HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 1 APHC010344012017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3517] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766/2017 Between: Velugu Chinna Munuswamy @ Chinna, Spsr Nellore Dt., ...APELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep Pp ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Apellant: 1. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.766/2017 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) 1. The Sole accused in SC No.61 of 2014, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore is the appellant. 2. He was tried by the learned Special Judge under three (03) charges. First Charge was under Section 302 IPC, the Second Charge was under Section 452 IPC and the Third Charge was under Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Substance of the Charge is that on 11.09.2013 at about 04:00 pm, the accused trespassed into the house of one Thota Babu and Smt.Rani (hereinafter referred to as D-1 and D-2), who belong to ST community, hacked them with a knife causing their death thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 3 4. After completion of trial, the learned Special Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. The learned Special Judge further sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (02) months for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. He was also convicted under Section 3(2) (v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03) months. All the substantive sentences imposed against appellant/accused were directed to run concurrently. 5. Case of the prosecution briefly is as follows:- (i) Accused is a resident of Bodilingalapadu Village of Tada Mandal, Nellore District and he belongs to Mutarasi Community, which is a non-scheduled caste or non-scheduled tribe. HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 4 (ii) All the material prosecution witnesses and the deceased also are the residents of same village. The marriage of PW-1 was performed in the year 2012 and she is residing along with her husband at Hosur Village, Krishnagiri District, Tamilnadu State. Her husband was working as a Government Teacher. In the month of July, 2012 as PW-1 was pregnant, she came to her native place to stay in her parents’ house and residing along with both the deceased. They belong to Yanadi community which comes under the category of Schedule Tribes. PW-2 is elder sister of PW-1. PW-3 is the maternal uncle of PW-1; (iii) PW-3 and PW-4 are also residing in the same locality. The deceased No.1 was eaking out his lively hood by grazing buffaloes in the Village and the deceased No.2 is the house wife. The house of accused is situated opposite to the house of both the deceased. On 10.09.2013, the deceased No.1 asked the accused to look after his buffaloes also. On that the accused refused to graze his buffaloes. There was heated arguments in between the accused and deceased No.1 over the said issue. On 11.09.2013 at about 04:00 pm, both the deceased were present in their house. At that juncture, the accused altercated with deceased No.1. HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 5 (iv) During the course of said altercation PW-1 intervened and the accused kept a knife on her stomach and pushed her aside and due to fear PW-1 came out. Immediately, the accused went inside the house and hacked both the deceased with the knife indiscriminately. PW-1 entered into the house and found both deceased in a pool of blood. Immediately PW-1 went to police station and gave a report to Sub Inspector of Police (PW-7), Tada, at about 05:00 pm who registered a case in Crime No.167 of 2013 under Sections 452 and 302 IPC and submitted FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P11 is the FIR. (v) Having received the information, PW-8 the Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of offence located in the house of both the deceased. He noticed both the dead bodies in a pool of blood in their house with bleeding injuries. Immediately he secured panch witnesses PW-6 and LW-8 (Bandaru Ramakrishna Reddy) and in their presence he observed the scene of offence under cover of panchanama marked as Ex.P-4. He called the photographer and got the scene photographed and the photographs were marked as Ex.P5. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-14 at the scene of offence. He also seized Mos.8 to 11 at the scene of offence under the panchanama HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 6 marked as Ex.P4. He sent the dead bodies to the Government Hospital for conducting post-mortem examination. (vi) PW-5 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tada, conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of both the deceased. He opined the cause of the death of D-1 was due to severe fatal deep cut injury on the head. He also opined the cause of death of D-2 was due to severe fatal deep cut injury to neck and head. He also opined that the injuries received by them are sufficient to cause death. He issued post-mortem certificates of both the deceased marked as Ex.P2 & P3 respectively. Thereafter, PW-8 visited the Government Hospital, examined PWs-1 & 2 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the next day i.e., on 12.09.2013 at about 07:00 am PW-8 held inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased in the government hospital in the presence of PW-6 and another. Inquest reports are marked as Exs.P6 and P7. (vi) On 13.09.2013, at about 02:00 pm, PW-9 arrested the accused in the presence of PW-6 and another and on the confession made by appellant/accused, he seized Mo.1 (knife) under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P10. Thereafter, the accused HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 7 was remanded to judicial custody. He sent Mos.1 to 4 to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. FSL report is marked as Ex.P-19. After receipt of post-mortem report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, marked Ex.P1 to 20 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 11. On behalf of the defence, contradictory portion of statement of PW-2 was marked as Ex.D-1. