IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELENGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2010
Between:
Rajendra Suresh And The State of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
Appellant/Accused Respondent/Complainant THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri GC, J)
The sole accused in S.C. No.627 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, is the appellant herein. He was charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 379 IPC., for allegedly killing the deceased at about 9.30 am., on 05.05.2008 at his house. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
2. The case of the prosecution leading to the conviction is as follows:
One Nomula Lakshmi Srichandrika, deceased, is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, N.Suryanarayana and N.Suseela, respectively, of Narasaraopet. The deceased is the only child to P.Ws.1 and 2.
The accused, Rajendra Suresh, belongs to Tamil Nadu, and he was working in Saree Printing Unit of P.Ws.1 and 2 by the time of occurrence of incident. P.Ws.1 and 2 allowed the accused to live in the ground floor of their old abandoned house situated in Narasaraopet town itself.
The up-stair portion of the said house was vacant. As the accused was negligent in discharging his duties, P.Ws.1 and 2 terminated his services one day prior to the incident and asked him to vacate the house.
Due to that, he bore grudge and picked up quarrel with them.
3. The deceased used to move freely with the accused.
On 05.05.2008, while she was playing in the street along with children, at about 9.30 am., the accused took her into his house, played with her for some time, and later on dipped her in the water tub situated in the portion of his house and when she lost her breathe, he took her to the up-stair abandoned portion of the house, removed her clothes and kept her dead body in the cup board in the same condition. He kept her wet clothes by the side of cup board. He removed a pair of gold bangles from her hands, and silently went away by locking the house. As the deceased did not return to the house, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with other relatives searched for her. When they were searching for her, the accused came to them and took the cycle of P.W.1 on the pretext that he would also search for the missing girl, but did not return ultimately. Then P.W.6, K.Venkateswara Rao, who supplies milk to P.Ws.1 and 2, searched the up-stair portion of the residential house of the accused, and found the dead body of the deceased in a cup board, in a naked condition and immediately informed the same to P.W.3, N.Krishna Murthy, who is the cousin brother of P.W.1. He in turn informed the same to P.Ws.1 and 2 over phone and took the deceased to a local hospital where doctors examined her and declared her dead.
4. On 05.05.2008 at about 11 p.m., P.W.1 presented Ex.P-1, report to P.W.13, B.Koteswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Town P.S., about the occurrence. P.W.13 registered the case and investigated into it. On 06.05.2008 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.13 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, took sample of water from the tub, which is in the house of the accused. He also collected water from the clothes of the deceased girl into a bottle by squeezing them for the purpose of examination. He seized the clothes of the deceased girl under cover of mediator report. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and got it photographed. At the same time, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and sent it to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet for post-mortem examination.
He examined witnesses and recorded their statements.
5. On 15.05.2008 at about 2 p.m., he arrested the accused near Navarang talkies of Vijayawada in the presence of mediators, P.W.1, interrogated him and recorded his confessional statement. Based on his confession, he seized one pair of gold bangles, stolen from the hands of the deceased girl, from the jewellery shop of P.W.7, G.Venkata Rama Mohan Rao of Narasaraopet under cover of mediator report.
On the same day at about 7.30 p.m., he also seized the cycle of P.W.1, which was kept by the accused in the premises of Ravi Kalamandir theatre of Narasaraopet, at about 9 p.m., in the presence of mediators under cover of mediator report. Then he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. In the identification test conducted, P.Ws.1 and 2 identified the recovered gold bangles as belonging to the deceased. The Sub Inspector of Police also sent material objects collected to RFSL., Guntur through Court along with a letter of advice. P.W.12, Dr.M.Gopi Naik, who conducted post- mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased opined that she died of asphyxia as a result of drowning. Hence, the Police filed the charge.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 and M.Os. 1 to 6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he neither killed the deceased nor relieved of her gold bangles and that, Police falsely implicated him in this case.
8. Based on the above, the learned trial Court framed the following points for its determination.
“1. Whether the accused committed the murder of the deceased Nomula Lakshmi Srichandrika, who is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 on 5.5.2008 in his house portion at Ayyappa Street of Narasaraopet?
2. Whether the accused having committed the murder of the deceased Nomula Lakshmi Srichandrika, theft of pair of her gold bangles?”
