DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. on 21 April 2023

1. By judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 81of 2012, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta,held the accused therein, viz., Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1) andGChinapana Gopi (A2), guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302,397 and 450 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Their conviction andsentence stood confirmed when the High Court for the State of Telanganaand the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 915 of2016 filed by the two accused, vide judgment dated 03.10.2018.Aggrieved thereby, both the accused are before this Court.H

DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

2. Heard Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, appearing forthe appellants/accused; Shri Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, learned counsel,appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh; and Shri Y. Raja GopalaRao, learned counsel for the second respondent, viz., the complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution: The complainant, Vetcha KesavaRao (PW-1), is a resident of Ichapuram and his house is situated onChinnamedaraveedhi, wherein he also did his gold and silver business.A1 is a civil contractor while A2, his brother-in-law, is an ex-serviceman.On 21.08.2008 at about 9.00 pm, in PW-1’s absence, A1 and A2trespassed into his house concealing iron rods under their shirts andbrutally killed his son, Vetcha Kiran Kumar (deceased No.1), and hiswife, Vetcha Venkatagopala Lakshmi (deceased No.2); robbed goldornaments, weighing about 3.543 Kgs., and cash of ¹ 18,340/-. At about11.00 pm on the same night, PW-1 lodged a written report against themat Ichapuram Town Police Station. Thereupon, Crime No. 61 of 2008was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural P.S.(PW-23), and he informed the Inspector of Police who was holdingadditional charge of Ichapuram Circle (PW-26). PW-26 immediatelytook up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and held an inquestover the dead bodies in the presence of mediators. Upon receivinginformation, he arrested A2 at 01.15 am on 22.08.2008 at Radhamveedhi,Jagannadhaswamy Temple, Ichapuram, in the presence of mediatorsand recovered from his possession part of the stolen property, i.e., goldornaments weighing 1748 grams 750 milligrams and cash of ¹ 18,340/-.He then arrested A1 at 04.00 am on 22.08.2008 from Gollaveedhi,Ichapuram, and recovered gold ornaments weighing 1794 grams 370milligrams from his possession in the presence of mediators. Thus, PW-26 recovered the gold ornaments weighing 3.543 Kgs. from the accusedalong with the cash. He also examined several witnesses. He went tothe scene of the offence and prepared a Rough Sketch. At his request,the Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam (PW-24), went to thescene of the offence along with the Clues Team and developed fourchance fingerprints. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Circle(PW-27), took up further investigation. He visited the scene of offence,examined witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion ofthe investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. Chargeswere framed against them under Sections 302, 379, 394 r/w 397, 411and 450 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses andmarked Exs.P-1 to P-21 in evidence, apart from producing MaterialObjects (MOs) 1 to 99. The accused did not adduce evidence but wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the evidence andthe MOs, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta,held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302,B397 and 450 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment forlife under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of ¹ 2,000/- each; imprisonmentfor a period of 10 years under Section 450 IPC and to pay a fine of ¹2,000/- each; and imprisonment for 7 years under Section 397 IPC.Further imprisonment was directed for default in payment of fines.C5. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 915of 2016 before the High Court. By judgment dated 03.10.2018, a DivisionBench of the High Court opined that the circumstantial evidence, incorroboration with the medical evidence, the weapons used and themanner in which the attack was made, established that the accusedDintended to cause the death of the inmates of the house of PW-1, fulfillingthe essential ingredients of the offence under Section 300 IPC, punishableunder Section 302 IPC. The High Court, therefore, concluded that therewas no merit in the case and dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal byspecial leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.

E6. At the outset, it would be apposite to note the scope of jurisdictionunder Article 136 of the Constitution in a case of this nature, where theTrial Court and the High Court have concurrently returned findings ofguilt against the accused. In Pappu Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh[(2022) 10 SCC 321], this Court pointed out that, in an appeal by specialleave under Article 136 of the Constitution against concurrent findingsFof fact by the Trial Court and the High Court after appreciation ofevidence, each and every finding of fact cannot be contested and suchan appeal cannot be dealt with as if this Court is another forum forreappreciation of evidence. It was observed that it is only if theassessment by the Trial Court and the High Court can be said to beGvitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or indisregard to the norms of judicial process, leading to serious prejudice orinjustice, that this Court may, and in appropriate cases would, interferein order to prevent grave or serious miscarriage of justice, but such acourse is to be adopted only in rare and exceptional cases of manifestillegality. It was further observed that such an appeal is not a regularH

appeal and this Court would not interfere with concurrent findings offact based on pure appreciation of evidence and it is not the scope ofsuch appeal that this Court would enter into reappreciation of evidenceso as to take a view different from that taken by the Trial Court andapproved by the High Court.

