Sec.302 of I.P.C. - failed to prove circumstantial evidence - extra judicial confession - No immediate complaint - alleged circumstantial witness PW- 6 examined about one and half month - Extra judicial confession witness turned hostile PW-5 - PW 6 stated that he has not stated any thing to the police - doctor report suggest nothing - conducting funerals in an ordinary manner is not an offence - story of illegal attachments does not inspire the case motive for murder - their lordships of High court set aside the conviction order of trial and acquitted the case = P.Sreenu and another...APPELLANT The State of AndhraPradesh....RESPONDENT = 2014 (Feb. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10945

Sec.302 of I.P.C. - failed to prove circumstantial evidence - extra judicial confession - No immediate complaint - alleged circumstantial witness PW- 6 examined about one and half month - Extra judicial confession witness turned hostile PW-5 - PW 6 stated that he has not stated any thing to the police - doctor report suggest nothing - conducting funerals in an ordinary manner is not an offence - story of illegal attachments does not inspire the case motive for murder - their lordships of High court set aside the conviction order of trial and acquitted the case =
According to the prosecution itself, P.W.6, uncle of the deceased,
who chanced to visit the Village, noticed the death of his nephew and even
verified from A1 and A2 as to the cause of the death.  
The alleged information
given by A1 and A2 that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself, did
not evoke any suspicion or response from P.W.6. 
Virtually, he took the same to
be true and he has just passed on the information to the brother and father of
the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. 
P.Ws.1 and 2 entertained suspicion in this regard. 
It is important to note that P.W.6 did not accompany them to the place where the dead body was lying.  
In the cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that he did not even depose anything before the Police.
 Even if one goes by the case of the persecution, A1 and A2 have buried the body
of the deceased and thereby, they have discharged a semblance of obligation of
conducting funeral.  
If, in fact, A1 and A2 have committed the murder of the deceased, they would not have permitted the body to remain at that place for about one day, where number of people, including P.W.6 have visited.  
They buried the dead body almost after one day from the time of death. 
Their acts and
omissions are accord with the ordinary human conduct. 
P.Ws.1 and 2, who did not 
care to verify as to what the deceased was doing when he was alive, have
suspected A1 and A2, who have given the shelter to the deceased.
The entire case rests upon the alleged extra judicial confession of A1 and A2
said to have made before P.W.5.  
The deposition of this witness does not at all generate confidence.  
Added to that, he was treated as hostile and nothing serious was elicited from this witness in the cross-examination, by the prosecution.
The only source of information is P.W.6.  He is said to have been examined by
the Police two and half months after the incident.  It is highly impossible to
convict an individual for a serious offence like the one of murder on the basis
of such feeble, unreliable and concocted evidence.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in
S.C.No.498 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dated
23.07.2009, against the appellants-accused, are set aside.  The appellants-
accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in
any other case.  The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall
be refunded to them.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

2014 (Feb. Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10945

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL                  

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1274 of 2009  

13-02-2014

P.Sreenu and another...APPELLANT  

The State of AndhraPradesh....RESPONDENT  

counsel for the appellaNTS:Ms.Naseeb Afshan

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:Public Prsecutor      

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases Referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        
AND  
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL        

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1274 of 2009  

13-02-2014

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)    


