Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah vs State Of A.P

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2111-2112 OF 2008

MANTHURI LAXMI NARSAIAH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. The deceased, Venkatram Reddy, owned some

agricultural land bearing Survey No. 678 in Village

Pedched. The paddy crop that had been sown on this

land had been harvested four or five days earlier to

the date of the incident and the deceased would sleep

in the fields at night to keep a watch on the paddy

and the deceased as per routine, went to the fields on

the evening of the 1st of May, 2004. At about 6:30A.M.

the next morning P.W. 6, the servant of the family,

informed the family members that Venkatram Reddy had

been murdered and the injuries had been caused with an

axe. P.W. 1, the son of the deceased, rushed to the

field and found that his father was lying dead on which

he registered a First Information Report against

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008

2

unknown persons. During the course of the

investigation it transpired that P.W. 2, another son of

the deceased, had seen the wife of A1 requesting the

deceased to go to the fields the next morning as the

paddy had to be thrashed and that P.W. 9 had seen A1,

his wife and son returning on a bullock cart at mid

night on the 1st of April, 2004 and when he had

questioned them they told him that they were going to

the field to thrash the paddy crop. P.W. 9 also

stated that he had also asked A9 to supply water from

his cart for the marriage of his daughter which was

scheduled to take place the next morning. The police

also recorded the statement of P.W. 10 to whom the two

accused had made an extra judicial confession about

20/25 days after the murder and had sought his help in

dealing with the police and that he had advised them to

surrender to custody. The accused were, accordingly,

arrested soon after the extra-judicial confessions had

been made and on the statements made by both of them,

the weapons of offence i.e. axe etc. were recovered in

the presence of P.W. 12. The trial court relying on

the aforesaid evidence convicted the two accused under

Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

them to imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High

Court observed that there were four piece of evidences

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008

3

against the appellant viz:

"a) A-1 cultivated the lands of the deceased on crop sharing basis, there arose differences in the context of the demand made by A1 to give the other lands of the deceased also on lease to him;

b) PW-9 had seen A-1, his wife and son coming on a bullock cart towards the same field, late in the night on the date of occurrence.

c) That A-1 and A-2 have confessed before PW-11 that they have committed the murder of Venkatram Reddy and

d) the recovery of material objects at the instance of A-1 and A-2 was evidenced by PW-12."

and on an analysis of the evidence concluded that no

case was made out against A2 and as such his appeal was

allowed whereas the appeal of A1 was dismissed. It is

in this situation that the matter is before us after

the grant of special leave.

2. We have heard Mr. Niroop, the learned counsel

for the appellant, and Mr. R. Sundaravardhan, the

learned Senior Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh.

We notice that there are four circumstances which the

High Court has made out against the appellant. We deal

with them ad seriatim:

(a) It is the prosecution story that A1 had cultivated

the land of the deceased on crop sharing basis for some

time and that the two had later fallen out on account

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008

4

of the refusal of the deceased to give some more land

to A1 for cultivation purposes. We see from the record

that the facts relating to the difference of opinion

between the accused and the deceased did not figure in

the statements given by any of the prosecution

witnesses given under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure and was an improvement made during

the course of the evidence. In that eventuality, this

evidence by itself has virtually no value.

(b) This point has been taken to be the evidence of

last seen. This is a wrong perception for the reason

that when P.W. 9 had seen A1 and his son returning from

the fields late at night, the deceased was not with

them. To our mind, therefore, this evidence too is of

no importance and merely because the accused had been

seen coming from the field in which the murder had

apparently been committed could not be taken as

evidence of last seen as it is the admitted case that

A1 was also cultivating part of the land in which the

murder had been committed.

(c) This is the primary evidence which the prosecution

has relied upon against the appellant. First of all,

we find that the extra-judicial confession was jointly

made by the accused to P.W. 10. We have also gone

through the evidence of P.W. 10 and find from a reading

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008

5

thereof that he was a convenient witness for the police

as he admitted that he had stood bail in a large number

of excise cases and that he was running a toddy shop.

He also admitted in his cross examination that he was

associated in some kind of business with P.W. 1 the

first informant and the son of the deceased. In the

face of the above, we are of the opinion that the

recovery of the axe and other incriminating articles do

not constitute a material chain of circumstances

against the appellant. It is by now well-settled that

in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain

of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution

and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused

must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion

that the present is in fact a case of no evidence. We,

accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the judgment

of the High Court insofar as the appellant is concerned

and order his acquittal. He is directed to be released

forthwith if not required in connection with any other

case.

..................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008

6

..................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2011.