HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Between:
Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2010 Dated: 21.04.2014 Ankireddi Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu … Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by PP. High Court, Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the VII-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. He was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., alleging that he caused the death of his wife – Ankireddy Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on 26-01-2009.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as under:-
The accused and the deceased were married in May, 1997 and they are blessed with a son. They led happy marital life for six months and thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased. This was aggravated after the accused developed illicit intimacy with Nagireddi Kumari (PW.8). The deceased was living separately and she filed a coplaint against the accused, which was pending trial in C.C.No.251 of 2006 in a Court at Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the accused was insisting the deceased to withdraw the case but the latter was insisting that she do so, if only the accused discontinues his intimacy with PW.8.
It is further alleged that on 23-01-2009, the deceased and the accused attended the Court and once again the accused repeated his request for withdrawal of the case, and the deceased did not agree. After the hearing, the accused returned to Ramayyapatnam village where the deceased was living, but the deceased did not turn up till the next day afternoon.
On 26-01-2009, the deceased telephoned the accused to come to Tuni. Accordingly, the accused came to Tuni at about 01.00 p.m., and both of them came to Narsipatnam Road Railway Station. They remained on the platform from 02.30 p.m., till 06.00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased asked the accused to go back to Gajuwaka since her mother will not tolerate if the accused comes to their village Ramayyapatnam. The accused followed the deceased on the plea of dropping her at Ramayyapatnam, but on the way, in the vacant agricultural land, the accused caught hold of the deceased from behind and put pressure on her throat with his right forehand, which resulted in her death.
Next day morning, the dead body was noticed and PW.1, the elder sister of the deceased, visited the place and identified the same to be that of her deceased sister.
Complaint – Ex.P.1 was lodged at 10.00 a.m., before S.Rayavaram Police Station, which was registered as Cr.No.13 of 2009 and the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police – PW.10. Scene of offence was visited, photographs were taken, observation report was prepared, inquest over the dead body was held, and the body was sent for post-mortem examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 29-01-2009, the accused was apprehended, and he confessed having committed the crime, and from his possession, M.O.7 – Ragi Kadiyam was seized. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. Cognizance was taken and the case was tried as S.C.No.68 of 2009 by the Court of VII-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C., was framed and on the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10, Exs.P.1 to P.13 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were taken on record. The accused denied the incriminating evidence when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but did not adduce any defence of his own. Through its Judgment, dated 21-12-2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the accused submits that there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that the accused caused the death of his wife. He contends that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the solitary circumstance relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the trial Court is the last seen theory, which is based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and that the said evidence is neither consistent nor reliable. It is further argued that the prosecution witnesses, who claim to have seen the accused and the deceased together for the last time, were strangers and their identification of the accused, for the first time in the Court cannot be treated as valid and that the trial Court has erred in relying upon their evidence in finding the appellant, guilty.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained and the prosecution has adduced the evidence to show that the accused was having a live in relationship with PW.8 and they also had a son. She contends that it is established that the deceased filed a case against the accused, which was pending trial. It is further submitted by her that the motive for the accused to commit the crime is the refusal of the deceased to withdraw the case pending in the Court. It is also contended that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the accused was insisting for withdrawing the case and the deceased was refusing and the independent witnesses speak about the accused and the deceased being seen together on the platform of the railway station. It is argued that the circumstantial evidence on the theory of ‘last seen together’ has been proved by the prosecution by examining P.Ws.3 to 5, and that within 12 hours after, the deceased and the accused were last seen together, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the fields nearby the railway station. She submits that the evidence on record was properly appreciated by the trial Court and the conviction and sentence ordered by it need not be set aside.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction, or whether it needs to be set aside, modified, or varied?
7. Point: The case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence. The relationship between the deceased and the accused is not denied. They were married in May, 1997 and they had a son. It is also not denied that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained to the extent of the deceased-wife filing a criminal case against the accused, which was pending trial. The prosecution placed sufficient material to show that on 23-01-2009, there was hearing of the case, the accused and the deceased appeared before the Court and after the case was adjourned, the accused proceeded to Ramayyapatnam, the village where the deceased was living with her parents. However, till about the afternoon of 24-01-2009, the deceased did not reach the home. It is also in the evidence that after the deceased returned, the accused and the deceased again started quarrelling on the issue of withdrawal of the case and the deceased was refusing to withdraw in spite of the persistent demand of the accused. The evidence also shows that the accused was living with PW.8 and they had a son.
8. The case of the prosecution is that on 26-01-2009, the accused called the deceased to Tuni for discussion, the deceased went there, both of them came to Narsipatnam road railway station, and on the platform, they stayed from 2.30 p.m., to 06.00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased wanted to return to her village Ramayyapatnam, and she asked the accused to go to Gajuwaka. On the pretext of dropping the deceased near Ramayyapatnam, the accused followed her, and in an isolated place near the railway station, the accused is alleged to have throttled the deceased by pressing her neck.