9. The learned trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and accordingly, convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted under Section 379 IPC., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and also fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Except the sentence imposed in default of payment of fine, remaining sentences shall run concurrently. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 15.04.2009, preferred the present appeal challenging its validity and legality.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that it is a case of no evidence and based on circumstantial evidence and applying the principle of last seen theory, the learned trial Court convicted the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal. In support of her case, she placed reliance in the case of GOTTE PEDDULU v. STATE OF A.P., REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH
[1]
COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD and submitted that merely because two persons were found together at a particular time and some time thereafter one of them is found dead, inevitable conclusion is not that the other is the author of the crime and therefore, benefit of doubt could be given to the accused. She further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to see that there was long time gap for last seen theory and it ought to have seen that M.O.5 bangles were planted subsequently to implicate the accused in this case and the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the recoveries established the case. The learned trial Court convicted the accused based on last seen theory but failed to find inconsistency in statements of witnesses. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a heinous crime of killing five years old girl for taking revenge against her parents. Though there is no direct eye witness in this case circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution suffice to say that the author of the crime is none other than the accused. He further submitted that P.W.4 in his evidence categorically stated that on the fateful day of incident at about 10 or 10.30 a.m., while he was going to his shop through the street in front of the house of P.W.1, he had seen the accused taking the deceased girl along with him into his house and on the same day evening, he learnt about her death and the presence of her dead body in the cup board of the house of the accused.
P.W.5 also deposed in her evidence that on the date of occurrence at about 10.30 a.m., while she was sitting in front of her house, she saw the accused taking the deceased along with him. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased girl went out of the house on the date of occurrence at about 9 or 9.30 a.m., for playing and ultimately did not return to the house on that day and P.Ws.4 and 5 in their evidence have categorically said that they have seen the deceased girl in the company of the accused and his taking her into his house. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Further, the learned trial Court rightly considered the entire evidence on record and found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him and therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment and therefore, no interference of this Court is required and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. The plea of the accused is one of denial and therefore, the point for consideration is Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside or modified?
13. This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the acquaintance between the accused and the deceased, the prosecution relied on evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Yet another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the factum of the house wherein the dead body of the deceased was found on that day night being in possession of the accused.
14. P.W.1, Nomula Suryanarayana, the father of the deceased, deposed that the accused used to work under his wife by residing in their house. His wife weaves clothes. On 05.05.2008 the deceased went out of his house at about 10.30 or 11 a.m., for playing and did not return to the house by 9.30 p.m. He along with others i.e. P.Ws.3, 6 and one N.Sankar and other family members went in search of deceased. While so, P.W.6, who supplies milk to them searched for the deceased in their old house and found the dead body of the deceased in one of the cup boards of the house. He immediately came down and informed the same to P.W.3 and took the deceased to the hospital of Dr.Nageswararao of Narasaraopet. As he was informed over telephone he also went to the hospital. The doctor examined the girl and declared her dead then they brought the dead body to their house. He further deposed that as whereabouts of the girl were not known the accused took his cycle saying that he would search for the deceased and did not return till 9.30 p.m., and he telephoned from somewhere to his wife and asked her whether the girl was traced. When his wife questioned him as to where he was he stated that he was taking dinner in Kerala hotel and when he went to that hotel the accused was not there. Then he informed the Sub Inspector of Police about the missing of the deceased vide Ex.P-1.
15. P.W.2, Nomula Suseela, mother of the deceased, deposed that the accused used to do weaving work in their house. On 05.05.2008 at 10 a.m., the accused came to work in their loom, as his work was not satisfactory she asked him not to come to work. About 20 days prior to that day she engaged Bengali workers. Their work was satisfactory. When the accused questioned her as to why discontinued his services, she told that their work is far better than his work. He owed some amount to her and she asked him to pay back that amount and vacate their house. The accused picked up quarrel with her but her family members intervened and sent the accused away asking him to pay the amount and vacate the house. The accused went away around 10.30 a.m. Immediately after that the deceased was missing. She telephoned to her husband, P.W.1, and informed him that the deceased was not available in the house. P.W.1 and other relatives searched for her but in vain. Around 12.10 or 12.30 p.m., the accused came to their house and enquired as to what had happened and they told him that the girl is missing. Promising to search for the girl he took their cycle. Around 9.30 p.m., P.W.6 came to their house and enquired what had happened and they informed him that the girl is missing and also told him that the accused who was residing in their old house also went in search of the deceased. Then P.W.6, opened the lock, put up by the accused to their old house while he was leaving, searched the same and found the dead body of the deceased in a cup board. He immediately informed the same to her brother- in-law, P.W.3, and he in turn informed to them.
