AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sri G. Shyam Prasad, J. - These Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 10-02-2010 in Sessions Case No.242 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Sessions Court at Vijayawada (for short, ''the trial Court''). The appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ''I.P.C.'') and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Prosecution Case: The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 were classmates and friends during their college education in Swamy Vidyaprakasananda Government Degree College, Srikalahasti, during the year 2001-04 and residents of Srikalahasti of Chittoor District. The deceased Ikkurthi Rajeswari, W/o Saibabu, 29 years, R/o Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, and A2 were phone friends, who used to talk frequently on phone.
On 11-07-2006 at 11.30 p.m., P.W.1 lodged a complaint in I Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, stating that she is residing in the house of her mother and her younger brother P.W.2 is residing in M.I.G. 92/3, Housing Board Colony, Vijayawada, and he is working as Principal, Sri Chaitanya College. That on 11-07-2006 in the evening at about 4.30 p.m., the son of the deceased by name Pranay, aged about 7 years, came to her house and informed that the deceased was not in the house, that at about 6 p.m., P.W.1 called on the phone number of the deceased but there was no reply, that, at about 6.30 p.m., she went to the house of the deceased and found that the mesh gate and the front door were open, that PW-1 entered into the house and found the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood, in the front room, with a cut injury on her neck, that she raised cries, called the neighbours, found that the gold chain on the neck of the deceased was missing, almyrah was kept open and gold ornaments viz., 1. gold necklace weighing about 2� sovereigns, 2. gold bharath chain 1� sovereigns, 3. gold saredh (nanthradu) 2 sovereigns, 4. gold red stone V rings 2 grams, 5. gold chandraharalu with 3 rows 25 grams, 6. gold baby rings � 2 weighing about 2 grams, 7. gold junkalu and kammalu � 4 grams, 8. gold dollar with anjaneyaswamy picture 1� grams and 9. gold mati � 1 weighing 2 grams, were stolen by some unknown offenders.
P.W.19 registered the complaint given by PW-1 as F.I.R. - Ex.P21 in Crime No.388 of 2006 and took up investigation. Later, M. Bhaskararao, Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Vijayawada City (PW-22), visited the scene of offence and with the assistance of the Clues Team and Fingerprints expert, examined the scene of offence minutely in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report. He seized bloodstained objects from the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and got the scene of offence photographed and also video graphed.
On 11-07-2006, P.W.18-Inspector of Police, Finger Print Unit, CID, Vijayawada, visited the crime scene and lifted chance prints and compared them with the finger prints available on the central data base of the State Finger Prints Bureau, Hyderabad, and having found the same to be that of A1, communicated the trace result to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada through a message on 13/14-7-2006.
On 12-07-2006, PW-22-Inspector of Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased before panchayatdars under cover of inquest report-Ex.P-7 and sent the dead body for post mortem examination to know the cause of death of the deceased. The bloodstained material objects were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for chemical analysis report.
On the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, vide Memo dated 12-7-2006-Ex.P-22, PW-20-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Vijayawada, took up the further investigation.
The investigation revealed that the deceased along with her husband P.W.2 and their 7 years old son Pranay were residing in M.I.G. 92/3, H.B. Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, in a rented portion, that P.W.2 was working as Principal, Sri Chaitanya College, Ashok Nagar, Vijayawada, and he goes to the college daily at 8.30 a.m. and returns home at 9 p.m., that the son of the deceased was studying first class in St. Atkinson School at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and goes to the school in the morning, and that the deceased stays at home alone during day time. The investigation further revealed that the accused, having knowledge about the loneliness of the deceased, waited for an opportunity to commit the offence in her house, contacted the deceased on cell phone No. 9346408698, which was given by P.W.5 for her personal use, prior to the incident. That the accused hatched a plan to murder the deceased for committing theft of her gold ornaments and that for that purpose they purchased a knife in the shop of P.W.9; that in pursuance of their common intention, the accused came down to Vijayawda from Srikalahasti in the early hours of 11-07-2006 and took room No.2 in Nagarjuna Lodge, near old bus stand, Vijayawada, by giving false names and particulars for making entry in lodge register and that the accused purchased gloves in Kaleswararao Market, Beseant Road, Vijayawada. That A-2 telephoned to the deceased from the telephone booth of Golla Siva Sai Kumar (L.W.16) and informed their willingness to come to her house and the deceased agreed and invited both the accused.
