K.Satyanarayana Reddy @ Sathubabu v. The State of A.P.

Order

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.175 of 2010 on the file of

the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, arising out of P.R.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 427, 307 and 201 read with 149 IPC. The Prosecution case is that the complainant is the Congress Party activist and he contested as independent candidate in ZPTC elections in the year 2006. Grave political rivalry existed between the complainant and A.1 and A.2. In pursuance of the same, A.1 and A.2 thought of eliminating the complainant. Further, they have taken A.3, who was moving with complainant earlier and later discarded him due to disputes, to their fold. A.1 and A.2 contacted A.4 for killing L.W.1, who in turn gathered A.5 to A.12 for the said purpose. A.4 to A.12 were kept by A.1 and A2 in their godown where A.5 to A.12 conspired together and hatched a plan to assault L.W.1 and they were entrusted with cash of Rs.7 lakhs, bajaj boxer motorcycle, iron roads, chilli powder, etc. by A.1 and A.2. Further, A.3 was entrusted with the responsibility of giving information about the movements of L.W.1. In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 07.11.2007 in between 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. A.4, A.7 to A.12 in a Scorpio Car, purchased with the amount financed by A.1 and A.2, stopped the Honda City car in which L.W.1 was traveling along with LWs 2 to 4 near J.K. Garden. In the meanwhile, A.5 and A.6 on Bajaj Boxer motorcycle went to the spot, where A.4 to A.12 broke the windowpanes of the car of L.W.1 while A.5 sprinkled the chilly powder into the eyes of L.W.1 and attempted on his life. Further, A.6 to A.12 attacked L.W.1 with rods and sticks and caused injuries on his vital parts of the body and caused bleeding injuries and also damaged the car. Later, A.4 to A.12 left the spot. On that, L.W.1 managed to escape from the place and went to the house of L.W.6, who admitted the complainant in hospital and informed the incident to the SHO, I Town L&O Police Station. After registering the crime, recording the statements of witnesses, conducting scene of offence panchanama, receiving necessary documents and reports and after completion of entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.12 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 read with 149 IPC alleging that A.1 and A.2 conspired with A.3 to A.12 and attempted to commit the murder of L.W.1 and A.5 tried to conceal the evidence by destroying the SIM of his cell phone. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, second respondent and the Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 submitted that taking advantage of rivalry between the petitioners and L.W.1, the present case is foisted against them and they are no way connected with the present crime. He further submitted that the complaint does not disclose the names of the petitioners and they are subsequently implicated in the crime. It is further submitted that A.1 and A.2 are having fertilizer business and have business relations with A.4 for which they contacted A.4 and the same was taken advantage by L.W.1 for implicating the petitioners in the present crime. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation done clearly reveals the involvement of the petitioners in the crime. He also submitted that the cell phone call register of A.1 to A.3 secured by the investigation officer reveals that on 07.11.2007 nearly 22 calls were made between A.3 and A.1 just before, during and after the alleged murder. The investigation also revealed communication between A.1 to A.5 through cell phone to commit the offence. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. Now the point for consideration before this Court is ‘Whether the proceedings against the petitioners can be continued basing on the material available on record?’ This Court perused the entire material on record including the complaint, statements of the witnesses, charge sheet, etc. One set of evidence available against the petitioners is that they provided shelter to the other accused prior to the occurrence. To prove the said fact, Prosecution mainly relied on the statements of LWs 25 and 26 namely Manda Subba Reddy and Challe Srinu. But, the evidence of the said witnesses recorded by the investigation officer disclose only that the other accused were in contact with the present petitioners. But, there is no evidence to show that the said witnesses subsequently identified the assailants before the Police. Further, the statements of the said witnesses only reveals that they provided food and other things to some persons at the instructions of A.1, but it is not stated by them that the other accused are the persons, who were hosted by the present petitioners. Further, nowhere it is stated by the said witnesses that during the said stay there was conspiracy between the petitioners and the other accused. The perusal of the documents placed before this Court reveals that the investigation officer has taken much pain to prove the motive behind the occurrence by collecting much evidence to prove the same. But, merely placing reliance on motive, whatever strong be it in nature, proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued. Motive is always a double-edged weapon, which can be used either for the commission of offence or for implication of the accused. Further more, if it is the case of the injured that in view of the rivalry between him and the petitioners there is eminent danger and immediate possibility of commission of crime by the petitioners, the same ought to have been mentioned in the complaint preferred by the complainant who set the law in motion. It clearly shows that at the time of lodging complaint, the complainant has no idea that commission of crime was by the petitioners herein. Merely because the real assailants are known to the petitioners, the same cannot be taken as a ground for connecting the petitioners with the present crime in the absence of any other material to connect the petitioners with the conspiracy. The existence of motive and the acquaintance of the assailants with the petitioners are not tenable grounds for connecting the petitioners with the present crime in the absence of any other evidence collected by the prosecution to prove the conspiracy. Another incriminating circumstance according to the Prosecution against the present petitioners-A.1 to A.3 is that there was telephonic conversation between A.1 to A.3 on one hand and with A.4 on the other. But, the telephone contacts alleged by the Prosecution do not disclose any conversation or conspiracy to commit the offence except the fact that they called each other on the date of occurrence. Even assuming for a moment the telephone calls were made between the present petitioners and other accused, it is evident from the record that much prior to occurrence i.e. since 01.11.2007 also they were in contact through cell phones with each other. It is not unusual when the known persons called each other over cell phone. Such contacts through cell phones cannot be taken as a ground to establish conspiracy when there is no evidence as to what was the conversation in connection with conspiracy. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that whatever be the inadequacy of evidence collected, the petitioners can face the same at the time of trial. This Court is also of the same opinion when there is some material to connect the accused with the alleged offence. In the present case, even assuming for a moment the allegations, though not rebutted by the petitioners, admitted to be true, the ingredients of offence alleged by the Prosecution do not attract. While filing the charge sheet, the investigating officer invoked the provisions of Section 120B IPC by just adding the words ‘petitioners herein conspired with other accused’, which is not enough in the absence of any material collected during the course of investigation to that effect. The entire material placed on record by the Prosecution does not disclose the possibility of framing charge against the petitioners for an offence under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that with the available material on record, the case against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 cannot be proceeded further. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners A.1 to A.3 in S.C.No.175 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, arising out of P.R.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, are hereby quashed. Dated : 28.10.2010 _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO