Recovered knife contains no human blood, No test Identification - acquittal is correct - Motive is not one of the essential ingredients of the offence.= He arrested the accused and in the presence of P.W.16 and other, seized the knife and stick alleged to have been used in the commission of offence. As a matter of fact, those material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory report shows that no human blood was detected on those items. - Since P.W.3 does not know the accused prior to the occurrence, police have not taken any steps to conduct any Test Identification Parade to test the memory of P.W.3 with regard to the identification of the assailants of the deceased. Except proving the motive, there is absolutely no evidence or circumstances to infer that the accused are the assailants of the deceased. = Law is well settled that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Courts decision must not rest upon suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal testimony. A finding cannot be made without evidence. Where the proof at best leads to strong suspicion, the benefit should be given to accused. Judicial belief must be founded on reasonable grounds and must rest upon evidence and reasonable inferences thereupon. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them. The said order needs no interference of this Court as there are no compelling or circumstantial reasons to interfere with the same. The Appeal is devoid of merits.

CRLA 613 / 2013

CRLASR 29041 / 2008
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP.,  VSYADLA SATYANARAYANA AND 2 OTHERS,
PET.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTORRESP.ADV. : 
SUBJECT: U/s.302 I.P.C AcquittalDISTRICT:  KHAMMAM

http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo.jsp?mtype=CRLA&mno=613&year=2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.613 of 2013


JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)


                                    
This Criminal Appeal, under section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 26.11.2007, in Sessions Case No.394 of 2003 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Khammam at Kothagudem, whereunder and whereby, the accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 342 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”).

2.      The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that:
On 06.09.2000 at about 09:00 a.m. late Datla Anjaneya Raju lodged Ex.P.7 report stating that his brother Datla Gopala Krishnam Raju purchased a land to an extent of Ac.7.09 cents from Edla Appanna (father of A.1) of Edira village about 48 years back.  About 6 years back after the death of his brother Gopal Krishnam Raju, his sister and deceased sold the said land to P.W.4 in the presence of elders.  Later, A.1 filed a petition before Mandal Revenue Officer, Pinapaka claiming that the said land belongs to him and threatened the deceased not to sell the land in favour of P.W.4, but the deceased refused.  On 05.09.2000, while the deceased is sleeping in her house along with her nephew (P.W.3), some unknown culprits beat the deceased with sharp weapons and killed her.  On 06.09.2000 morning at about 05:00 a.m., P.W.5 while proceeding to the fields found the deceased lying infront of the house and informed the same to late Datla Anjaneya Raju.  On receipt of Ex.P.7, P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and issued express F.I.R to all the concerned.
During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.  The Inspector prepared the rough sketch of scene of occurrence and seized blood stained earth and control earth and got photographed the dead body of the deceased.  
In the presence of P.W.9 and others, the Sub-Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased.  
Thereafter, the body was sent to postmortem examination to the Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam.  
Thereafter, Inspector of police took up further investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and examined other witnesses.  
P.W.12, the doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage of vital organs of lung, liver and brain.  
After receipt of report from the Forensic Science Laboratory and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet.

3.      The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 448, 342 and 302 r/w 34  I.P.C against A.1 to A.3.  
When the above charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.      In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-16 were got marked.

5.      After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.  They denied the same and reported no evidence either oral or documentary.

6.      The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish all the circumstances of the chain and accordingly acquitted them.   Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the State.

7.      The points for determination are:
Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 448, 342 and 302 r/w 34  I.P.C against the accused and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper or not?

8.      POINTS:-   The death of the deceased is not in dispute.  P.W.12 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P6 postmortem examination report.  He opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs of lung, liver and brain.  Thus, the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased is established. 

9.      In view of the fact that it is an appeal against the order of acquittal, the appellant must show substantial and compelling reasons to admit the appeal.  
The evidence of P.Ws.1 & 4 would only go to show that there was a land dispute between the deceased and A.1 and therefore, for that reason both suspected that this crime must have been committed by the accused.  
Motive for the incident seems to be the land dispute.  
Motive is not one of the essential ingredients of the offence.  It can be taken as an aid and assessment of the criminality.  
So their evidence is not much relevant for the purpose of deciding the facts in issue.  
The prosecution is not ordinarily bound to prove motive in cases where direct evidence is reliable and convincing motive can only support the case of prosecution, but the absence of motive cannot annul or destroy the direct testimony where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, convincing and reliable, the question of motive is of no consequence.
                                                                   
10.    P.Ws.9 and 10 who are mediators for the inquest, did not support the case of the prosecution.  Ex.P9 is the inquest report. The opinion was expressed in the inquest report saying that the deceased died as a result of sustaining injuries. P.W.14 is the investigating officer.  
He arrested the accused and in the presence of P.W.16 and other, seized the knife and stick alleged to have been used in the commission of offence.  
As a matter of fact, those material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.  
The Forensic Science Laboratory report shows that no human blood was detected on those items. 
Therefore, the arrest of the accused and seizure of knife and stick cannot be said to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 

11.    The entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.3, who claimed to be present at the time of occurrence.  
As a matter of fact, he also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.  
He has not identified the accused as the assailants of the deceased.  
Since P.W.3 does not know the accused prior to the occurrence, police have not taken any steps to conduct any Test Identification Parade to test the memory of P.W.3 with regard to the identification of the assailants of the deceased.  Except proving the motive, there is absolutely no evidence or circumstances to infer that the accused are the assailants of the deceased.  P.Ws.1, 4 and 15 entertained the idea of suspicion against A.1 as responsible for the death of the deceased. 
Law is well settled that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Courts decision must not rest upon suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal testimony.  A finding cannot be made without evidence.  Where the proof at best leads to strong suspicion, the benefit should be given to accused. Judicial belief must be founded on reasonable grounds and must rest upon evidence and reasonable inferences thereupon.  Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against them.  The said order needs no interference of this Court as there are no compelling or circumstantial reasons to interfere with the same.  The Appeal is devoid of merits. 

12.    Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 26.11.2007, in Sessions Case No.394 of 2003 on the file of V Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C), Khammam at Kothagudem.  Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

                     ______________________

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU


____________­­­_______________________

JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

April 25, 2013
SR/PN

 

 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM




































CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No.29041 of 2008





April 25, 2013




SR/PN

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.