APHC010538062016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 606/2016 Between: Chitikina Surya Chandra Rao State of Andhra Pradesh & o Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.135 of 2015 dated 29.04.2016, the appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 606/2016 Chitikina Surya Chandra Rao ...AP AND & others ...RESPO ellant: CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI dent(S): RAMATIRTHA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned II Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.135 of 2015 dated 29.04.2016, the de facto complainant (PW.1) filed the present IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned II Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.135 of complainant (PW.1) filed the present 2 A.1 to A.5 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 01.01.2011 at about 02.00 P.M., A.1 to A.5, in furtherance of common intention, beat one Chitikina Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in his fields situated at Madhavaram Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, pulled him to the ground by using criminal force and poured pesticide poison into his mouth, which led to unconsciousness and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on 09.01.2011, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the five accused by judgment dated 29.04.2016, which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Madhavaram Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the father and PW.3 is brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. PW.5 is friend of the deceased. PW.6 is relative of the deceased. PW.2 is the neighbouring land owner of the deceased. PW.4 is the resident of same village. A.1 is none other than the sister’s husband of PW.1. A.2 to A.5 are sons of A.1. PW.1 was having Ac.5.00 cents of agricultural land. He along with the deceased was cultivating the said land. The mother of PW.1 also used to reside with PW.1. About eight months prior 3 to the date of incident, the mother of PW.1 went to the house of his sister, who is wife of A.1, for a short stay. But, she was not sent back to the house of P.W1 in spite of request. During the stay of mother of PW.1 in the house of his sister, she transferred 50% of the agricultural land in her name. While so, on 01.01.2011 at about 09.00 A.M., when the deceased went to the fields for spraying pesticides, at about lunch time, A.1 to A.5 came there and questioned the deceased as to why he was doing agricultural work in their fields. On that, the deceased quarreled with the accused. In that quarrel, the accused beat him and poured pesticide into his mouth and he fell unconscious. Immediately, he was shifted to Amma Hospital, Nidadavole. PW.12 admitted the deceased in his hospital, who was in unconscious state. On 08.01.2011, the deceased regained consciousness and immediately, PW.12 Doctor sent intimation to the police. On the same day, at about 07.00 P.M., PW.15 Head Constable visited Amma Hospital and recorded statement from the deceased under Ex.P12. PW.12 Doctor made endorsement under Ex.P5. On 09.01.2011, PW.16 Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station received Ex.P12 from PW.15 and registered a case in Cr.No.4/2011 under Section 328 r/w 34 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. He visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report Ex.P4 in the presence of PW.11 and others. He also got the scene photographed through PW.11. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P14 at the scene of offence. On the same day, he received a message stating that the deceased died in the hospital while undergoing 4 treatment. Immediately, PW16 went to the Police Station and recorded a statement from PW.1 and altered section of law from 328 to 302 r/w 34 IPC. Altered F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P15. He visited the house of the deceased and recorded statements of PWs 3, 7, 9 & 10 and others. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of the mediators under Ex.P2. He got the dead body photographed through PW.7 under Ex.P16. He sent dead body for Postmortem examination. (b) PW.14 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Nidadavole, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to Cloro Pyrophos and organo phosphate insecticide poison. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P9. (c) On 13.01.2011, Inspector of Police PW18 took up further investigation. He secured the presence of PWs 2, 4, 5, 6 & others and recorded their statements. On the same day, he visited Amma Hospital and seized stomach wash collected by PW.12 under a Panchanama Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.10 and another. He recorded statement of PW.12 also. On 04.02.2011, he forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the R.F.S.L.’) for chemical analysis. On 25.12.2012, PW.17 took up further investigation. He received R.F.S.L. report Ex.P10 and he obtained Final Opinion Ex.P11 from PW.14. On 15.09.2013, PW.19 took up further investigation. He received proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, to alter section of law from 302 to 306 IPC. He submitted a Memo seeking alteration of section of law from 302 5 to 306 IPC before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem. Ex.P17 is the proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police dated 13,09.2013. Ex.P18 is the altered Memo dated 15,09.2013. On 17.09.2013, PW.20 took up further investigation. The investigation done by PW.20 revealed that there are ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC. On 13.11.2013, he arrested the A.1, A.3 & A.5 at Madhavaram Village, who were remanded to judicial custody. On 22.11.2013, he arrested A.2 & A.4 at Madhavaram Village. After completion of the investigation, PW.20 filed charge sheet under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 20, marked exhibits P1 to P18 and exhibited M.O.1. 5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 6. Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent - State. 7. We have carefully perused the entire material on record. 8. