State Of A.P vs Thummala Anjaneyulu

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ...APPELLANT

VS

THUMMALA ANJANEYULU ....RESPONDENT

ORDER

1. This appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Andhra

Pradesh impugning the judgment of the High Court of that State whereby

the respondent herein, the sole accused, has been acquitted for an

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution story

is as under:

2. The accused Thummala Anjaneyulu by name, developed intimacy

with Suguna, daughter-in-law of PW-2. On the 6th of January 1997 PW-

2 found the respondent and his daughter-in-law in his cattle shed and

that too in a compromising position. PW-2 raised an alarm on which the

respondent ran away leaving behind a lungi and underwear belonging to

him. Suguna was thereupon made to leave PW-2's house the next day.

At about 4 p.m. on the 7th January 1997, the deceased Bhoomaiah went

to the house of PW-6 for the purpose of organizing a Panchayat between

G.Kistaiah and G. Ramulu with respect to some agricultural land. PW-3,

the wife of the deceased, and another lady, Manemma by name, and his Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 sister-in-law also followed 2 the deceased to oversee the outcome of the Panchayat. Several other

persons too were present at that time including the accused and PWs. 3,

4, 5, and 6. During the Panchayat proceedings the deceased suspected

that the accused was casting an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma

aforesaid. He thereupon confronted the accused and asked him as to

why he was looking at the ladies whereupon the accused took out a knife

and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest which resulted in a

serious injury to him. Bhoomaiah was immediately removed (in a tractor

belonging to PW-1, his younger brother) to Eldurti for medical aid but he

succumbed to his injuries on the way on which the body was taken to

the Eldurti Police Station instead. PW-1 also gave a report Ex.P1 which

was registered as a FIR by PW-10 the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station

for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police

Officer also visited the place of occurrence and made the necessary

enquiries and also dispatched the dead body for its post-mortem

examination to the Government Hospital, Medak and further handed

over investigation to PW-11. The accused surrendered to the police and

during the course of his remand made a disclosure statement leading to

the recovery of the alleged murder weapon. On the completion of the

investigation by PW-11, a charge-sheet was filed and the accused was

ultimately brought to trial.

Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 3. The prosecution in 3 support of its case relied on the evidence of PW-3 to PW-6, PW-3 being

the wife of the deceased, and PWs. 4, 5, and 6 being co-villagers of both

the accused as also the deceased. The doctor, who had conducted the

post-mortem examination, had, in the meanwhile passed away, and the

post-mortem report was accordingly not proved by the prosecution.

When the appeal came up before a Division Bench of the High Court, this

flaw was noticed and by its order dated 17th September 2003, a direction

was issued that the post-mortem report be proved by somebody who was

familiar with the hand writing of the deceased doctor. The post-mortem

report was, accordingly, proved by one Dr. P.Chandrasekhar.

4. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW-2 with regard to the

motive and that he had seen his daughter in law Suguna in a

compromising position with the deceased a day prior to the murder and

the eye witness account of the other four witnesses held that the case

against the respondent was proved beyond doubt. The trial court also

noticed that the FIR did not refer to either PW-3 or Manemma as being

present although the names of PWs. 4, 5 and 6 and several other

persons, who had not been examined, had figured as eye witnesses. The

Court observed that the prosecution story as given in the FIR was

slightly discrepant vis-a-vis the statements in court inasmuch that in the

FIR the story projected was that the accused had stabbed Bhoomaiah on

account of annoyance as Suguna had been sent away whereas in the Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 evidence in court, it 4 appeared that this story had been deviated from and the murder was

attributed to the fact that the respondent had been ogling at PW-3 and

Manemma during the Panchayat. The Court observed that in the light of

the above facts, the presence of PW-3 was doubtful. The trial court,

however, held that notwithstanding this apparent discordance there was

absolutely no reason whatsoever for the other witnesses to have falsely

named the accused as the assailant as they were truly independent. The

trial court, accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 302 and

sentenced him to imprisonment for life. An appeal was, thereafter, taken

by the accused to the High Court and the High Court, has, by the

impugned judgment, acquitted the accused primarily on the plea that

there was no evidence as to whether a Panchayat had been called to

settle the dispute between Kistaiah and Ramulu and as PW3's name had

not been mentioned in the FIR or in the inquest report as an eye witness,

her presence was doubtful. The High Court, while referring to PWs.4, 5

and 6 held that they too could not be believed for the simple reason that

there appeared to be some discrepancy as to the motive for the attack.

