact cause of the death of the deceased, thus, in the aforementioned situation could not have been certain to a layman, like PW-1 and other witnesses. It may be true that the stone was found in an open place. But unless and until the site thereof was pointed out, as the Investigating Officer (PW-18) categorically stated, he could not have identified the weapon which was used for commission of the offence. It was found to be blood stained. Apart from the stone, a stick was also pointed out by the appellant which led to its discovery. It is, therefore, not a case where the Courts below could have totally ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore, although not strictly admissible, even a confession was made by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one Seetha Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in dispute.Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the last seen theory propounded by the prosecution cannot be relied upon, is, in our opinion, not of much substance. It has not been denied or disputed that the brothers of PW-1, namely, Batta Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had lands by the side of the land of the deceased and PW-1. PW-3 in his statement, categorically stated that although appellant and the deceased were found to be quarrelling with each other, he ignored the same as that had become almost a routine affair. He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the field only in the evening.Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other prosecution witnesses whose independence is not in question, also proved the presence of appellant near the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.According to the post-mortem report, that was the probable period during which the offence is said to have been committed. For the reasons aforementioned, we

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is, therefore, not a case where the Courts below could have totally ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore, although not strictly admissible, even a confession was made by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one Seetha Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in dispute.Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the last seen theory propounded by the prosecution cannot be relied upon, is, in our opinion, not of much substance. It has not been denied or disputed that the brothers of PW-1, namely, Batta Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had lands by the side of the land of the deceased and PW-1. PW-3 in his statement, categorically stated that although appellant and the deceased were found to be quarrelling with each other, he ignored the same as that had become almost a routine affair. He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the field only in the evening.Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other prosecution witnesses whose independence is not in question, also proved the presence of appellant near the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.According to the post-mortem report, that was the probable period during which the offence is said to have been committed.