The State of A.P v. Kollipara Sambasiva Rao @ Sivaiah

Judgment

(Per Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This appeal is filed by the prosecution against the judgment in S.C.No.54 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam, dated 15.2.2006. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.5.2002 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused committed murder of the deceased Goriparthi Rama Rao near Vura Cheruvu of Kalaturu village by throttling him and thereafter his body was thrown in a well to conceal the murder. The motive for the offence is said to be that the deceased developed illegal intimacy with the wife of the accused. According to the prosecution, about four months earlier to the incident, the accused got some agricultural work got done through the deceased and the amount payable was Rs.2400/-.

Out of which, the accused paid Rs.2000/- to the deceased and he was in arrears of Rs.400/- balance amount. Since then the deceased used to visit the house of the accused on the plea of collecting the balance amount and in that process he developed intimacy with the wife of the accused. On account of that, the accused wanted to eliminate the deceased and on the fateful day he killed the deceased and threw the dead body into the well. On the basis of complaint, which was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and later converted into Section 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was done and charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC and charges were framed.

The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On the basis of the evidence, which is only circumstantial in nature, the court below found the accused not guilty and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present appeal.

The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that in spite of there being sufficient evidence to prove the case of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused. The point for consideration is whether there are any grounds warranting interference in the impugned judgment. P.W.1 is the Panchayat Secretary who got information about the body of the deceased being found in the well and who gave written complaint to the police in Ex.P-1. He got the body of the deceased also removed from the well and found injuries on the body and Ex.P-2 observation report was also prepared in the presence of witnesses. He also drafted Ex.P- 3 inquest report. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. His evidence is that six months prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased went to the accused for cooli work for which the accused paid Rs.2000/- and the accused was due of an amount of Rs.400/- . The deceased started asking the accused for the balance amount and the accused was postponing the same. The deceased developed intimacy with the wife of the accused and he also admonished the deceased about the same. On

15.5.2002 he fixed the marriage of the deceased and on the date of the incident the deceased went on cycle to Kalaturu village at about 6.30 p.m., to ask the balance of cooli amount from the accused. As the deceased did not come home till

9.00 p.m., he along with his brother went to Kalaturu village for searching the deceased and went to the house of the accused. Accused told him that the deceased came to him and asked for the balance amount and he asked to come on the next day. Thereafter, P.W.2 and other searched in the surrounding places of the village about the deceased, but did not find the deceased. Later some others also joined in searing the deceased and they found the bicycle of the deceased at the well. Again those persons went to the house of the accused and enquired about the deceased, the accused brought torchlight and joined others in searching the deceased. All of them went to the well and no one found the body of the deceased in the well. Thereafter, one Akkulu searched in the well and found the body of the deceased in the water. P.W.2 has stated that the accused might have caused harm to the deceased or might have killed the deceased due to illegal intimacy between his son and the wife of the accused. Thus, there is absolutely nothing in the evidence of P.W.2 father of the deceased other than suspicion. P.W.3 is resident of Eedulagudem village. He knows P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused as well as the deceased. According to him, on 26.5.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., while he was sleeping in the house, P.W.2 went to him and informed that the deceased went to the house of the accused for collecting due amount of Rs.400/- and did not return. Then they went in search of the deceased and the accused also joined in the search and ultimately they found the body of the deceased in the well. He stated that the accused might have killed the deceased and thrown the dead body into the well due to the illegal intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused. This witness also speaks about the suspicion against the accused. P.W.4 is the person who lifted the body of the deceased from the well. P.W.5 is the younger brother of the deceased. His evidence is that on 26.5.2002 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused came to his house and asked for Rs.10/- for purchase meat, but the deceased was unable to pay the said amount and the accused left by saying that he will pay the due amount of Rs.400/- to the deceased and asked the deceased to come to his house at evening hours. He (P.W.5) informed the accused that he will come instead of his brother for collecting the due amount, but the accused stated that if P.W.5 comes he would not pay the amount and the deceased alone has to come. At about 8.30 p.m., the deceased went to Kalaturu village on his cycle and did not return till 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, they went in search of the deceased and found his body in the well. He came to know that there was illegal intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused and on account of that the accused might have killed the deceased. Thus, his evidence is of no use to prove the guilt of the accused. P.W.6 who is also the resident of Eedulagudem village spoke about the illegal intimacy between the deceased and the wife of the accused. The evidence of P.W.7 is only about his learning about the death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.8 is that sometime prior to the death of the deceased, the accused talking to the deceased. There is nothing in his evidence to connect the accused with the murder. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. He opined that the deceased would have died of asphyxia due to throttling. P.W.10 is the witness for recovery of lungi of the deceased from the well. The evidence of P.W.11 is for the alleged admission made by the accused in the presence of police, which is inadmissible, and of no use. P.W.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police and P.W.13 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who investigated the case. Thus, there is nothing in the prosecution evidence to connect the accused with the death of the deceased. There is some material with regard to the illegal intimacy between the wife of the accused and the deceased, but that is also not authentic. In the circumstances, we find absolutely no material to interfere with the findings of the court below. The criminal appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ______________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 27.12.2010