Dandu Jaggaraju vs State Of A.P

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on record.

2. The deceased Varalakshmi who was a Kshatriya had married P.W. 1, a member of the Scheduled Castes, against the wishes of her family due to which her family had become annoyed with her. The annoyance was, particularly, felt by the appellant who was the Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 3 paternal uncle of the deceased. As per the prosecution story the appellant telephoned the deceased on the 14th of August, 2002, informing her that her grand mother was seriously ill and wanted to see her and that he would come to her village to pick her up later that day. He also told her that as he would not be able to locate her house somebody should be sent to the telephone booth of P.W. 4 to guide him. P.W. 2 thereupon sent her son P.W. 3 to the telephone booth of P.W. 4 and after a short while the appellant too arrived at the telephone booth and was brought to the house of the deceased. She introduced the appellant as her uncle to P.Ws. 2 and 3. The deceased, believing the information that her grand mother was sick, left with the appellant on his white coloured scooter leaving her young son with P.W. 2. P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, returned home from work late that evening and was told by P.Ws. 2 and 3 that his wife had gone with the appellant and had not returned since then. As the deceased did not return that evening or even the next day and as the efforts of P.W. 1 to search her out remained unsuccessful, he lodged a First Information Report on the 16th of August to the effect that his wife had left for the house of her relatives but had not been seen thereafter. The dead body of Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 4 the deceased was, however, recovered later that day, whereupon a second F.I.R. was recorded at the instance of P.W. 1 in which he, for the first time, expressed his suspicion that she had been taken away under a pretext by the appellant and thereafter killed. The appellant was, accordingly, arrested on the 7th September, 2002 and some of the jewellery that the deceased was said to be wearing at the time of her disappearance was recovered from his pockets. The dead body of the deceased was also subjected to a post mortem examination and it was revealed that she had died of asphyxia due to smothering as her chunni had been thrust into her mouth.

3. On the completion of the investigation, the appellant was brought to trial for offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1, the first informant and the husband of the deceased, P.W. 2 the house owner in which the deceased and P.W. 1 were living, P.W. 3 the son of P.W. 2 who stated that he had gone to the telephone booth of P.W. 4 and had brought the appellant to their house on the 14th of August, 2002 and P.W. 4 the telephone booth owner who deposed to the fact that the appellant had Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 5 come to the booth on the day in question where P.W. 3 had been waiting for him and thereafter gone along with him to the house of P.W. 2, P.W. 6 a press reporter and a colleague of P.W. 1 who had last seen the deceased and the appellant at the bus stand at Ravulapalem and as supported by the medical evidence and the recoveries of the ornaments from the appellant convicted him of the offences charged and sentenced him accordingly. The High Court has, in appeal, confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and the matter is before us after the grant of special leave.

9. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the judgments of the courts below cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and order the appellant's Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 9 acquittal. We are told that he is in custody. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

10. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.