Telangana High Court
CRLA/924/2007 of Pendli Ravinder, Vs The State of A.P., on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.924 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) The sole accused in S.C. No.1149 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, who was
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.924 of 2007
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao)
The sole accused in S.C. No.1149 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, who was convicted for the offenceunder Sections 302 and 411 of I.P.C., is the appellant herein.
The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mada DevenderReddy is known to the accused and on 13.9.2005, he left along with thecompany of the accused with a cash of Rs. 50,000/-. The accused and thedeceased went to Bhulaxmi Lodge on 14.9.2005 and took a room for one dayand stayed in Room No.105. Thereafter, they extended their stay for anotherday. At about 7.00 P.m., on 15.9.2005, P.Ws. 1 and 2 noticed the death of thedeceased in the room when they have opened the room and on a complaintgiven by P.W.1, a case in Crime No. 427 of 2005 under Section 302 of I.P.C.was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation,panchanama of the scene was conducted, inquest was held over the deadbody of the deceased, incriminating articles were seized at the scene andphotographs were also taken. The dead body was sent for post mortemexamination. During the course of investigation on 10.10.2005, the accusedwas arrested at the house of his brother-in-law, P.W.13, where the accusedgave voluntary confessional statement and in pursuance of the confession, asum of RS.42,500/- was seized from his possession. He also narrated theevents about the cause of the death of the deceased. As per the informationgiven by the accused, the investigating officer has subsequently, examinedP.Ws. 7 to 11 and the accused was sent for remand. According to the case ofthe prosecution, from the statements of P.Ws. 7 to 11 and also the seizure ofthe cash from the possession of the accused, it is clearly established that theaccused stayed with the deceased and committed murder of the deceased and stolen the cash and therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections302 and 379 of I.P.C. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed. The case wastaken on file as P.R.C. No.88 of 2006 by the Additional Judicial First ClassMagistrate, Karimnagar, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions,which was made over to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Afterappearance of the accused, charges under Sections 302 and 379 of I.P.C. were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 19 wereexamined and Exs. P1 to P23 were marked. D1 to D3, contradictions weremarked in the evidence of P.W.1. by the accused. M.Os. 1 to 10 were alsomarked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned SessionsJudge found the accused guilty of the offence and accordingly convicted andsentenced him. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
Heard Smt. Gayatri Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and also thelearned Public Prosecutor.
The points that arise for consideration are :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has committedmurder of the deceased for gain ?murder of the deceased for gain ?
2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused was found inpossession of the cash belonging to the deceased ?possession of the cash belonging to the deceased ?
3. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learnedSessions Judge is legal and sustainable ?Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable ?
Points:
There is no direct evidence about the commission of offence and thecase of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and the accusedand deceased moving together from 13.9.2005 till the death of the deceased.
P.W.1 is said to be the Manager of the Bhoolaxmi Lodge atKarimnagar. P.W.2 is also said to be another employee of the said lodge.According to them on 14.9.2005, at about 10 A.M., the deceased Devender
Reddy along with another person came and took a double room. Theyidentified the other person as the accused, who was standing in the Court.Accordingly, room No.105 was allotted and stay was extended by anotherday at their request. In the evening at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.2 came to joinduty and in order to handover the charge to him, both of them went to roomNo.105 and it was found locked from outside and they opened the door andfound the deceased in a pool of blood. The accused was not present at thattime. P.W.1 claimed to have given a complaint, Ex.P1 to the police. He alsoclaimed to have identified the accused in the test identification parade. In thecross-examination, he has stated that number of customers will be visiting thelodge and that the reception counter is in the entrance and they maintain aregister of visitors and occupants and there are no room boys. On 14.9.2005,when the accused and deceased came, the accused carried one brief caseand another bag. He claimed to have handed over the register to the police.His statement is said to have been recorded by the police. He also admittedthat he did not furnish the descriptive particulars of the other person, whoaccompanied the deceased.
