TIPPARAM PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Three persons faced trial for alleged commission of death of one Damera Shiva Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on 20.3.2003. Trial court directed acquittal of Telukrishna (A3). High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant A2 while directing acquittal of A1.

(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : A1 is the maternal uncles son of Damera Shiva Kumar (hereinafter referred to as deceased). A2 and A3 are the friends of A1. On 20.03.2003 at about 5:00 p.m., the mother of the deceased Smt. Damera Lingamma (PW-1) and her daughter went to her younger sisters house at Malkajrigi to attend a betrothal ceremony. While leaving the house she gave Rs. 10/- to the deceased Shiva Kumar. The sister in law of the deceased Smt. Lalitha (PW- 2) and the deceased were alone in the house. At about 7:00 p.m., A2 and A3 came to the house of the deceased. A3 was standing outside the house. A2 came inside the house. A2 and A3 took the deceased Shiva Kumar on his motorcycle. PW1 and her daughter returned home at about 10:00 p.m., and enquired with PW2 about the deceased Shiva Kumar. PW2 informed PW1 that A2 and A3 took the deceased Shiva Kumar on his motorcycle. At about 10:30 p.m., A2 and A3 again came to the house of the deceased, along with the deceased. On hearing the sound of the motorcycle of the deceased, PW2 came out of the house and asked the deceased to come inside the house, as PW1 was calling him. Thereupon A2 stated to PW2 that he will send back the deceased within 10 minutes. At about 11:00 p.m., one Mallesh, Councilor of the Malkajgiri came to the house of the deceased and informed PW1 that one motorcycle with the inscription of Yadav was lying near Anandbagh Cross Road and that one dead body was also lying near the spot. Thereupon, PW1 and others went to the scene of offence. PW1 found her son lying dead in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries at Anandbagh Cross Roads. PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to PW11, the Sub Inspector of Police of Malkajgiri Police Station. PW11 registered Ex.P1 as Crime No.90 of 2003, under Section 302 IPC and submitted a copy of the FIR to all concerned. After registration of the case, PW15 took up investigation from PW11. PW15 rushed to the scene of offence, got the scene of offence photographed, prepared rough sketch under Ex.P5 for the scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama on 21.03.2003 at about 1:50 hours under Ex.P4 in the presence of PW7 and Panduri Ravi. He found MO4 knife in the stomach of the deceased and MO5 lying beside the deceased. He also found MOs 1 to 3 and 6 to 11 at the scene of offence. He seized MOs 1 to 13 under Ex.P4 in the presence of PW7 and Panduri Ravi. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in Gandhi Hospital Mortuary on 21.03.2003 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 noon. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to Postmortem examination. On the requisition given by PW11 under Ex.P9, the Finger Prints Expert Shri Md. Khursheed (PW13) visited Malkajgiri Police Station and examined the material objects seized by PW15 in this case for developing the chance prints. He found one Finger Print on MO6 and he lifted the chance print and got photographed the chance print. He compared the Finger Print, sent by the police with the chance print marked as "A", and found it as identical with the left finger prints marked as "S1", which belongs to Suresh Kumar Yadav (A1). The Finger Prints expert gave his opinion under Ex.P11. On 22.03.2003 at 9:00 a.m. A1 to A3 were arrested by I.D. party and were produced before PW15, who interrogated A1 to A3 separately and individually in the presence of PWs 9 and 10. A1 to A3 confessed the offence leading to recovery. The admissible portion of the confessional statements of A1 to A3 is marked as Exs.P23 to P25 respectively. In pursuance of his confession, A1 led the police and panchayatdars to the house of A2, went inside the house of A2 and produced MO 14. He also produced his bloodstained clothes MOs 15 and 16. MOs 17 and 18 were seized at the instance of A2 from his house. MOs 19 and 20 were seized at the instance of A3 from the house of A2. PW12, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that injuries 4 to 6, 11 and 12 are fatal injuries and they are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature either cumulatively or individually. After the receipt of the postmortem certificate and F.S.L. charge-sheet was filed and the accused persons faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held. To substantiate the accusations, 15 witnesses were examined. The case rested on circumstantial evidence. It was the prosecution version that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and dead body of the deceased was identified. MO1 was found at the scene of occurrence. The trial Court as noted above, found the evidence to be inadequate and acquitted A3. But convicted A1 and A2. The appeal was filed by Al and A2. The conviction was confirmed so far as appellant is concerned.