The investigation also revealed that the accused went to the house of the deceased on 11-07-2006 at about 2 p.m. by leaving their shoes and chappals outside the entrance, that the deceased offered tea and snacks and started gossip with them, that A1 went to bathroom and telephoned A2 and got signals for carrying out their plan of killing the deceased, that A1 caught hold of the deceased from behind and cut her neck with sharp edged knife and also inflicted cut injuries on her person and killed her with the assistance of A2 and that they committed theft of the gold ornaments noted above and escaped with the booty. That while committing the offence, A2 sustained a cut injury to his right hand, and that after commission of the offence, they went to Bapatla and took treatment in the hospital of P.W.7 by furnishing bogus names.
On receipt of the report-Ex.P-19 sent by P.W.18 and information on 17-07-2006 at 2 p.m., P.W.20 arrested the accused at R.T.C. Complex, Srikalahasti. The accused have confessed to the commission of the crime. The Police has seized cash of Rs.600/- (MO-29), Nokia cell phone (MO- 21), a pair of chappals (MO-18) and pledge receipt of gold ornaments from the possession of A1, and cash of Rs.5,990/- (MO-30), maroon colour bag (MO-16), black colour bag (MO-17), brass toe ring (MO-22), L.G. cell phone (MO-20), and a pair of shoes (MO-19) from the possession of A2 in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report-Ex.P-13. The accused have confessed to the stealing of gold ornaments from the house of the deceased and pledging them in the shop of P.Ws.10 and 11 and also of keeping some material objects and cash in their houses. They threw the knife used in the commission of offence at some unknown place. In pursuance of their confession, the accused led the Police and the mediators to the shop of P.W.11, who is the proprietor of Kotari Jewelers. On examination by police, P.W.11 stated that on 12-07-2006, A-1 came to his shop and pledged one gold necklace (MO-1), gold bharath chain (MO- 3), one gold dollar with Anjaneyaswamy impression (MO-8), two gold baby rings (MO-9), one pair gold junkalu (MO-5), gold matee (MO-11), one gold chandraharam with three rows (MO-4), all weighing about 66.3 grams, for Rs.37,000/- and that he entered the particulars in the register. P.W.20 seized the articles in the presence of mediators under cover of mahazar Ex.P-3. The accused have further shown the shop of P.W.10, who is the proprietor of Badal Chand Pawn Brokers, Nagiri Street, Srikalahasti, where A1 pledged one gold nanutradu (MO-2) and one gold ring (MO-7) for Rs.8,000/-. P.W.20 seized the gold ornaments in the presence of mediators under cover of mahazar-Ex.P-15. Thereafter, at 6 p.m., P.W.20 seized brass articles (MO-23), two rold gold bangles (MO-24), rold gold black beads/locket (MO-25), rold gold chain (MO-26), green colour pearls (MO-27), full hands shirt (MO-28) near Bhakta Kannappa Temple in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report-Ex.P-16. At 7 p.m., P.W.20 seized Nokia cell phone (MO-32), cash of Rs.25,000/- (MO- 31) - pledge proceeds of stolen gold ornaments from the house of A1, in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report-Ex.P-17. At 10.45 p.m., P.W.20 seized coffee colour full hands shirt (MO-15), gray coloured terlin pant (MO-1) and one pair shoes from the house of A2 at Srikalahasti in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report Ex.P-18. Both the accused were sent for judicial custody.
P.W.21 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report opining that the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to chop wound present over the front of neck. P.W.15, who gave treatment to A2, issued wound certificate opining that A2 has sustained simple injury.
In the test identification parade conducted by P.W.14, P.W.9 identified the accused as the persons who purchased knife from his shop. P.Ws.7 and 8 also identified the accused as the persons who visited the Nursing Home and stated that A-2 took treatment for the injury to his right palm. Identification of the property was conducted and P.W.2 identified the recovered properties recovered at the instance of the accused as the properties stolen from his house.