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating material found against him. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witness, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri Venkata Rao Ravvulapalli, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 10. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 8 PW-1 and there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution rests its case on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the alleged confessional statement. 12. It is further contended that PW-6 is the panch witness for the observation report, inquest report, arrest of the accused and recovery of Mo.1 (knife). For all practical purposes, PW-6 was taken as the panch witness, and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Padala Kiran Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that PW-1 clearly deposed that on 11.09.2013 at about 04:00 pm when she and her parents were present in their house, the accused came there and quarrelled with her father and abused him in filthy language. At that juncture PW-1 intervened and the accused kept knife on her stomach and she came out due to fear. Later the accused went in to the house and hacked both the deceased with the knife 1 Crl.A No.31 of 2015, dt.01.02.2022 HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 9 causing the bleeding injuries and both the deceased died on the spot. 14. Apart from the evidence of PW-1, the evidence of PWs-6 & 9 also clearly establish the case of prosecution inasmuch as the weapon i.e., Mo.1 was seized by PW-9 after the confessional statement by the accused, who led to the place where Mo.1 was hidden. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal. 15. According to the PW-1 on 11.09.2013 at about 04:00 pm, the deceased No.1 came to the house in drunken state, while deceased No.2 was present. The accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and PW-1 tried to intervene and the accused kept knife on her stomach, due to fear, PW-1 came outside the house. Immediately, the accused trespassed into the house and hacked both the deceased with Mo.1 (knife). Subsequently, PW-1 entered into the house and found her parents dead in a pool of blood. Immediately PW-1 raised hue and cry and PWs-2 & 3 came to the house and noticed the incident as narrated by PW-1 to them. Thereafter, at about 05:00 pm, PW-1 went to Tada Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 10 the police on the basis of which the criminal law was set in to motion. 16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Parimi Venkata Naidu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 and Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another3 17. So far as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another4, wherein it was held as follows: 23. Now, we come to the second submission raised on behalf of the appellant that the material witness has not been examined and the reliance cannot be placed upon the sole testimony of the police witness (eyewitness). 24. It is settled proposition of law of evidence that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In Lallu Manjhi V. State of Jharkhand 5 , this Court had classified the oral testimony of the witnesses into three categories; (a) wholly reliable; (b) wholly unreliable; and (c) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable 2 2024 SCC Online AP 3980 3 (2012) 4 SCC 722 4 (2012) 4 SCC 722 5 SCC P.405, para 10 HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 11 In this third category of witnesses, the Court has to be cautious and see if the statement of such witness is corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence. 25. Equally well settled is the proposition of law that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. 18. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 04.00 pm., on 11.09.2013 and PW-1 is eye-witness. Immediately after the incident, PW-1 gave a report to Tada Police Station, within one (01) hour i.e., at about 05:00 pm. The distance between the place of incident and the Police Station is about 1 ½ kilometers. 19. From the above, it is clear that PW-1 was present at the scene of offence and she immediately rushed to the police station and gave a report. Therefore, the suggestion given by the accused that PW-1 was not present at the scene of offence inasmuch as, on the said date there was immersion of Ganesh Idol in the village and she was also participating in the said HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 12 programme cannot be accepted. Apart from the same Mo.1 (knife) was recovered by PW-9 on the confession made by the accused before PW-6 and the knife (Mo.1) was seized at the instance of the accused himself. The said factum also proves that the accused has committed the death of both the deceased. 20. It is also pertinent to mention that the Medical Officer- (PW-5), who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies also opined that the cause of death was due to injuries inflicted with sharp blunt object like Mo.1 (knife). Nothing is placed on the record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, PW-6 and PW-9. Further the evidence of eye-witness PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs-5, 6 and 9. 21. In view of the facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence dated 15.05.2017 in SC No.61 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 13 under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. 23. As the appellant/accused was released on bail by order dated 08.12.2022, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment, and in the event of failure, the learned Trial Judge is directed to secure the presence of the appellant/accused by issuing non-bailable warrants. However, it is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 24. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J 04.02.2025 DR HKSR, J & HTCDS, J CRLA_766_2017 14 153 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRLA No.766 of 2017 Dated 04.02.2025 DR