7. Earlier, in Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das and another Vs.State of Assam [(2010) 10 SCC 374], this Court affirmed that Article136 of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on a party andonly confers discretionary power on this Court to be exercised sparinglyto interfere in suitable cases where grave miscarriage of justice hasresulted from illegality or misapprehension or mistake in reading evidenceor from ignoring, excluding or illegally admitting material evidence.

8. This being the settled legal position, the case on hand may nowbe examined. There are no eye-witnesses to the actual commission ofthe offence and the case is built on circumstantial evidence. Trite tostate, in such a situation, the chain of evidence must be so complete asto not leave any reasonable grounds for a conclusion consistent with theinnocence of the accused; the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘maybe’ guilty, before the Court can convict, and the facts established shouldbe consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused [SeeHanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343)].

9. In this context, the following facts may be noted: Vetcha KesavaRao (PW-1) stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 05.00 pm, he went toSompeta for business purposes and received a call from PW-7/LW-8 atabout 09.30 pm that the accused went to his house at about 09.00 pmand that they heard loud cries and shouts coming from the house. PW-7then told him that after some time A1 ran away with small bundles ofgold while he and LWs 6 & 7 (PW-4 and PW-6) were watching and A2fled from upstairs towards the backside portion. PW-1 stated that hereturned from Sompeta and reached his house at about 10.00 or 10.30pm and by that time, people had gathered outside his house and all thedoors of his house were open. His son was lying in a pool of blood nearthe sofa in the shop room and there was an iron rod on the floor, and inthe southern side room, his wife was lying in a pool of blood and hefound another iron rod near her. All the gold ornaments were missingfrom the shop almirah and the show case. He then went to the policestation and lodged a report (Ex.P-1). PW-1 stated that he told the policethat his wife and son were killed by the accused. He also informed the A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Apolice that he had lost gold ornaments and cash of ¹ 18,340/-. In hiscross-examination, he stated that the accused were his customers andused to purchase gold or take money from him. He denied knowledge ofA1 being a contractor and his financial position.

10. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre,BIchapuram (PW-19), conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodyof deceased No. 1. He issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-14) statingthat the cause of his death was shock due to brain injury and hemorrhagefollowing a head injury. Another Civil Assistant Surgeon at the CommunityHealth Centre, Ichapuram (PW-20), conducted the autopsy over thebody of deceased No. 2 and issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P-15)Cstating to the same effect as to the cause of her death. Both PW-19 andPW-20 denied the suggestion that the injuries on the bodies of thedeceased could have been caused by falling from the first floor. In effect,it can safely be said that their deaths were homicidal in nature. More so,as blood-stained iron rods (MOs1 and 2) were found near the bodies.D

11. Though there were no eye-witnesses to the actual killings,there were three separate witnesses who spoke of seeing one or both ofthe accused ‘running away’ from the house of PW-1 at that late hour onthe fateful night. PWs 4, 6, and 10 are those witnesses. PW-4 statedthat he was also doing gold and silver business and knew PW-1 as wellEas the accused. He stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he andPW-6 were going to his sister’s house at Dabburi Street via Medaraveedhiand at that time, they heard loud voices coming from PW-1’s house.They shouted as to what was happening inside the house. A number ofpeople gathered at the house. Then, A1 came out from the house ofPW-1 and ran away. After that, the police came to the house of PW-1.FAlong with them, they all went inside the house of PW-1 and found thatthe wife and son of PW-1 were lying dead. PW-1’s son was lying in theshop room and the body of PW-1’s wife was at the bath room whichwas after the shop room. PW-1 then returned from camp. During theinvestigation, on 11.12.2008, his statement was recorded under SectionG164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sompeta (Ex.P2). Atthis stage, PW-4 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by theprosecution. He denied having stated before the police that the accusedhad entered the house of PW-1 and had stolen gold ornaments and cash.In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-4 stated that PW-1’s housewas in the centre of Chinnamedaraveedhi and on both sides, housesH

were situated. He stated that he did not know whether PW-1 used toadvance loans on pledging of gold ornaments.

