HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Between:
Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2010 Dated: 24.04.2014 State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by PP. High Court, Hyderabad … Appellant And Peddammala Odelu And others … Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) The respondents/accused were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C., for having caused the death of one Pendala Ravi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) of Nainpaka village, Chityal Mandal, Warangal District, on 25-11-2006. Through Judgment, dated 01- 04-2009, in S.C.No.432 of 2007, the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, found the respondents not guilty and accordingly acquitted them of the charges. Hence, this appeal by the State.
2. The facts, in brief, stated by the prosecution, are as under:-
The deceased belongs to Schedule Caste community and was a fair price shop dealer. He was an active worker of Congress party. The accused were the active workers of Telugu Desam Party. There were disputes between them at the time of local body elections.
On 25-11-2006, the deceased went to Chainpaka village on Hero Honda Motorcycle and when he was returning to his house, A.1 to A.5 attacked him. A.3 poured chilly powder, A.1 and A.2 stabbed the deceased and hit with an axe, and A.4 and A.5 prevented the deceased from escaping. The deceased died on the spot. The accused ran away from there and concealed the axe and knives in a house. The incident was witnessed by Gorre Sagar-PW.4, P.Sammakka-D.W.1, and Kasipaka Prabhaker-
L.W.8. They went to the house of the deceased and informed the family members. Swarupa-PW.1, the wife of the deceased, lodged the complaint – Ex.P.1. Cr.No.110 of 2006 was registered and the F.I.R.-Ex.P.11 was issued. Investigation was taken up by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer-PW.10, scene of offence was visited, photographs were taken, panchanama was prepared, inquest was conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.432 of 2007 and charges referable to Sections 148 read with 149 I.P.C., and 302 read with 149 I.P.C., were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, Exs.P.1 to P.12 were filed and M.Os.1 to 11 were taken on record. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they denied the evidence on record and contended that due to political rivalry, they are falsely implicated. On their behalf, D.W.1, who is L.W.7, was examined. Exs.D.1 and D.2, which are the charge-sheets in two different crimes filed against PW.4, were filed.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly of PW.4, clearly shows that the accused caused the death of the deceased and without properly appreciating the same, the trial Court acquitted the accused. It is further submitted that the motive for the accused to attack the deceased is established and nothing is brought on record to suspect the evidence of PW.4. She contends that the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced.
5. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the accused submits that even according to the prosecution, there are three eye-witnesses to the incident, but out of them, only PW.4 was examined another eye-witnesses – Sammakka was given-up by prosecution but was examined as a defence witness, and the third eye-witness Prabhakar has not been examined at all. He submits that the presence of PW.4 at the scene of offence is doubtful, and that he is a surrendered naxalite, and a planted witness. Learned Counsel further submits that the differences between the accused and the prosecution party are due to their affiliations to different rival political parties. It is further submitted that as spoken to by DW.1, the deceased was attacked by two unknown persons and since their identity could not be established, the prosecution party has roped in the accused in view of their political differences and PW.4, who is a stock police witness, has been cited as an eye- witness. He contends that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of PW.4 and has rightly disbelieved his version and acquitted the accused.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Judgment of acquittal warrants interference?
7. Point: The deceased was a fair price shop dealer and an active worker of Congress party. The accused are said to be the active workers of Telugu Desam Party. The disputes between the two groups have arisen during the elections held in January, 2006, for the office of Chairman of Water Users Association at SRSP Nainpaka. It was alleged that on the date of the incident viz., 25-11-2006, when the deceased was returning on the motorcycle, the accused way laid him, A.3, a woman, sprinkled chilly powder, and A.4 and A.5 prevented the deceased from proceeding, and A.1 and A.2 have axed and stabbed the deceased on different parts of the body, and as a result, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW.4, D.W.1 and one Prabhakar. They are said to have informed the family members of the deceased, and the wife of the deceased lodged the complaint.
8. So far as the incident proper is concerned, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 is not relevant. They speak about the admitted relationship between the parties and the nature of disputes between the two groups. They also deposed about the undisputed fact that the deceased died on 25-11-2006 due to grievous injuries. On the basis of what was told to them, they deposed that the accused have committed the crime. To that extent, their evidence is hearsay, but not direct one.
9. The main witness for the prosecution is PW.4. Whether the evidence of PW.4 is cogent, convincing and inspiring, is required to be seen. Admittedly, PW.4 is a surrendered naxalite. It was alleged that he has been indulging in extortion and has constructed palatial building at Hanamkonda. It was admitted that Chityala Mandal, within which Nainpaka village falls, is naxals’ affected area. It was alleged that before the trial commenced, PW.4 demanded a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the accused, for deposing evidence in their favour. As already stated, another eye-witness named in the charge-sheet is D.W.1. The evidence of PW.4 and DW.1 is contradictory.