In pursuance of the investigation, prosecution has been launched against the accused. On receipt of charge sheet, filed by the Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Vijayawada City, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took the same on file as P.R.C.No.3 of 2007 vide order dated 13-06-2007, and committed the case to Metropolitan Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.C.No.242 of 2007, and was made over to the Mahila Court for disposal according to law.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. against A1 and A2 and when they were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 33 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D-1, relevant portion in the statement of PW-11 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., was marked.
The trial Court, after examining the entire material available on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of I.P.C., as mentioned herein above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred the present appeals.
Appellants arguments in brief: The learned counsel for the appellants during course of arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused. He has submitted that there is no substantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime; that the chance prints obtained from the scene of offence were not proved to be those of the accused by the scientific evidence and therefore the identification of the accused cannot be relied on. The learned Counsel further submitted that the recovery of gold ornaments is not proved as the tags attached to the ornaments and receipts of pledge made to PW-10 and PW-11 were not produced by the prosecution; that the circumstantial witnesses and the documents were planted to incriminate the appellants; that the entire investigation is stage managed; that all the material objects are planted in this case and that the persons who acted as mediators to various recovery proceedings are stock witnesses and, hence, both the Appeals are liable to be allowed by setting-aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court.
Prosecution arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor, during course of his elaborate arguments, contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence by collecting the telephone numbers of the accused No.2 and the deceased and their call data; that the chance finger prints of accused Nos.1 and 2 gathered from the material objects at the scene of offence tallied with the finger prints data maintained on the central database of criminals; that the material objects like gold ornaments, cash etc., have been seized from the possession of the accused and PW-10 and PW-11, the pawn brokers, to whom the accused have pledged those ornaments; that the ornaments recovered and seized have been identified by PW-2, the husband of the deceased, as belonging to the deceased, and the same clinchingly proves the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who had committed the offences. He has further submitted that accused No.2 received injury to his right palm at the time of commission of the offences and had taken treatment at the Tulasaiah Memorial Clinic, Bapatla; that the evidence of PW-7, the Doctor, and PW-8-the pharmacist, proves that both the accused had visited the hospital for treatment of the injury suffered by accused No.2 to his right palm. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the alleged defective investigation, non-production of the lodge registers and bill books maintained by the pawn brokers cannot lead the accused to go scot-free in the light of other circumstantial evidence like the mobile calls exchanged between the deceased and Accused No.2 and the recovery of material objects at the instance of the accused. He has further submitted that the chance prints lifted from the scene of offence and seizure of the clothes at the instance of the accused and the circumstances in this case clearly prove that the accused have committed the brutal murder of the deceased and committed theft of various ornaments from the house of the deceased. He submitted that the trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in the right perspective and rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of I.P.C. on sound reasoning and therefore the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegalities warranting interference of this Court in these Appeals.
After considering rival contentions, and perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration in these Appeals are:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of I.P.C.?
2) Whether the judgment of the trial Court suffers from any illegality?
Point Nos.1 and 2: Both the points go together. According to the prosecution, this is a case of brutal murder of a housewife aged about 29 years committed by the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for gain. The scene of offence is the house of the deceased at Vijayawada. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are friends and college mates, residents of Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. Accused No.2 developed phone friendship with the deceased and thereafter they came to Vijayawada on the fateful day and went to the house of deceased along with Accused No.1 and killed her brutally and stolen all her jewellery on her body and in the iron safe. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses and material on record found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty and sentenced them as already mentioned supra.
In her evidence, PW-1 deposed about the circumstances which led her to visit the house of the deceased on 11-7-2006 at about 6.30 p.m. and her seeing the deceased lying in a pool of blood with a cut injury on her throat and the almyrah having been kept open. She also deposed about her informing the incident to the neighbours and her giving Ex.P-1 statement to the police.
PW.2 was the husband of the deceased, who spoke about his coming to know of the murder of the deceased through PW-4 and rushing to the house and finding his wife, the deceased, with bleeding injuries. He spoke about the theft of gold ornaments from his house. During investigation, PW-2 has identified all the gold ornaments stolen from their house.
