Criminal Revision Case No. 1538 of 2005 · High Court · 2012

Judgment

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto- complainants challenging the judgment dated 24.1.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.407 of 2001 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The case of the prosecution is as follows: Respondents 1 to 4 are accused No.1 to 4. A1 is a resident of Eluru town; A2 is a servant under the family of A1. A3 and A4 are

associates of A2. Batta Srinivas (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), resident of Eluru, completed his M. Sc. (Tech.) P.G. Degree from Andhra University and came down to his native place. The deceased being the childhood friend of A1 used to visit the house of A1 now and then. A1 suspected that the deceased misbehaved with his cousin sister viz., Dandupati Archana, who is alleged to have met with a fatal railway accident on 12.5.1997. On 26.5.1997, the deceased proposed to leave Eluru for Visakhapatnam for attending AUCET entrance examination scheduled to be held on 3.6.1997. A1 approached the deceased on 26.5.1997 around 10 p.m., with the proposal of dropping him in the bus stand in the Maruthi Van bearing No.A.P. 16G 1588. The deceased boarded the van of A1 at 10 p.m., on 26.5.1997. The deceased was possessing gold ring inscribed with English letter ‘B.S.’ weighing about 2 ½ gms., a Titan Clasis Wrist watch and a hand bag containing his belongings. Batta Dhanalakshmi, Batta Mallikharjunarao, Batta Madahvi, Pitchukala Anuradha Sri, Pamarthi Nagaraju, Sydu Subbarao, Punnavajhula Phanindra Prasad, Korada Srinivas and Mohd. Wafi Ahmed witnessed the deceased leaving home in the company of A1. On 4.6.1997 the parents of the deceased came to know that the deceased did not attend to AUCET examination at Viksahpatnam and they got confirmation of the said fact from Kode Arjunudu, Vepuri Bikshalaiah and Meka Raju, who are the students of Andhra University. When the parents of the deceased enquired A1 about the deceased, A1 bluntly denied about the approach of the deceased to

26.5.1997. On the basis of the report given by the parents of the deceased that A1 might have killed the deceased, a case in Crime No.123 of 1997 was registered under Man missing and investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru against the A1 to A4 alleging that they have committed for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The learned Magistrate took the same on file for the offences under Sections 365, 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and committed the case to the Courts of Sessions, West Godavari Division. The learned Sessions Judge registered the same as Sessions Case No.407 of 2001 and made over to the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 365 against A1 and charge under Sections 302 and 201 against A1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 26 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioners-A1 to A4 not guilty for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and also found A1 not guilty for the charge under Section 365 IPC and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainants filed the present revision. Heard and perused the material available on record. The record goes to show that the deceased left the home on

26.5.1997. On 4.6.1997, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are parents of the deceased came to know that the deceased did not attend AUCET examination on 3.6.1997 at Visakhapatnam and they gave report to the police on 12.6.1997 and the police registered a case under man missing. But, no explanation is forthcoming as to the abnormal delay of 10 days in giving the complaint on 12.6.1997. P.Ws.7 and 8, who are alleged to have witnessed the deceased lastly in the company of A1, did not support the case of the prosecution. Except P.Ws.1 and 2, who are interested witnesses, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses in support of its case. Further, P.Ws.1 & 2 did not attribute any motive against A1. P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, admitted that there are no disputes between A1 and her son. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the confession made by A1 before the Executive Magistrate, the skeleton remnants of the deceased were recovered. It is a trait proposition of law that convicting an accused merely based on the extra judicial confession without any supportive evidence, would be lead to disastrous consequences and miscarriage of justice. It is the case of the prosecution that on the basis of the confession made by A1, they recovered the Skelton of the deceased. But the prosecution failed to prove that the skeleton recovered on the basis of the confession is that of the deceased Srinivas scientifically. Therefore, much sanctity cannot be attached to the alleged recovery. Indubitably and undisputedly, P.Ws.3, 4 and 20, who are independent witnesses and who are alleged to have last seen the deceased in the company of A1, turned hostile. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a proper perspective and has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused and hence, the judgment under appeal needs no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, stand dismissed. Dated: 29.11.2012 Nn. _________________ Justice Raja Elango HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.R.C. No.1538 of 2005 Nn.

29.11.2012