It is also deposed that she informed her husband through phone.
Then he also came and all of them took the deceased to the hospital of Dr.Nageswararao. The doctor examined the child and declared her dead. Then they brought back the dead body to their house. As soon as they returned to their house, the accused telephoned to their land line and enquired whether the deceased girl was traced. Without giving answer she questioned about his whereabouts. He told that he was taking dinner in Kerala hotel. Immediately herself and her husband went there and found him missing. The accused killed the deceased and secreted her dead body in a cup board of their house. She noticed that the gold bangles were missing from the hands of the deceased girl. Her husband gave report to Police and Police also examined her about the occurrence.
16. P.W.3, Nomula Krishna Murthy, deposed that on 05.05.2008 around 12 noon some one telephoned to him and informed that the deceased was missing from the house. Then himself and P.W.1 started searching for the deceased with the assistance of others. P.W.6, who also searched for the girl in the II floor of the house belonging to P.W.1 came to him within ten minutes and informed that the dead body of the deceased was found in the shelf in the I floor of the house. Himself, P.W.2 and the other relatives went upstairs of P.W.1’s house, saw the dead body in the cup board. It was in a naked condition.
The clothes of the girl were aside. Immediately they took her to Dr.Nageswararao’s hospital. Doctor examined and declared her dead.
17. P.W.4, Sk.China Mahaboob Subhani, who is Goldsmith by profession, deposed that on 05.05.2008 at about 10 or 10.30 a.m., he was going to his shop through the house of P.W.1. At the same time, he had seen the accused taking the deceased along with him into the house where he was residing. At about 9.30 p.m., he came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found in a cup board. Immediately, he went and saw the dead body.
18. P.W.5, G.Audi Lakshmi, who is neighbour to P.Ws.1 and 2, deposed that on 05.05 2008 morning at about 10.30 a.m., while she was sitting in front of her house, the accused took the deceased along with him and thought that he was taking her for playing. In the afternoon, she was told that the girl was missing. P.Ws.1 and 2 and other relatives searched for her and traced her dead body in the first floor of the second house of P.W.1 in a cup board about 9.30 p.m., and she went and saw the dead body.
19. P.W.6, K.Venkateswararao, deposed that his house is neighbouring house of P.Ws.1 and 2. He knows the accused, who was living in the ground floor of the house of P.W.1, which is adjacent to his house and the upper floors are vacant. At about 10 p.m., on that day P.W.3 and others were searching for the deceased and he also went there and searched for the deceased in the entire house and found dead body of the deceased in the cup board of the first floor of the house of P.W.1. Immediately, he came back to down floor and informed P.W.3 and others. They took the deceased girl to hospital where doctors declared her dead.
20. P.W.7, G.V.Rama Mohana Rao, gold businessman by profession, deposed that on 05.05.2008, accused came to his shop at about 12 noon and showed two golden bangles of a child and asked to advance loan by taking them into pledge. By taking those two gold bangles in pledge he lent Rs.4,000/- to accused. On 15.05.2008, Sub Inspector of Police visited his shop and enquired about those gold bangles and he handed over them to him. Further, he admitted that Ex.P-2, pledge receipt, is issued by him to the accused and M.O.5 is the pair of gold bangles pledged to him on 05.05.2008.
21. P.W.8, G.Chandra Sekhar, Cycle Stand contractor in Ravi Kala Mandir Theatre of Narasaraopet, deposed that on 05.05.2008 one of the persons, who came to theatre, left the cycle there and went away.
Since nobody took the cycle after the show was over he kept it in the theatre itself. He also issued ticket to the person who kept the cycle in theatre earlier. On 15.05.2008 Police brought one person and showed the cycle ticket and he identified the same and handed over the cycle to Police.
22. P.W.9, Gopala Rao, rice miller, deposed that on 06.05.2008 at about 6 a.m., Police of Narasaraopet took him to Police station and from there to the house of P.W.1, along with two other mediators, and seized water from a tub by filling it in one bottle. They have also seized the clothes of the deceased girl i.e. M.Os.2 to 4, under cover of mediator report.