The facts of this case demonstrate the deterioration of family values,
particularly in the place where the persons involved in this case, are living.
Hardly, we come across any person, accused or deceased, without any allegation
as to illicit relationship.  If the death has occurred to one of them, hardly
eyebrows are raised.
A1 and A2, the appellants herein, were tried by the Court of I Additional
Sessions Judge, Chittoor in S.C.No.498 of 2008 for the offence of committing the
murder of Y.Vijay Kumar, the deceased.
The case of the prosecution was that A1 had already two wives and begot children
with them, but was discarded by their family on account of his indisciplined
life. A2, by name Ammulu @ Vijaya Lakshmi, was married to her maternal uncle and
had three children through him.  Alleging that her husband developed illicit
relation with another woman, A2 started living in the house of her parents at
Nagiripalle.  It is here that A1, who was discarded by his wives, and A2, who
left her husband alleging infidelity, developed intimacy with each other and
both of them started living at a Village, by name Kothur.
The deceased, by name Vijay Kumar, was married to a woman, by name Latha.  He is
said to have left that family and got acquaintance with A1 in the course of
attending a funeral of the brother-in-law of A1 at Utuvanka Village.  After this
meeting, A1, A2, deceased and the sister of A1 were said to have started living
at Renigunta while doing labour work at a construction place.
The deceased is said to have developed illicit relation with A2.  One day, he is
said to have noticed A1 and A2 in a compromising position and is said to have
chased A1 on that account and warned A2 that he would put her to death.  On
04.06.2008, A1 and A2 are said to have killed the deceased by strangulating him
and that the dead body that was present in the hut was visited by P.W.6, a
relative of the deceased, and other villagers.  P.W.6 is said to have informed
P.W.2, the father of the deceased, residing at Mahasamudram Village about the
incident.  However, by the time P.Ws.2 and 6 returned, the dead body is said to
have removed to elsewhere and on finding that it was buried clandestinely at a
distant place, P.Ws.1 and 2, the brother and father of the deceased
respectively, submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Pakala Police
Station on 06.06.2008 at 4.00 p.m. The Police registered Crime No.77 of 2008 and
thereafter, exhumed the body of the deceased. A1 and A2 are said to have made
voluntary confession before P.W.5, V.R.O., and he in turn, is said to have
informed the matter to the Police.  Thereafter, the investigation was taken up
and charge sheet was filed.
Through its judgment, dated 23.07.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty
of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and accordingly A1
and A2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for
the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.  A1 and A2 are further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for the
offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. It was directed that both the
sentences shall run concurrently.
Ms.Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the accused, submits that not only there
did not exist any eye witness in this case, but even the circumstantial evidence
is so inadequate, that it is insufficient to constitute the basis for an
allegation, let alone for conviction.  She submits that the entire case is woven
with the fabric of illicit relations among one another and hardly there exists
any scope or basis for convicting the accused.  She contends that P.W.6, on
whose evidence, the entire case of the prosecution rests, was not at all
consistent.  Learned counsel submits that P.W.6 admittedly saw A1 and A2 present
at the dead body of the deceased and at that time, he did not entertain
suspicion.  She contends that it is only on arrival of the brother and father of
the deceased i.e. P.Ws.1 and 2 that the allegation was made by him.  She
contends that even the medical evidence that emerged after the body was exhumed
did not support the version of the prosecution and the learned Judge has rested
his conclusions just on the conjectures, which are difficult to imagine.
Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court found
that the accused have not only committed the murder of the deceased, but also
made an attempt to secret the evidence. She contends that the investigation of a
very high order was undertaken and every possible link was provided to complete
the chain of events to prove the case against the accused.
The brief introduction of the case given at the threshold of the judgment would
disclose that the accused as well as the deceased are from the category of
people who, hardly have any regard for the sanctity of marriage. The curious
aspect of it is that each person named In the case developed intimacy with
another outside their marriage, even while accusing their respective spouses, of
not honest to them.
Left to themselves, A2 and the deceased were neither related nor married.  Even
the relationship between A1 and A2 was said to be illicit, notwithstanding the
fact that each of them have not only their respective spouses, but also children
with them.  The acquaintance of the deceased with A1 and A2 was on the occasion
of attending a funeral.  The only thing that is said to have brought A1 to the
deceased is their caste. By that time, the deceased was living separately from
his legally wedded wife.  Ultimately, A1, A2, deceased and sister of A1 are said
to have started living in one hut at Renigunta while doing cooli work.
The motive attributed to A1 and A2 for killing the deceased is that the latter
suspected the honesty of A2 towards him.  When the entire bondage between the
persons named above is nothing but illicit relationship, the theory of one
suspecting the fidelity of the other, does not gain acceptability.  It is only
when a legally wedded spouse of one individual is suspected to have developed
illicit intimacy with another, that there can exist the scope for developing
hatred or motive to punish.
Let it be assumed that the deceased and A2 were living as wife and husband and
the deceased did not tolerate his wife having relation with another. Even if
that is true, there is no evidence to establish that the accused have killed the
deceased.  According to the prosecution itself, P.W.6, uncle of the deceased,
who chanced to visit the Village, noticed the death of his nephew and even
verified from A1 and A2 as to the cause of the death.  The alleged information
given by A1 and A2 that the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself, did
not evoke any suspicion or response from P.W.6. Virtually, he took the same to
be true and he has just passed on the information to the brother and father of
the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. P.Ws.1 and 2 entertained suspicion in
this regard. It is important to note that P.W.6 did not accompany them to the
place where the dead body was lying.  In the cross-examination, P.W.6 stated
that he did not even depose anything before the Police.
 Even if one goes by the case of the persecution, A1 and A2 have buried the body
of the deceased and thereby, they have discharged a semblance of obligation of
conducting funeral.  If, in fact, A1 and A2 have committed the murder of the
deceased, they would not have permitted the body to remain at that place for
about one day, where number of people, including P.W.6 have visited.  They
buried the dead body almost after one day from the time of death. Their acts and
omissions are accord with the ordinary human conduct. P.Ws.1 and 2, who did not 
care to verify as to what the deceased was doing when he was alive, have
suspected A1 and A2, who have given the shelter to the deceased.
The entire case rests upon the alleged extra judicial confession of A1 and A2
said to have made before P.W.5.  The deposition of this witness does not at all
generate confidence.  Added to that, he was treated as hostile and nothing
serious was elicited from this witness in the cross-examination, by the
prosecution.
The only source of information is P.W.6.  He is said to have been examined by
the Police two and half months after the incident.  It is highly impossible to
convict an individual for a serious offence like the one of murder on the basis
of such feeble, unreliable and concocted evidence.
Hence, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in
S.C.No.498 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dated
23.07.2009, against the appellants-accused, are set aside.  The appellants-
accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in
any other case.  The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall
be refunded to them.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_____________________  
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J  
_____________________  
M.S.K.JAISWAL,J
Dt: 13.02.2014

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.

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.

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