The evidence of P.W.2 is also in support of the evidence of P.W.1.
The evidence of P.W.3, the wife of the deceased is that on 13.9.2005,her husband left with a cash of Rs.50,000/- along with the accused and on14.9.2005 she was informed by Pratap Reddy that the accused and thedeceased were going to Karimnagar on some work and on 15.9.2005, shewas informed about the death of her husband at a lodge at Karimnagar andthe loss of the cash. In her cross-examination, she stated that a sum ofRs.50,000/- was borrowed as loan and Rs.8,000/-was withdrawn from thebank. She also stated that the accused is having friendship with her husbandand they have no business transactions.
P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and on 13.9.2005, he wasinformed by P.W. 3 that the deceased left Hanamkonda with cash ofRs.50,000/- for discharging the loan at Veenavanka bank. On 14.9.2005, onePratap Reddy informed him that the deceased and accused went toKarimnagar and on 15.9.2005, he received information about the death of the deceased.
P.W.5 claims that on 14.9.2005, the deceased and accused met himand they informed that they were going to Karimnagar and on the next day,he came to know about the death of the deceased.
The evidence of P.W.6 is about taking the photographs of the scene ofincident.
The evidence of P.W.7 is that the accused was her husband and therewas a divorce between them. One day in the night at about 2.00 A.M., theaccused came to her house in an auto along with four persons anddemanded her father to send her along with them, for which, her father did notagree. She also further stated that two years back, the accused came alongwith another person and asked her to be sent along with them. Subsequently,she came to know that the deceased was the person, who was brought by theaccused. She did not agree to accompany them.
The evidence of P.W.8 is that P.W.7 is his daughter and the accusedcame along with the deceased and requested P.W.7 to be sent along withthem.
The evidence of P.W.9 is that she was working as an Ayah in GayathriHostel at Srinivasanagar, Karimnagar and about 1½ year back, the accusedcame along with another person and stayed in her house and after seeing thephotographs, she identified the other person as the deceased and theinformation about the death of the deceased is said to have been given byP.W.10.
The evidence of P.W.10 is that she worked as an Ayah in PadmajaHostel and the accused worked as driver at Karimnagar. She developedacquaintance with the accused and about one and half year back, prior to hergiving evidence, at about 9.00 A.M., the accused came along with anotherperson and on the request of the accused, she followed them in an auto uptothe petrol bunk and thereafter another person and Kondal Reddy went toBhulaxmi Lodge. Thereafter, she and the accused went to Bhulaxmi Lodgeand she identified the other person as the deceased. As Kondal Reddyreceived a phone call, he left and as there was no need for her, she was asked to leave and she also left the place.
The evidence of P.W.11 is that on 15.9.2005, when he was filling thepetrol in the scooter, the accused, the deceased and P.W.10 came there andthe accused requested him to drop the deceased at Bhulaxmi Lodge andaccordingly, he took him there and dropped him there. The deceased invitedhim to his room and therefore, he followed him inside and found liquor bottlesand the deceased offered the same. About fifteen minutes thereafter, theaccused and P.W.10 came there and at that time he was also offered liquor.But as he received a phone call, he left the scene and at that time, P.W.10,the accused and the deceased were present. Subsequently, he came toknow that the deceased was killed.
P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the wife and husband and the accused is said tohave confessed in their presence. The accused is the brother of P.W.12 andbrother-in-law of P.W.13 and they did not support the case of the prosecutioncase and they were declared as hostile.
P.W.14 is the person, in whose presence the police held inquest overthe dead body of the deceased and recovered the case properties, M.Os. 1 to4.
The evidence of P.W.15 is about the confessional statement given bythe accused in the presence of P.w.13.
The evidence of P.W.16 is about conducting post mortem examinationover the dead body of the deceased and noticing the injuries in Ex.P12, PostMortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to shock andhaemorrhage.