23. P.W.10, Pobbathi Purnanandam, businessman, deposed that on 15.05.2008, Police of Narasaraopet took him to Vijayawada, along with one John Moulali. In Governorpet of Vijayawada the accused having seen the Police started running away. Police apprehended him and interrogated. He revealed his name as Suresh. The Police seized one receipt showing the pledge of gold ornaments, Ex.P-2 and Cycle stand pass, Ex.P-3, and cash of Rs.200/- from the accused under cover of mediator report Ex.P-6, M.O.6, is cash of Rs.200/-. From there the Police brought him to Narasaraopet in the Jeep at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., and took them to Venkatarama Jewellery of Narasaraopet and seized two gold bangles, M.O.5. From there, they were taken to Ravikalamandir theatre along with accused and seized one cycle, M.O.1.
24. P.W.11, Ch.Narayana, Photographer in Durga Photo Studio, Narsaraopet, deposed that he had taken photographs on 05.05.2008 on the dead body of the deceased girl in this case at the house of P.W.1. Ex.P-9 are bunch of 11 photographs with negatives.
25. P.W.12, Dr. M.Gopi Naik, working as Civil Surgeon, RMO., Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, deposed that on 06.05.2008 at about 12 noon he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased on the requisition of S.I. of Police, Narasaropet Urban and found the following injuries:
“Body fresh, Rigor mortis present lower limbs. A female child dead body lies on its back with arms close to chest. Mouth closed. Eyes closed. Fluid blood oozes from the both nostrils.
External injuries:- 1. Contusion of about 3 x 2 cm., over the Right shoulder.
2. A contusion of about 4 x 3 cm., over the left elbow joint.
3. Both hands are contused.
4. An abrasion of about 3 x 2 cm., over the right knee joint.
5. An abrasion of about 3 x 2 cm., over the left leg below the knee joint.
6. A contusion of about 7 x 5 cm., over the left thigh. Cust section Echymosis present in all injuries.
All injuries are ante mortem in nature.
Internal Examination: Skull – Intact. Menyges – Congested c/s.Congests Brain – Congested C/s. Congested.
Neck - Hyoid intact.
Upper and Lower Air passages – Congested C/s. Deeply congested. Chest Wall – No evidence of fracture of ribs. Thoracic cavity contain of about 200 ml of brownish dark coloured fluid present.
Heart – Congested C/s. Congested. All chambers are empty.
Lungs – Congested C/s. Congested. Emphysematous Bullae present over the superior surface of the both lungs. On squeezing of both lungs fluid blood oozes from the cutting surface of both lungs.
Stomach – Contains of about 150 ml., of Fluid water present.
No abnormal smell. Inner surface of the stomach wall was deeply contused.
Liver – Congested C/s. Congested. Spleen : Congested c/s. Congested. Kidneys – Congested c/s Congested Blader – Empty.
Genetalia – Normal – Spinal Column, Pelvic Wall – Normal.
Preserved the following for RFSL, Guntur.
1. Stomach and its contents. 2. A piece of small intestine.
3. Liver tissue. 4. One kidney.”
26. Final opinion – After receiving RFSL report he opined that in continuation of his previous P.M. Certificate that the deceased appear to have died of ‘Asphyxia’ as a result of drowning and the approximate time of death is about 18 to 24 hours prior to his P.M. examination.
27. Ex.P-10 is the RFSL report. Ex.P-11 is his P.M. Certificate, along with Final Report.
28. P.W.13, B. Koteswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, deposed that on 05.05.2008 at about 11 p.m., he received complaint from P.W.1 and registered it as Crime No.105 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC and submitted FIRs to the concerned officers. He along with P.W.1 visited the scene of offence and posted guard there on 05.05.2008. The scene of offence is the house of P.W.1. On 06.05.2008 at about 6.30 a.m., he left the Police station and reached the scene of offence at about 7 a.m., secured the mediators L.W.13, N.Sivasankara Rao and P.W.9 and in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and seized the wet clothes and bottle of water from a tub in that house. He also squeezed water from the wet clothes and preserved it and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and got it photographed with the help of a private photographer. Ex.P-13 is the rough sketch. He seized M.O.2, 4 and 3 from the scene of offence under a cover of mediator report, which is Ex.P-4. Then he left the scene of offence and visited the house of P.W.1, secured the other mediator Sk.Subhani (L.W.15), P.W.-9, L.W.13, N.Sivasankararao and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-5 inquest report.