PWs.3 and 4 were the neighbors of the deceased who went to the scene of offence and observed the dead body of the deceased. PW.5 was the brother of the deceased. PW.6 is the Manager working in Nagarjuna Lodge near R.T.C. Bus stand, Vijayawada, who spoke about the stay of the accused in their lodge on 28.05.2006 and also on 11.07.2006, by giving different names. He handed over the lodge register to the police.
PW.7 is the doctor, who used to run Tulasi Memorial Clinic at Bapatla, and she spoke about the treatment given to the Accused No.2 and her issuing the medical certificate. PW.8 was the pharmacist in the clinic of PW.7. PW.9, cashier in Sarvana Supermarket, Srikalahasti, spoke about his selling of knife to the accused.
PW.10 is the proprietor of Badalchand Jain Pawn brokers at Srikalahasti and he testified that on 12.07.2006 both the accused came to his shop and pledged gold ornaments. On 17.07.2006, when Police from Vijayawada came, he handed over the pledged gold ornaments to the Police under the cover of panchanama, Ex.P-2. PW.11 is the proprietor of Kotari Jewellery shop in Srikalahasti also testified that on 12.07.2006 both the accused came to his shop and pledged gold articles weighing about 66 grams for Rs.37,000/- and that on 17.07.2006, when the Police from Vijayawada came along with the accused to his shop, he handed over the pledged gold articles to them, being the stolen property under mediators report-Ex.P-3.
PW.12 is the mediator for observation of the scene of offence. He was also the mediator during the test identification of property conducted on 19.07.2006. The testimony of this witness reveals that in the presence of PW-22-Inspector of Police, himself and one Sudhakar (LW-18), the panch witnesses, observed the scene of offence and that the dead body of deceased Rajeswari was found lying in the pool of blood in the dining hall. They found the marks showing that the dead body was dragged from the hall to the dining hall. They found cut injury on the neck and also observed severe injuries on both the palms, fingers and knife injuries on the abdomen of the deceased. They also found bloodstained blue coloured stripped towel by the side of the dead body, one brass mettes to the left toe, two pairs of gold ear studs and a pair of gold matees to both the ears of the deceased and found blood stained petticoat in the bed room. They observed blood stains on the light green colour curtain of the almyrah and water in a steel vessel in bathroom, with blood. He deposed that the police seized blood stained earth and control earth and seized blood stained blue coloured stripped towel, which is marked as MO.12, blood stained white coloured petticoat was marked as MO.13, blood stained green colour curtain, the water from steel vessel found in bathroom, a pair of gold ear studs (MO-10), a pair of gold ear matees (MO-11) and one brass toe ring in their presence. He drafted the scene of offence observation report-Ex.P-4 and the other punch, LW.18, also signed on it. He stated that PW.2 identified MOs.1 to 9 gold ornaments belonging to himself and the deceased.
PW.13 is the inquest panch, who spoke about conducting inquest under the cover of Ex.P-7, over the dead body of deceased on 12.07.2006 in the presence of one Tirumala Rao and Ravi.
PW.14 is the Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade of Accused Nos.1 and 2 at the District Jail Premises, Vijayawada on 23.09.2006. He deposed that PWs.7, 8 and 9 identified Accused No.2 correctly under Exs.P-8 to P-10 test identification proceedings. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that PW-9 expressed doubt with regard to the identity of accused No.2.
PW.15 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, who treated Accused No.2 and issued Ex.P-12 wound certificate. PW.16 is the Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural, who, on the instructions of R.D.O. over phone, went along with PW-20-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Vijayawada and the Revenue Inspector to Srikalahasti to act as mediator in this case. He deposed that on seeing them near the R.T.C. Bus stand, when the accused tried to skulk away, the police apprehended and interrogated them in the presence of PW-20 and that the accused have confessed to the commission of the offences of murder of the deceased and stealing of the gold ornaments from her house.
PW.17 is the Scientific Officer in A.P.F.S.L., Hyderabad, and incharge of the Clues Team, who spoke about his visiting the scene of offence along with the Clues Team on the information given by PW-22 and assisting the latter in collecting blood samples at the scene of offence.