The evidence of P.W.17 is about registering complaint of P.W.1 andthe evidence of P.W.18 is about the investigation done by him in the case.The evidence of P.W.19 is about the test identification parade conducted byher at the request of the police, where the accused was identified by thewitnesses.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is nodocumentary evidence to prove that the accused has committed the theft andthat the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused and the deceased came
and stayed in room No.105 on 14.9.2005 is also not supported by anydocumentary evidence or register maintained by the owners of the lodge andtherefore the first circumstance is not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.If such circumstance of the accused and deceased living in the lodge is notestablished by the prosecution, then the entire prosecution case has tocollapse according to her.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that thereis sufficient material to hold that from 13.9.2005 till the date of the death of thedeceased, the accused and the deceased were alone in company; that therecovery of cash is proved by acceptable evidence; that it is very difficult tobelieve that a huge amount of Rs.42,500/- could have been planted by anypolice officer and as such the conviction and sentence imposed by thelearned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable.
It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 2 may not be able to produce the particularsof the occupants register. It is also true that they may not be able to identifythe persons visiting every day to their lodge. But, the fact remains that thedeath of the deceased was in room No.105 of the lodge maintained by P.Ws.1 and 2, which is also clear from the inquest report and also from thecomplaint. Further more the deceased was Devender Reddy is not beingdisputed by anybody.
Therefore, the question before the Court is as to whether the deceasedjoined in the lodge along with the accused or if there is any possibility ofsomebody else being the offender.
The evidence of the wife of the deceased clearly goes to show that on13.9.2005, the accused and the deceased went together. In fact, the evidenceof P.W.5 also clearly goes to show that on 14.9.2005, the accused and thedeceased were found together at Karimnagar. Added to that there is evidenceof none other than the wife of the accused and also P.Ws.8,9 and 10, whichclearly goes to show that the accused brought the deceased to them and theyhad also some conversation with them and one night, they stayed in thehouse of P.W.9 and that could be probably on the night of 14.9.2005.
Added to that the important evidence is that shortly prior the murder of
the deceased, the accused was found in the company of the deceased. Theevidence of P.W.10, who is said to have gone to the hotel on the request ofthe accused clearly goes to show that she was at the hotel till about noon andshe has left the place subsequently. The evidence of P.W.11, who is also anindependent witness clearly goes to show that the accused, the deceasedand P.W.10 were at the lodge at about 12.00 noon and first he left the scene.The evidence of P.W.10 clearly goes to show that she also left the scene.From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that about 12.00 noon on15.9.2005, the accused and the deceased alone were at the lodge and it wasin Room No.105 of Bhulaxmi Lodge. Evidently, after this time only, themurder is said to have taken place. The accused has not given anyexplanation as to when and where he has gone from the scene of offence.The fact that the room was bolted from outside clearly goes to show that itwas bolted by the person who has gone outside from the room. Therefore, thecircumstantial evidence and the evidence of the impartial witnesses clearlygoes to show that it was the accused and the deceased alone, who wastogether till the death of the deceased, and therefore, the only inferencewhich can be drawn by any person is that the accused himself is the person,who has committed the murder. Further more, after 15.9.2005, the accusedhas absconded for a longer time till he was arrested by the police. This isalso another circumstance adding to the false plea taken by the accused.Further more, the recovery, though not supported by the relatives of theaccused, is clearly spoken by P.W.15 in his evidence, who is an independentwitness.
Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no possibility orneed for the police officers to plant such a huge sum. It is also reasonable toaccept that identification of cash is very difficult and except the circumstancethat the accused was found in possession of huge cash beyond his means ofpossession, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused. Therefore,the only inference is that the accused has been in possession of the cash,which was stolen by him after the commission of the offence. There is noother view possible, except the guilt of the accused and there are strong circumstances supporting the prosecution case adding to the false pleasraised by the appellant.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learnedSessions Judge is legal and sustainable and it does not call for anyinterference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
______________
K.C. BHANU,J
Date: 30[th] December, 2010
pnb
__________________________N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO,J