Case: Duvvur Dasratharamma Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

3. The deceased Adepareddi was a ryot of Varagali owing five acres of land irrigated by pumpset. He was aged about 60 years and he was living in his village with his wife P.W. 3, aged about 40 years, two daughters, P. Ws. 4 and 5, and his two young sons. One K. Ramireddi, a cousin brother of the deceased was also living along with the family in the same house. P.W. 5, the eldest daughter of the deceased had been married to the appellant about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident and he was also staying with the deceased as his Illatamand helping the deceased in his agricultural operations. There was two servants P. Ws. 1 and 2, who were also staying in the house. P.W. 1 was looking after the cattle of the deceased and P.W. 2 was attending to cultivation under the direction and control of the deceased and the appellant. It may be mentioned that P.W. 1 belonged to the village of the appellant and he came over to the house of the deceased along with the appellant when he was married.4. According to the prosecution the appellant was in illicit intimacy with hisP.W. 3 and in consequence there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and histhe deceased. After quarrelling, every time the deceased used to leave the house and stay elsewhere for a short time and later on return to the house. On May 9, 1969, one Kesareddi Adepareddi, a casteman of the deceased died in the village and the deceased was requested by his relations to come and light the funeral pyre. The deceased was inclined to agree to the request, but the appellant objected to the same. The deceased yielded to the appellants protest and he merely attended the funeral of Kesareddi Adepareddi and came back to the house. After taking food in the night at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m., the deceased, as usual, left his house to sleep in the field which was about 1 1/2 miles from the village. When the deceased was leaving the house, the appellant seems to have angrily demanded for payment of the price realised by the sale of groundnut and the deceased replied that he would go to another village, collect the money and give it to the appellant.5. After the deceased left the house for his field, the appellant is stated to have asked P.W. 1 to accompany him to the field to kill hisP.W. 1 refused to accompany him. The appellant went inside the house and came out with an axe and left the house with P.W. 2. The appellant, after going to the field, is stated to have given a blow on the head of the deceased with the axe and end P.W. 2 attempted to run away from the scene, he was brought back by the accused with the threat that he too will meet the same end. P.W. 2 came back and saw the appellant digging a pit and burying the body of the deceased. Both the appellant and P.W. 2 came back to the house sometime in the midnight and put the axe inside the house.6. P.W. 1 when he went to the field next morning to attend to the agricultural operations, he found blood near the cot where the deceased used to sleep and also saw a new mound in the field. He became suspicious and he asked the accused about the mound which was not there the previous day. The accused threatened P.W. 1 by saying that he would be killed if he mentioned to anybody about what he had seen or what be knew.7. P.W. 3 after a few days, finding that her husband had not come back to the house, asked her daughter P.W. 5 to write to her uncle in another village, who came and informed them some days afterwards that the deceased has not come to his village. In the meanwhile there were rumours in the village that the appellant had murdered hisand buried him in his field. P.W. 7, the father of P.W. 2 on hearing about the rumours, asked her son (P.W. 2) about the matter, and he mentioned to her that the appellant had killed hisand that he has threatened to kill him also if he disclosed the fact to any one. One hearing about this, P.W. 7 went and informed the widow of the deceased P.W. 3. P.W. 1 was attempted to be beaten by the appellant a few days after the incident for stealing groundnuts and therefore he went and mentioned to a friend of his P.W. 6 about the appellant having murdered hissome days back. On the suggestion of P.W. 6, P.W. 1 went and gave the report Ex.P. 1 to the village Munsif P.W. 9, on July 1, 1969. In Ex.P. 1, P.W. 1 has stated that he was an employee of the deceased and that on the night when his master died, the appellant wanted P.W. 1 to accompany him to kill hisand bury his body in the field. It is further stated that P.W. 1 declined to accompany the appellant and it was only on the next morning that he wason the cot on which the deceased used to sleep and he also saw a freshly erected mound. As the appellant threatened him that he too will meet the same fate, he has no mentioned the same to anybody so far.

Court's reasoning:
For all these reasons, the counsel pointed out, that there is a grave doubt created regarding truth about the prosecution evidence and the appellant must be given the benefit of the same.We have given out careful consideration to the various aspects placed before us by the learned counsel on both the sides as also the reasons given by the High Court for agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. We are of the opinion that though there may be a very strong suspicion against the appellant, it cannot be stated, in the circumstances of this case, that the prosecution has proved the crime as against the appellant beyond all reasonablethese circumstances, which have not been noted by the two courts clearly indicate that P.W. 1 is not a truthful witness, and there is a considerable doubt caused in the case of theeven if there was any threat by the appellant it must have vanished after the witness left the service and nothing prevented him from mentioning about the incident to any of the villagers, or even to the police authorities. On the other hand, he does nothing of the sort and it is only after four or five weeks after the incident, when his mother P.W. 7 asked him about the rumours in the village that he mentioned to her for the first time that the appellant had murdered hisThe witness does not strike to be a very truthful witness and what part he had in the death of the old man is a mystery. Both the High Court and the learned Sessions Judge have not given due importance to some of the aspects mentioned above and they have merely accepted as true his evidence as if he is an independentonly shows the very scanty regard that P.W. 3 had regarding the existence of the deceased. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have stated that on the night in question, the appellant took the axe and left the house with P.W. 2 saying that he is going to the field and that he came back at about midnight or 1 a.m. Their evidence gives an impression that nobody in that house appears to be sleeping because all of them are awake the whole of the night at the material time to see the appellant going out of the house and coming back though very late in the night or even early nextevidence regarding this confession stated to have been made to P.Ws. 3 and 5 is very artificial and cannot be acted upon. Their evidence does not appear to be true. The High Court was not justified in acting on the basis that the appellant had made any confession to P.Ws. 3 and 5. Their evidence appears to be somewhat unusual and mechanical. They did not evince any anxiety about the whereabouts of the deceased after he failed to return the house within a reasonable time. In view of the above circumstances, it is no safe to place reliance on their evidence. Even otherwise their evidence regarding the appellant going out of the house for the purpose of watching the theft of mangoes by itself will not implicate the appellant in anyadditional circumstance again strengthens the doubt that already exists in the case of the prosecution. In one the case of the prosecution regarding the offence of murder is not accepted, it follows that the appellant cannot be convicted for the officer under Section 201, I.P.C., either because the evidence relating to that offence is common.25. Though normally this Court does notthe evidence, which has been accepted concurrently by the two courts, in view of the strong suspicious circumstance, pointed out above, regarding the truth of the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 to 5, we have considered it necessary in the interest of justice to consider their evidence more critically.26. For the above reason we are on the opinion that it cannot be said that the prosecution has been proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.