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only eye witness available in this case is PW.2, who is the neighboring land owner of the deceased. PW.2 in his evidence has stated that on 01.01.2011, when the 6 deceased was attending to his agricultural operations in his fields, the accused came there during lunch time and questioned him as to why he was doing agricultural work in his fields. His evidence further disclose that there ensured a quarrel between both the accused and deceased and the accused beat the deceased. It is further stated by PW.2 that he intervened between the accused and deceased and separated them. At that time, the deceased picked up a pesticide tin and swallowed some portion of pesticide. On seeing the same, PW.2 went and threw away the tin from his hands. But, by that time, the deceased already swallowed some quantity of pesticide and fell down. Later, the villagers shifted the deceased on a tractor to the hospital. PW.2 informed PW.1 about the deceased consuming pesticide. On hearing the same, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. 9. Coming to the next evidence available on record is the dying declaration said to have been recorded by PW.15 Head Constable. PW.15 in his evidence deposed that on 08.01.2011, he got intimation from Amma Hospital about the admission of the deceased who consumed insecticide. Immediately, he visited the hospital at about 07.00 P.M. and recorded his statement Ex.P12 from the deceased. Though the incident took place on 01.01.2011, Ex.P12 was recorded on 08.01.2011 stating that the deceased was in unconscious state from 01.01.2011 onwards. It is only on 08.01.2011, the deceased regained consciousness. PW.12 Doctor, who was treating the deceased, in his evidence has stated that on 08.01.2011, the deceased regained consciousness and he informed police for recording his statement. He further 7 stated that PW.15 recorded Ex.P12 in his presence and he endorsed on it under Ex.P5 stating that the patient was conscious while recording the statement. But, in the cross-examination, PW.12 stated as follows: “I do not remember whether the patient was recurring consciousness during his treatment. It is true while the police was recording the statement of the patient I was attending my other duties. After police recording the statement I endorsed on the statement that the patient was conscious.” In Ex.P12, the deceased has stated that the accused fell him down and forcibly administered pesticide into his mouth and he fell unconscious. But, the eye witness PW.2 has specifically stated that the deceased himself voluntarily consumed pesticide. Both the versions are inconsistent to each other. Further, the Doctor in his cross-examination specifically admitted that he did not give intimation to the Magistrate for recording dying declaration. Further, the prosecution also marked Ex.P6 letter written by PW.1 requesting PW.12 not to inform police as the deceased himself consumed pesticide. Considering Ex.P12 and the evidence of PW.12, the learned trial Judge in his judgment held as follows: “25. The evidence of P.W.12 – Doctor shows that P.W.1 has given Ex.P6 – consent letter stating that the deceased himself consumed pesticide and became unconscious and that he does not want a police case and no intimation is required to be given to the police about the admission of the deceased in the hospital. The incident of the deceased consuming pesticide took place on 01.01.2011 and while undergoing treatment at Amma Hospital, and while being taken to Rajahmundry for better treatment, he died on 08.01.2011. It is only after P.W.12 gave intimation to P.W.15, did 8 P.W.1 gave report to the police, and even though the deceased died on the night of 08.01.2011. P.W.1 gave report to P.W.16 on the next day at about 1.00 p.m. This is evident from the evidence of P.W.16, who deposed that at about 1.00 p.m., he got information about the death of the deceased, and by the time, he went to the Police Station, P.W.1 got the report prepared and presented the same. This conduct of P.W.1 in remaining silent for eight days after occurrence of the incident of the deceased consuming pesticide and lodging the report on the next day after his death and that too in the afternoon, shows that he wanted to take advantage of the death of the deceased, who committed suicide by consuming pesticide by making it appear as if the accused have forcibly poured pesticide into the mouth of the deceased, so as to cause his death, to settle the property dispute with his sister, and thereby, implicated the accused, who are the husband and children of his sister. Further, if really as confided by the deceased to P.W.1 that the accused poured pesticide into the mouth, the deceased would have suffered external injuries in and around the mouth due to resistance, but P.W.14 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in his evidence stated that he did not find any external injuries on the dead body of the deceased, which suggests that the deceased has himself consumed pesticide. 26. The recording of the statement of the deceased by P.W.15 under Ex.P12 is doubtful because though P.W.12 in his evidence deposed that he made Ex.P5-endorsement stating that the deceased was conscious while recording the statement, but in his cross- examination, he admitted that when P.W.15 was recording the statement of the deceased, he was attending to his other duties. Thus, it is very much doubtful whether the deceased regained his consciousness all of a sudden after eight days and his condition deteriorated after he gave Ex.P12–statement to P.W.15. Further, the evidence of P.W.15 shows that he is working in Samisragudem Police Station, while Amma Hospital, where the deceased was undergoing treatment is located in Nidadavole. P.W.15 in his evidence admitted that the police of Samisragudem Police Station are not supposed to 9 record the statement of a person who is taking treatment within the limits of another police station. Such being the evidence of P.W.15, no credence can be placed on Ex.P12–statement of the deceased.” 10. As seen from the material on record, the police filed charge sheet under Section 306 IPC. But, the learned trial Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC on the basis of Ex.P12. As such, the dying declaration recorded by PW.15 under Ex.P12 do not inspire confidence of this Court, as the Doctor PW.12 has specifically admitted that he was not present at the time of recording the dying declaration. Apart from Ex.P12, the evidence of the eye witness PW.2 who was not declared as hostile, specifically disclosed that the deceased consumed poison voluntarily. 11. As seen from the above material, the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.135 of 2015 vide judgment dated 29.04.2016, needs no interference. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in S.C.No.135 of 2015 vide judgment dated 29.04.2016. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 06.03.2025 MVA