PW.18 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, C.I.D. Hyderabad. He was working as the Inspector at the Finger Print Unit, CID, Vijayawada, at the relevant point of time. He spoke about his visiting the scene of offence along with Clues Team on 11.07.2006 and lifting chance finger prints. He deposed that after verification of the chance finger prints with the finger prints of criminals available on the central data base at Hyderabad, he issued Ex.P20, photo comparison chart with reasons and opinion.
PW.19 is the S.I. of Police of Nunna Police station, who registered the statement of PW.1 sent by the Inspector of Police (PW-22) as a case in Crime No.388 of 2006 and issued express F.I.R., Ex.P21.
PW-20, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Vijayawada, spoke about the Memo-Ex.P-22 received from the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, instructing him to investigate the crime. He deposed about his verifying the investigation done by PW-22, arresting the accused, recording their confessional statements and seizing the material objects at the instance of the accused. He had also testified about the investigation relating to the mobile phone calls exchanged between the deceased and the accused.
PW.22 is the Inspector of Police, City Special Branch, Vijayawada who spoke about receipt of message from Control room, Vijayawada on 11.07.2006 regarding the offence. He visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of PW.1-Ex.P-1. He informed the incident to the Dog Squad and Clues Team. He took up the investigation and seized gold ornaments and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased at the mortuary room, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, and forwarded the material objects seized and sent to R.F.S.L. Vijayawada. PW-22 secured the presence of the mediators, PW.12 and LW-18 and in their presence, inspected the scene of offence and seized MOs.5 and 6 from the dead body of the deceased, MO.12-blue coloured blood stained towel, MO.13 white coloured blood stained petticoat, blood stained almyrah curtain, which is MO.33, water containing blood in a bottle and he seized some other articles and control earth and blood stained earth from the scene of offence, under the cover of observation panchanama, Ex.P-4. He has prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P-24 and got the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased photographed. Thereafter, he examined PWs.1 to 4 and T. Bhaskara Rao and recorded their statements. The Clues Team collected some chance prints from the scene of offence. On 12.07.2006 at 09:00 a.m., PW-22 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Rajeswari at mortuary room, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, in the presence of mediators, PW.13, G. Tirumala Rao and Ravi. He got prepared Ex.P-7 inquest report and issued requisition to department of forensic medicine to conduct postmortem examination. Later, he had handed over the investigation to PW-20.
The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has relied on the following circumstances in arriving at the conclusion of the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2:
1) Recovery of gold ornaments in pursuance of the confessions made by the accused;
2) Identification of accused in the Test Identification Parade, conducted by the Magistrate and
3) Scientific evidence of Finger Print Expert who had taken chance prints with the help of Clues Team and compared the thumb impressions with the data available with the Department.
Learned counsel for the appellants, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and others, AIR 1999 SC 3318 in support of his submission that the case is based on circumstantial evidence; that prosecution mainly relied on the result of comparison chance prints compared with the data maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department, but the said verification of thumb impressions or chance prints with that of the accused is not done in accordance with the procedure, that the material objects on which the finger prints were traced, at the scene of offence, were not seized and preserved and, therefore, the identification of the accused basing on the chance finger prints has to be disbelieved, that PW-18-the Inspector of Police, who conducted examination of the finger prints, is not a finger prints expert, that non-examination of the expert witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the entire version of the prosecution has to be disbelieved and the accused are entitled for a benefit of doubt.
In State of Himachal Pradesh (2-supra), the Apex Court held as follows:
"17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.