12. PW-6 stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he andPW-4 were going towards his house and PW-4 was then going to hissister’s house via Chinnamedaraveedhi. By the time they reached PW-1’s house, they heard cries and shouted as to what happened. In themeanwhile, 10 to 15 people gathered there. Then, A1 came outside fromPW-1’s house and ran away on a bike with a bag on his shoulder. After5 or 10 minutes, A2 jumped from the upstairs of PW-1’s house to theneighbouring house and from there, he jumped down. At that time, A2was also holding a bag. After one hour, PW-1 returned to his house andthe police also came there. In the first room, i.e., the gold shop, PW-1’sson was found in a pool of blood and his wife’s body was found near thebathroom towards the backside of the shop. Iron rods were found nearthe bodies. In his cross-examination, PW-6 stated that about 3 or 4 peoplewere present at PW-1’s house by the time they were passing there. Hefurther stated that A1 was a contractor and possessed 8 lorries. Hehowever disclaimed knowledge of A1 doing gold business or havingconstructed a temple. He could not say the colour of the wearing appareland the colour of the bags carried by the accused.

13. PW-7 stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.00 pm, he closedhis kirana shop and was returning home and by the time he reachedPW-1’s house, he heard loud sounds coming from PW-1’s house andsome people had gathered there. He stated that he called PW-1 andinformed him that loud sounds were coming from his house and PW-1said that he would return home. At about 10.30 pm, PW-1 returned tothe house and a police report was given. After the police came, theywent inside the house and on the left side near the sofa in the shop room,PW-1’s son was lying in a pool of blood. His wife was lying in a pool ofblood by the bathroom and iron rods were present near the bodies. Hefurther stated that all the things were shattered in the house of PW-1and around 4 Kgs. of gold and cash was stolen/lost. In his cross-examination, he stated that, by the time the police came there, he waspresent outside PW-1’s house. Significantly, PW-7 did not say anythingabout the presence of the accused or about informing PW-1 of theirentering and leaving his house.

14. PW-10 resided in the 2[nd] house opposite the house of PW-1.He stated that, on 21.08.2008 at about 09.30 pm, while he was taking AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Adinner, he heard sounds from outside. When he came out, he saw around10 people gathered in the street. Meanwhile, A1 ran away from PW-1’shouse and then A2 ran away from PW-1’s house. Both of them wereholding bags. Later, he came to know that the accused had murderedPW-1’s wife and son and ran away with gold. He stated that PW-1came to the house within half an hour or one hour. Police also came toBthe house. He went to the house and saw the bodies of deceased. In hiscross-examination, he admitted that he did not state before the policethat A1 and A 2 were holding bags and left PW-1’s house in a hurry.

15. Now, coming to the apprehension and arrest of the accused.PW-17 stated that he was the Village Revenue Officer of Koligam VillageCand on 22.08.2008, at around 01.00 am, he was called to IchapuramTown Police Station by the Inspector of Police. LW-27 was alreadythere by then. He stated that both of them and the police went to RadhamStreet near Jagannadhaswamy Temple. At that time, one person wasseen running away from that place and the police chased and caught Dhold of him. He was holding a bag in his hand. He stated that his namewas Chinapana Gopi (A2) and he allegedly confessed to commission ofthe crime. The bag was seized and opened in their presence. They foundgold ornaments and cash of ¹ 18,340/- inside. At about 04.00 or 04.30am on the same day, he went to Ichapuram Town Police Station andboth the accused were present there. The police then seized the blood-Estained clothes of both the accused in his presence. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember the colour of the bagseized from A2 or the number of ornaments seized.