While conducting inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and L.W.3, Jagannadham, P.W.3, N.Sankar (L.W.5), and recorded their statements. After concluding the inquest at 10.30 a.m., sent the dead body of the deceased girl for post- mortem examination to Government hospital, Narasaraopet through P.C.3142. On the same day, he secured L.W.6 N.Saraswathi examined her and recorded her statement. On the same day, he examined P.W.5, 4, 6, M.Molla (L.W.10) and recorded their statements. Further, on 15.05.2008, on information he along with his staff, complainant and mediators L.W.17, Sk.John Moulali, P.W.10 went to Vijayawada. At about 2 p.m., at Vijayawada Besent road at Governorpet near Raju Cloth showroom seen the accused.
P.W.1 identified then he caught hold of him, interrogated him and recorded his statement. Seized a pawn broker shop receipt Ex.P-2 along with M.O.1 cycle key and Ex.P-3 from his possession. He also seized Rs.200/- cash (M.O.6) from him under cover of mediator report Ex.P-6 (Admissable portion). Then brought him to Narasaraopet at 4 p.m., along with mediators. At Narasaraopet they went to the pawn broker shop situated in Geetha Mandir road, belonging to Sri Venkataramana Jewellers i.e. P.W.7, Narasaraopet and seized gold bangles (M.O.5) under cover of a mediator report Ex.P-8. He also examined P.W.7 and recorded his statement. On the same day at about 9 p.m., he along with accused and mediators went to Ravi Kalamandir Cinema theatre of Narasaraopet and seized cycle (M.O.1) from the cycle stand. He also examined P.W.8 cycle stand operator and recorded his statement. He drafted Ex.P-7 mediator report while effecting the seizure of the cycle. Then he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody.
29. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that since the accused found guilty based on the last seen theory, based on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, it is necessary to peruse meticulously their evidence.
30. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the deceased went out for playing at about 10.30 or 11 a.m., and did not return to the house. Hence, they were searching her with the assistance of his relatives. He categorically averred that when P.W.6 found the dead body of the deceased in one of the cup boards, he immediately came down and informed the same to P.W.3 and in turn took the girl to the hospital. As P.W.3 informed the same to him over phone, he also went to the hospital, where the deceased was declared dead.
31. In this regard, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, shows that she informed P.W.1 about finding body of the deceased and P.W.1 came and all of them took the deceased to the hospital.
In this regard, it is to be noticed that P.W.3 is silent about the information passed on to the P.W.1 about the tracing of dead body of the deceased. Further, it is not clear that after knowing the information about the tracing of dead body of the deceased by the P.W.1, whether he came to his residence or directly went to the hospital, where the Doctor declared the deceased died. Therefore, we found the statements of each other to be inconsistent.
32. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, no doubt they have stated that on the fateful day they have witnessed the accused taking the deceased girl with him into his house but none of them witnessed the incident directly. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused, placed reliance in the case referred supra wherein the Division Bench of this Court held at para 25 and 26 as under:
“25. The recovery of the weapon and the arrest of the accused and the examination of the witnesses were also done much later to the discovery of the dead body, therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether the prosecution improved its version by implicating the accused in the commission of the offence. In the case on hand, the evidence discloses that except the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased at Nekkonda at about 5.00 p.m. and the recovery of the material objects, which could not be proved due to mediators turned hostile, there is no other material to connect the accused, therefore, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence by placing chain of circumstances to rule out the possibility of any other person committing the offence and to establish that except the accused, there is no possibility of any other person committing the offence.
26. In the light of the above circumstances, we are of the firm view that there is a doubt from the evidence of the prosecution whether the accused was solely responsible for the commission of the offence, therefore, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt. After going through the evidence and the Judgment of the lower Court, we differ with the view expressed by the lower Court and we are inclined to allow the Appeal by setting the judgment of the lower Court.”
33. In the case on hand, evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 discloses that except the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased in front of the deceased house and taking her into house at about 10 or 10.30 a.m, and tracing the body of the deceased about 10 p.m., there is no other material or evidence to connect the accused, therefore, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the offence by placing chain of circumstances to rule out the possibility of any other person committing the offence and to establish that except the accused, there is no possibility of any other person committing the offence. Further, it is also to be noticed that there was long time gap of last seen the accused and the deceased together by the witnesses.
34. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is a doubt from the evidence of the prosecution whether the accused was solely responsible for the commission of the offence, therefore, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt. After going through the evidence and the judgment of the lower Court, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the lower Court.
35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.04.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.627 of 2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur, is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled under Section 302 and 379 IPC.
He is directed to be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Date: 22.12.2014 LSK
[1] 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.) 387 (D.B.) (A.P.)