An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
The question for consideration is whether the evidence of Shri P.C. Panwar who was examined as an expert witness measures up to the well accepted principles for judging the credibility of such an evidence. As noted earlier, Shri Panwar has not stated anything in his testimony to show that he had made any scientific study or research in assessing the productivity of appeal trees in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He does not even state whether he had undertaken any such work prior to the present case. No doubt as an officer of the Horticulture Department of the State Government he might have acquired some experience in the matter but that is not sufficient to make him an expert in the field and to give the label of ''expert evidence'' to his testimony. A perusal of the report submitted by Shri Panwar glaring omissions and inadequacies come to light. From the report it appears that against several trees in the orchards in question the productive capacity is shown as nil. It is neither explained in the report nor in the evidence of the expert in what circumstance some trees in the orchard were branded by him as non-productive. The entire basis for the assessment of productivity as evident from his deposition is counting of spurs on the trees the details of which are wanting in many of the data sheets attached to the report. Even taking his evidence on its face value, in some of the cases the maximum yield of the orchard works out at quantities much more than the stock purchased from the grower which prima facie goes to show that there has been no inflation of the stock brought by the grower to the procurement centre which was purchased from him. At the cost of repetition it may be stated here that the defence has adduced the evidence of Shri Thakur, a retired professor of Horticulture of the University of Shimla and Shri Shamsher Singh a grower of apple fruits whose opinion run counter to the evidence by Shri Panwar. Comparing the evidence of the experts brought on record by the parties, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that the accused persons have deliberately entered inflated quantities of scabbed apple produced in the orchard in question which were purchased by the State Government."
The learned counsel for the appellants further relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Chandran alias Surandran and another v. State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2148, wherein it was held as follows:
"Where the accused charged of committing the offence of robbery alone with murder were arrested by the police of adjacent state and the statement of one of the two accused recorded immediately after his arrest did not lead to recovery of articles stolen in the instant crime, though articles connected with other cases were recovered and it was only on his subsequent examination the statement leading to recovery of articles connected with the instant robbery was made and as regards the fingerprint evidence, the strange fact that only two broken glass pieces amongst others recovered from the scene of occurrence contained two fingerprints tallying with the fingerprints of the two accused, the explanation offered by the two accused for the presence of the fingerprints on two glass pieces namely that their fingerprints were taken on the two glass pieces under compulsion and the non-explanation for taking the accused into custody by the police of the State in which robbery took place long after their arrest by police of the adjacent state creates a suspicion about the manner in which the evidence of fingerprints has been obtained. Conviction on such pieces of circumstantial evidence is not sustainable."
In the present case, the chance prints have been obtained by the Clues Team. PW-18 who had identified the chance prints is working in the Fingerprints Unit, CID, Vijayawada deposed about obtaining of chance prints from the scene of offence and forwarding of the same to the State Fingerprints Bureau, Hyderabad, for comparison with the data of all the Criminals available on the central database at Hyderabad and that on verification, it was found that the finger prints were tallying with the finger prints of Accused No.1. This exercise was done immediately after the commission of the offence and therefore there was no possibility of false implication of the accused in the case.
It is obvious from the record that the Inspector-PW-18 who collected the chance prints is an expert and he is working in the Finger Prints Unit, C.I.D. It is also obvious that the chance prints have been used as a clue for finding out the accused. In view of matching of chance finger prints with those of the available with the Department, the Government experts have conducted the investigation and submitted the reports and therefore the same cannot be doubted. The clues have been properly utilised by the investigating agency and they have traced out the accused with the other connected relevant material. Therefore, the decisions cited by the appellants are not applicable to the present facts of the case.
Test identification parade conducted for identification of the property by PW.2, husband of the deceased: On 19.07.2006, PW-12 went along with LW.18, Sudhakar, the other punch, to I Town Police Station at about 08:00 a.m. as they were called by PW-22. PW-22 handed over three gold necklaces, three Anjaneya swamy lockets, three gold nanuthradu, three gold chains, three gold pairs of gold baby rings, three �V� shaped rings (kalyanam rings), three gold chandraharams, three pairs of gold ear kammalu, three gold pairs of mettalu and asked them to get the ornaments identified by PW.2, Sai Babu, as to which of those items belong to the deceased. PW.2, husband of the deceased has identified the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased out of them in the Gandhi Memorial High School, where the identification of property was conducted. PW.2 identified MOs.1 to 9, gold ornaments as belonging to the deceased and himself. They were kept in a brown cover and the remaining gold ornaments were kept in another cover. The identification proceedings of the property was drafted by LW.18, Sudhakar and PW.12, panches signed on it. Ex.P5 is the said identification proceedings for property identification. The panch witnesses have handed over MOs.1 to 9 and other gold ornaments and Ex.P-5 proceedings to PW-22.