This is what the Court had to say:

"The fact that the names of PWs.4,5 and 6 were mentioned in Ex.P1 at the earliest point of time as eye witnesses to the occurrence lend credence to the fact that they were present at the scene of occurrence where the offence took place, but then it does not necessarily mean or lead to the conclusion that they are speaking the truth. All the above mentioned three witnesses consistently spoke in their evidence to the Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 effect that the 5 immediate provocation for the attack on the deceased was the questioning the deceased as to why the appellant was looking at PW.3 and Manemma at the scene of occurrence recorded earlier, the evidence of PWs.4 to 6 regarding the occasion for the assault will have to be discarded. The inevitable conclusion would be that the prosecution has not come out with the true version. The benefit necessarily go to the accused/appellant. In view of the conclusion reach by us, we do not propose to go into the merits of the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant."

5. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh

impugning the judgment of the High Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the record very carefully. It is true that PW-3's name does not

figure in the FIR and there appears to be some uncertainty with regard to

the motive for the murder. But we have no doubt that the evidence of

PW's 4 to 6 who are truly independent witnesses ought to be believed in

the facts of the case. It will be seen that the High Court has not

discussed the evidence of these witnesses and has disposed off the

matter in a some what sketchy manner. We have gone through the

evidence of these witnesses with the help of the learned counsel. We see

no reason to disbelieve their testimony. They have given categoric

statements as to the manner in which the incident had happened. We

must highlight that these witnesses were completely independent and

had no axe to crime either in favour of the prosecution or the defence.

They unanimously deposed to the manner in which the accused, Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 provoked by the 6 statement made by the deceased that he was looking at PW3 and

Manemma in an ugly manner, had caused one injury and while running

away from the spot had threatened those who were close by with dire

consequences in case they intervened.

7. The spontaneity of the FIR also supports the eye witness account.

The incident happened at about 4 p.m. in village Yeshwantraopet about

12 km. away from Police Station, Eldurti. An attempt was made to

remove the injured to the hospital but he died on the way, on which the

dead body was taken to the police station and the FIR was lodged at 8

p.m. The promptness of the FIR and the fact that the presence of PWs. 4

to 6 finds mention in it, clearly speaks to the truthfulness of the

prosecution story.

8. The learned counsel for the accused has, however, submitted that

even assuming for a moment that the prosecution story was correct and

the accused liable for conviction, it was not still a case of murder as

there was no evidence to show that the accused had intended to cause

the very injury which had been caused and had led to the death of the

deceased and he was, therefore, liable only for a charge of manslaughter

and not murder. The facts of the case undoubtedly support the

argument of the learned counsel. As per the prosecution story, the

deceased and the accused and the witnesses had gathered outside the

house of PW6 to organize a Panchayat to settle a dispute between Crl.Appeal No.1616/2005 Kistaiah and Ramulu, 7 who were not, in any manner, connected with either party and it was at

that stage that the accused was apparently provoked by the remarks of

the deceased that he should not cast an evil eye on PW-3 and Manemma

on which he had suddenly taken out a knife which he was carrying and

caused one injury in the chest. We are of the opinion that there was no

intention on the part of the accused to cause the very injury which he

caused which ultimately led to the death of the deceased. The accused

would thus be liable for conviction under Section 304 Part I of the IPC

and not under Section 302 thereof. We, accordingly, allow this appeal,

set aside the acquittal recorded by the High Court and convict the

accused for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC

and sentence him to 7 years R.I. The appeal is allowed to the above

extent.

...................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

...................................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 25, 2010.