16. PW-16, the Village Revenue Officer, Purushottapuram,Ichapuram Mandal, stated that, on 22.08.2008 at about 02.30 am, theFInspector of Police, Ichapuram, called him and LW-25 and both of them,along with the Inspector of Police and other police staff, went toGollaveedhi in a police jeep. On seeing the police jeep, one person startedrunning but the police chased and caught hold of him. He was broughtbefore the Inspector of Police and on questioning as to why he wasGrunning, he identified himself as Dakkata Balaram Reddy (A1). Heallegedly confessed to having killed PW-1’s wife and son and takinggold ornaments. Upon being questioned about the ornaments, he broughtthe ornaments in a bag from his room, i.e., about 30 items. PW-16 furtherstated that, at about 04.40 am on the same day, the Inspector of Policecalled him to the Police Station and he along with LW-26 went there.H

The police seized the yellow T-shirt (MO 97) and light cement-colouredjeans pant (MO 98) of A1 along with the blood-stained jeans of cementcolor (MO 99) of A2.

17. PW-26 worked as the Inspector of Police at Sompeta from13.10.2006 to 19.09.2008. He stated that, on 21.08.2008, while he washolding additional charge of Ichapuram Circle, he received informationfrom the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural Police Station (PW-23) about the subject crime. He immediately rushed there and also flashedradio messages for conducting vehicle checking to apprehend theaccused. He visited the scene of offence at 11.45 pm and noted thedead bodies. In the meanwhile, he received information about themovement of the culprits and left the scene of the offence. He securedtwo mediators and along with his staff, he went to Radhamveedhi,Jagannadhaswamy Temple, at about 01.15 am and noticed one person,carrying a hand bag, trying to escape upon seeing the police. Heapprehended the person (A2) and questioned him about the contents ofthe bag. He interrogated him and he confessed to the commission of theoffence. The bag carried by him was verified and gold ornaments alongwith cash of ¹ 18,340/- were found therein. Then, PW-26, along with theaccused, his staff and mediators, rushed to the house of the other accused,Dakkata Balaram Reddy, situated on Gollaveedhi of IchapuramMunicipality, and upon seeing the police, one person (A1) tried to escape.He was apprehended and interrogated in the presence of mediators. Healso confessed to commission of the offence and corroborated the versiongiven by the other accused. PW-26 stated that he then questioned himabout the stolen property and he fetched a bag from the side room of thehouse along with blood-stained clothes and handed over the same tohim. The bag contained gold ornaments. PW-26 then arrested A1 atabout 04.00 am and brought both the accused to the police station alongwith the seized property. Upon further questioning as to their clothes atthe time of the offence, they disclosed that they were wearing the sameclothes at the time of offence. He then secured some other clothes andseized their blood-stained clothes.

18. PW-27 stated that he worked as the Inspector of Police,Ichapuram, from 09.02.2008 to 09.05.2010. He stated that he took upfurther investigation in the case on hand on 31.08.2008 and that PW-26had conducted investigation till then. He spoke of the Test IdentificationParade of the seized gold ornaments conducted in the presence ofmediators.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A19. The Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, Srikakulam, was examinedas PW-24. He stated that, on receipt of a telephone message from thePolice Station, Ichapuram, he visited the scene of offence along with aClues Team on 22.08.2008 at about 06.00 am and developed four chancefingerprints on a glass show case and one chance fingerprint on a cream-coloured plastic box. He stated that he found photocopies of two of theBchance prints unfit for comparison but the chance prints marked as A, Dand E were fit for comparison. The fingerprints marked as A and Etallied with the fingerprints of the two accused. In his cross-examination,he stated that he did not receive the specimen fingerprints of the accusedthrough the Court but from the Investigating Officer.C

Insofar as this fingerprint evidence is concerned, we find thatthe same was liable to be eschewed from consideration as the accusedwere already in custody by the time the so-called chance fingerprintswere lifted from the scene of the offence. More importantly, theprescribed procedure was not followed in gathering this so-calledDevidence. No report was drawn up at the time of lifting of these chanceprints in the presence of credible witnesses. Similarly, no report wasprepared even at the time the specimen fingerprints of the accused weretaken. Therefore, PW-24’s evidence that two of the chance prints talliedwith the fingerprints of the accused cannot be given any weightage.EFailure in following the due procedure rendered the findings of PW-24wholly unreliable.

20. Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel, would contend thatthere is no evidence of any light being available outside the house ofPW-1, whereby the witnesses could have seen the accused running awayFwith bags. We are of the opinion that it would not be open to the accusedto raise this factual aspect at this late stage. It was never put in issuethat the area in question did not have adequate street lights, whereby theevidentiary value of the statements of witnesses as to what they hadseen could be attacked.More so, as it has come on record that apartfrom the jewellery shop of PW-1, there were other jewellery shops inGthe vicinity and the police station itself was just half a kilometer away. Ifthat was so, it is difficult to believe that there would be no street lightingin such an area. In any event, this Court does not propose to initiate aninquiry into this factual aspect, which was not raised either before theTrial Court or before the High Court.