9. The fact that the deceased met homicidal death and the dead body was found in the morning of 27-01-2009 in the fields, is established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and of the investigating officer. The cause of death, mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex.P.2 is asphyxia due to pressure on the neck. PW.6, the Medical Officer, certified the authenticity of the same.
10. The emphasis of the prosecution is that the prosecution witnesses have seen the deceased and the accused together, on the platform of Narsipatnam road railway station till about 06.00 p.m., on 26-01-2009, and thereafter, both of them left that place. Next day morning, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the adjacent agricultural fields. Except for this circumstance, no other link, in the chain of circumstantial evidence has been established. The evidence on this aspect comprises of the depositions of P.Ws.1 to 5.
P.Ws.1 and 2 are the sisters of the deceased. They spoke about the stained relationship between the deceased and the accused. They also deposed to the fact that the accused was having illicit intimacy with PW.8, which, admitted by PW.8 herself. It is also in their evidence that on 26-01-2009, the accused and the deceased were together. However, they do not know as to what happened thereafter. They are not the persons who have seen the accused and the deceased together for the last time. As per their evidence, the accused and the deceased were together more than 24 hours prior to the dead body being found. The material evidence is that of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5.
PW.3 is an auto driver and he deposed that on 26-01-2009, he has seen the accused standing at Narsipatnam road railway station. He further deposed that when he questioned the accused as to why he standing there, he informed him that he sent his wife and he is proceeding towards Gajuwaka. PW.3 further deposed that he asked the accused to board his auto, but the accused refused and went away from there.
PW.4 is an agriculturist of Ramayyapatnam village. He deposed that on 26-01-2009 in the night, when he was proceeding from railway station towards Ramayyapatnam village, he has seen the accused standing near pan shop. He questioned the accused as to why he was standing there, and the accused replied that he went to the village Ramayyapatnam but his wife is not there.
PW.5 is another agriculturist of Pettugollapalli village. He deposed that on 26-01-2009, he has seen the accused and the deceased quarrelling from 02.00 p.m., to 06.00 p.m. He further deposed that he has seen the accused and the deceased grappling together on the platform. It is further in the evidence of PW.5 that the accused and the deceased were together till about 08.00 p.m.
11. On a careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, what could be gathered is that the accused and the deceased were together in the railway station till about 06.00 p.m., or 07.00 p.m., on 26-01-2009. The dead body of the deceased was found at 07.00 a.m., on 27-01-2009, in the adjacent agricultural lands. Immediately after the dead body was found, the inquest panchanama Ex.P.4 was conducted. At that time, the statements of the blood relations and the eye-witnesses were recorded. PW.3 claims himself to be a panch witness for the inquest panchanama. Similarly, P.Ws.4 and 5 also claim that they were present at the time of inquest panchanama being prepared. At the time of inquest, in Col.No.X-A it is mentioned that the accused and the deceased were found altercating on the platform and thereafter, the accused was found loitering around the area. These three witnesses have not produced any satisfactory basis to show their presence in the evening of 26-01-2009. PW.3, who claims to be the auto driver, admitted that he did not have any license to drive the auto. PW.4, who is said to be in the pan shop where the accused was seen loitering, admitted in the across-examination that he does not know the owner of the pan shop. PW.5 is a resident of altogether a different village viz., Pettugollapalli and he is an agriculturist. He claims to have gone to the railway station two times for taking water, and at that time, he has seen the accused and the deceased together.
12. The accused and the deceased were present on 23-01-2009 at Visakhapatnam in relation to a case between them. After the case was adjourned, the accused came to Ramayyapatnam village, where the deceased was living, on the same day afternoon but the deceased returned to the village only on 27-01-2009 afternoon i.e., 24 hours thereafter. There is no explanation forthcoming as to where the deceased gone and stayed for one day after attending the Court at Visakhapatnam.
13. The time gap between the accused and the deceased being seen together and the dead body being found, is too wide. It is difficult to believe that between 07.00 p.m., on 26-01-2009 and 07.00 a.m., on 27-01-2009, the deceased has met none other than the accused. The evidence on record, at best, raises a suspicion against the accused but as is well-known, suspicion, how-so-much strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution failed to prove that just before being killed, the accused and the deceased were together. The alleged place of offence is the adjacent agricultural fields and it is in the evidence of PW.5 that it was the agricultural season. It is pertinent to note that the land, where the dead body of the deceased was found lying dead, belongs to Kosuri Appalanaidu, who is the husband of PW.2, the sister of the deceased.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is therefore entitled to the benefit thereof. The point is accordingly answered.
15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the VII- Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) , Visakhapatnam, dated 21-12-2009, against the appellant/ accused, are set aside. The appellant-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other criminal case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.
L.Narasimha Reddy,J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Dt.21.04.2014
smr
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.344 of 2010 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) Dated: 21.04.2014
Smr