Identification of clothes by PW.2: The Inspector of Police-PW-22 handed over three pants and three shirts to punch witnesses and asked them to conduct test identification parade of the clothes at Gandhi Municipal High School. PW.2 Sai Babu identified one grey colour pant and coffee powder colour shirt, which are marked as MOs.14 and 15 under Ex.P6 identification proceedings and they handed over all the clothes identified by them to the PW-22. In the cross-examination on behalf of Accused No.1, suggestions were made to both PW-2 and PW.12 that the test identification proceedings under Exs.P5 and P6 were conducted in the Police station itself and not at Gandhi Municipal High School. However, this suggestion was denied by the witness as false. PW-12 has also clarified in the cross-examination that they had put their signatures on the slips attached to the properties identified by PW.2. He further stated that there are no other slips attached to MOs.1 to 9, 14 and 15.
Identification of the accused by PW.6, K. Hazarathaiah, as the persons, who visited the Bhavani Lodge earlier twice: On 18.07.2006, the Inspector of Police, PW.22 in the course of investigation has examined PW.6, K. Hazarathaiah and recorded his statement, who was running Bhavani lodge situated at Beasant Road, Vijayawada. His testimony reveals that he had seen both the accused when they first visited the Nagarjuna Lodge on 28.05.2006 and on the second occasion on 11-7-2006, they came to the lodge. That on both the occasions the accused had taken a room in their lodge, that later, the Police brought the accused to their lodge and asked him whether he can identify them and that on seeing the accused, he identified both of them as the persons who visited his lodge, previously. He further deposed that on 28.05.2006, both the accused took a room in the lodge and entered the name as Ashok of Nellore and when they visited again on 11.07.2006, they wrote their name as Naveen Kumar of Tirupati in the lodge register. He had handed over the lodge register to the police but unfortunately the Police did not produce the same in the Court. No doubt, the register maintained by the lodge owner is an important piece of evidence to find out whether the accused had actually visited the lodge or not. In fact, it is the evidence of PW.6 that he handed over the register to the Investigation Officer. Therefore, it is the mistake on the part of the Investigation Officer in not producing the register before the Court. However, it is a fact that the accused were identified by PW.6 and he had also clarified that the accused visited the lodge earlier twice including the day on which the incident has occurred. PW.6 being an independent person, there is nothing for him to fabricate evidence against the accused. He had clearly stated that the accused came to their lodge on two different occasions and gave two different names and took the lodge which clearly shows the mala-fide on the part of the accused of their intention to commit the offence. No doubt, to the suggestion put by the defence counsel, PW.6 stated that he cannot specifically say as to out of two accused who wrote the name in the lodge register on those two days; that he learnt that the murder news was published in newspapers and that he had not seen the accused on T.V. This witness clearly denied the suggestion that the accused never visited their lodge and stayed on two occasions. The testimony of PW.6 clearly corroborates the version of the prosecution that the accused visited Vijayawada on 28.05.2006 and also on 11.07.2006 and had taken room in the Lodge.
In this case, investigation done by PW-20 disclosed that the deceased was maintaining a cell phone bearing No.9346408698 and that there were seven outgoing calls from her phone and out of which one call went to mobile No.9985025429, which does not belong to any of her relatives. On verification, he found that the mobile No.9985025429 was in the name of Rajesh of Pileru, Chittoor District, who is none other than Accused No.2. This call was made by the deceased to Accused No.2 on 10.07.2006 at 09:24 p.m. PW-20 received a radio message on 14-7-2006 from Director, Finger Prints Bureau, C.I.D. Hyderabad under Ex.P19, which discloses that the right index finger print of one Morapaneni Indrasena, who is Accused No.1, is tallying with one chance print that was taken at the scene of offence, that on receipt of the said intimation, he further directed the police constable to trace the whereabouts of accused No.1, that on the intervening night of 17/18-07-2006. He received information through his staff that the accused were moving in Srikalahasti, that he went to Srkalahasthi along with his staff and arrested both the accused and interrogated them separately in the presence of Srinivas and Hanumantha Rao, the M.R.O. and the M.R.I. of Vijayawada, respectively. PW-20 deposed that one after another, both the accused have confessed to the commission of murder of the deceased and that their statements were separately recorded.