10. According to DW.1, the deceased was attacked by two unknown persons, and since it was a naxals’ affected area, proper investigation was not conducted and the innocent accused were implicated merely because there existed some political difference between the prosecution party and the accused. The fact that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him, is borne out from the medical evidence on record. The Doctor, PW.6, opined that the cause of death is due to ‘7’ chopped and stabbed injuries, which were found on the deceased on neck, cheek, chin, left thigh and left chest. Ex.P.5 is the post-mortem report. DW.1 denied the presence of PW.4 at the scene of offence.
11. Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by PW.1, on the basis of the information furnished to her. According to Ex.P.1, the information was furnished to her by PW.4, DW.1 and one Prabhakar, who has not been examined. That aspect is asserted by P.Ws.1 to 3. However, PW.4 gave altogether different version. According to him, on the date of the incident at about 11.30 p.m., he was going alone, towards his fields, and that he has seen A.3 sprinkling chilly powder, A.4 and A.5 holding the deceased, and A.1 and A.2 stabbing the deceased. The specific overt acts that are attributed by PW.4 are that A.2 stabbed the deceased on his left waist with a knife, and A.1 hacked the deceased on the left side of the neck with an axe. The medical officer, PW.6, however, did not notice any stab injury on the left waist of the deceased. According to PW.4, A.1 hacked the deceased on the left side of his neck with an axe. The medical officer found a chopped wound on the left side of the neck. However, as many as ‘5’ stab injuries on the cheek, neck, chin, left thigh and left chest were noticed. The oral evidence of PW.4 is silent about them and is contrary to the medical evidence on record.
12. PW.4 stated that immediately after the incident, himself, DW.1 and Prabhakar did not go and inform PW.1 about the incident, but admitted about the presence of DW.1 and Prabhakar. The evidence on record is that all the three of them viz., PW.4, DW.1 and Prabhakar were going together for agricultural operations. This fact is borne out from the statements of the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer – PW.10. However, PW.4 would have it that he was alone going at the time of the incident.
13. The sketch of the scene of offence has been filed as Ex.P.4. A perusal thereof shows that for going towards the fields, PW.4 need not pass through the house of A.1, in front of which the incident is alleged to have taken place. Though PW.4 initially denied the suggestion that during the days of his underground naxalite activities, two charge-sheets were filed against him in Crime Nos.34 & 44 of 2000 of P.S.Chityal, however, when confronted with Exs.D1 and D.2, he admitted the same. The trial Court, which had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, upon carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record, disbelieved the presence of PW.4. In view of the material inconsistencies, it is difficult to believe that PW.4 is the person who has witnessed the incident. Though denied by PW.4, there appears to be some substance in the suggestion made by the accused to PW.4 that he having surrendered before the police and having got the benefits of a surrendered naxalite, he is acting as an agent of the police and consequently due to political differences, he has been planted as an eye-witness to the incident.
14. It is further noticed that PW.4 stated that he has witnessed the entire incident from very close range. Admittedly, he is a former naxalite and he can be presumed to be a man of courage. Curiously, PW.4 admitted that he has been a mute spectator to the entire assault and he has neither raised any cries nor made any attempt to apprehend any of the accused, including A.3, who was a lady, aged more than 40 years. It is also on record that by the date of the incident, one of the hands of A.3 was fractured and she was having a plaster on her hand. PW.4 admitted that neither at the time of occurrence nor immediately thereafter, he went near the dead body of the deceased. That does not appear to be a natural reaction of a person, who happens to witness a gruesome murder. The occurrence of the incident was in broad day light and it was about 11.30 a.m. The place of the incident is surrounded by several houses. In that view of the matter, the evidence of PW.4 becomes unbelievable.
15. The other part of the case of the prosecution is that the accused were arrested on 02-12-2006 and they confessed of having committed the crime and led to the recovery of the weapons used in the commission of the crime, which are M.Os.1 land 2. This aspect is falsified by the evidence of PW.2, the father of the deceased. It was admitted by PW.2 that immediately after the incident, they went near the dead body and they found the axe and knife lying by the side of the dead body.
16. The trial Court has appreciated all the aspects correctly and held the accused not guilty of the charges. We have gone through the entire evidence on record and we see no reason to interfere with the Judgment of acquittal. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. The point is accordingly answered.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
L.Narasimha Reddy,J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.
Date:24.04.2014 smr HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.417 of 2010 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal) Dated: 24.04.2014
Smr