H

DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY & ANR. v. STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH & ANR. [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

21. Undeniably, there are some discrepancies and contradictionsin the prosecution’s case. There is no clarity as to the sequence of eventsat the scene of offence on the fateful night. Witnesses gave differingversions of the time of the arrival of the police and as to what they sawand said. There is no corroboration of PW-1’s statement that it wasPW-7 who informed him of the accused entering and exiting his house,as PW-7 said nothing to that effect. Further, recovery of the clothesworn by the accused at that time is also shrouded in doubt. One versionis that they were still wearing them at the police station and they wereseized there by the police, after providing them other clothes, while theother is that A1 handed over blood-stained clothes to PW-26 along withthe bag of ornaments at his house. However, some differences in thetestimonies of witnesses as to what they saw and said are to expectedgiven the passage of time. Be it noted that the subject incident occurredon the night of 21.08.2008 and the depositions of the witnesses wererecorded by the Trial Court in the later part of 2015. In any event, asalready noted hereinbefore, this Court would not undertake a rovinginquiry on factual issues or reappreciate the evidence, unless it is broughtout that there is some perversity in appreciation of evidence by the TrialCourt or the High Court, leading to manifest miscarriage of justice. Trivialdefects in investigation or process are not enough, in themselves, todisbelieve the prosecution’s case. To acquit solely on the ground ofdefective investigation would be adding insult to injury [See Karnel SinghVs. State of M.P. {(1995) 5 SCC 518}]

22. Similarly, identification of the gold ornaments by PW-1 duringthe TIP does not raise any red flags. Order 474 of the Andhra PradeshPolice Investigation Manual, Part I, Vol. IIA, provides that identificationof properties has to be done in the Court premises, under the order ofthe Magistrate, either by the Magistrate or through independent witnesses,if the properties are already sent to Court, and in other cases, independentwitnesses should conduct the process of identification of the property inthe absence of the police, under a Panchnama. The properties to beidentified should be mixed with similar articles and the witnesses shouldbe asked to identify them. This being the procedure that was followed inthe case on hand, there is no reason to doubt PW-1’s identification of theseized gold ornaments as those taken from his shop.

23. In this regard, it may also be noted that A2 was found inpossession of a bag carrying some of the stolen ornaments and, therefore, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asuch possession itself speaks against him, in terms of Section 114 (a) ofthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Being a fact especially within hisknowledge, it was for A2 to explain as to how he came to be in possessionof those stolen ornaments, under Section 106 of the Indian EvidenceAct, 1872. However, no explanation was offered by him. As regardsA1, it is the prosecution’s case that he confessed to commission of theBcrime and upon being questioned as to the stolen gold ornaments, hehimself went into the other room in his house and brought out a bagcontaining the gold ornaments. This part of his confession would,therefore, be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, as it led to the recovery of the stolen gold ornaments.C

24. No doubt, recovery of this stolen property from the accusedwould not be sufficient in itself to convict them for murder. However,the weight of the evidence on record, taken cumulatively, unerringlypoints to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for second thoughts.The inescapable fact remains that PWs 4, 6, and 10, who were witnessesDindependent of each other and who had no animosity or enmity with theaccused, spoke in unison about seeing them running away from the houseof PW-1 of the fateful night with bags in their possession. No explanationis forthcoming as to why three separate witnesses would choose toimplicate the accused falsely.

E25. Given the totality of the case, which demonstrates that thesequence of events unfolded in quick succession during the interveningnight of 21.08.2008 and 22.08.2008, leading to not only identification ofthe accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension andarrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash fromtheir possession, it is amply clear that there was no time or possibility forFthe police to hoist a false case upon them. Minor discrepancies andshortcomings in the statements made by witnesses after passage of afew years would necessarily have to be discounted in such a scenario.

27. Viewed thus, we find no patent illegality or manifest injusticehaving been committed by the Trial Court and the High Court, warrantingGexercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, found to be bereft of merit and it isdismissed accordingly.

Divya Pandey

H(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)