Findings of Court and Chance Prints: The important piece of evidence in this case is that of PW.18 - A.B. Chinna Rao, Inspector of Finger Print Unit, C.I.D. Vijayawada. His testimony reveals that on 11.07.2006, he visited the scene of offence along with clues team. He examined the scene of offence for chance prints and found two chance finger prints on two glass tumblers, which are marked as �A� and �B� for the facility of photographing. He found one chance finger print on the plastic chair which was marked as �C�. He also found one chance finger print on plastic plate, marked as �D� and found two chance finger prints on steel almyrah marked as �E� and �F�. On examination, among them, three chance finger prints marked as A, B and E were found to be fit and three other chance fingerprints marked as C, D and F were found unfit. The fit chance prints were processed on fingerprint analysis and criminal tracing system facts computer and they were sent to the State Finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad which is having the fingerprints data of all the Criminals of A.P. State Police. On verification of above three chance prints, on the data base at Hyderabad, SFP Bureau, it was found that the chance finger print marked �B� tallied with the right index finger print of Accused No.1. The trace result was communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, through Auto Max message bearing C.No.73901205/VZA/Facts/2006, dated 13/14.07.2006 by the Director, Finger Print Bureau, C.I.D.C, A.P., Hyderabad. According to the above message, the finger print record of accused No.1 in this case matched with the finger print of the person accused in Crime No.255 of 2003 under Section 379 of I.P.C. of C.C.S. Tirumala, Chittoor District with TIN No.01116020. Further, on 18.07.2006, C.D.I.C of Vijayawada city police obtained ten finger print slips and sent to PW-18 for final report. He examined the chance finger print marked as �B� with the right index finger print on the Finger Print Record slip taken in C.D.I.C. bearing No.2000 of Accused No.1. After careful examination and comparison of both the impressions, PW-18 found that they are identical and that they are that of the same finger of the same person. To substantiate his findings, he prepared a comparison chart by marking 10 identical ridge characteristics in both the finger prints and also their locations and relationships were given in his photo comparison chart, to prove the identity. Ex.P19 is the Automax message, A.P. Scan message of the Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Hyderabad. Ex.P-20 is his photo comparison chart with reasons and opinion. PW-18, the finger print expert, has been examined to prove the comparison of the finger prints to connect the A-1 with the Crime. He has clearly stated how he had collected the chance prints and compared the data available with the Police Department and gave his opinion Exs.P19 and P20. There is nothing to disbelieve his evidence as he is officially working in Clues Team as Inspector of Finger Print Unit, C.I.D. Vijayawada. In the cross-examination, on behalf of Accused No.1, it is elicited that the glass tumblers, on which finger prints of Accused No.1 were marked as �B�, were not seized and sealed. However, the same was denied and it was stated that the articles on which chance prints have to be seized and sealed by mentioning the date, place and time of seizure, have to be preserved in a cardboard box.
Learned counsel for the appellants mainly submitted that Ex.P19 does not contain the signature of the Director, F.P.B, Hyderabad and, therefore the same cannot be believed. In fact, PW-18 stated that a copy of Ex.P-19 was received by him also and it bears his signature. He admitted that Ex.P19 does not contain the object on which the chance finger prints were found and the place and date on which it was taken. He has also admitted that he has not obtained the finger prints of Accused No.1 and that he prepared Ex.P-20 on 07.08.2006 and gave it to investigation officer. PW-18 has denied the suggestion that after arrest of the accused No.1 his finger prints were taken and that he prepared those reports long time after the accused No.1 was arrested.
No doubt, the objects from which the chance prints were taken were not preserved and sealed but, however, it is the evidence of PW.18 that he has taken chance finger prints from them which clearly connect the accused with the crime. No doubt, PW.18 did not obtain the fingerprints of Accused No.1 but the investigation reveals that the fingerprints of Accused No.1 were available with the Police Department in connection with Cr.No.255/2003 and since on comparison, the chance finger prints of Accused No.1, tallied, they arrived at a conclusion that the compared chance prints are those of Accused No.1. Therefore, it is obvious from the evidence of PW.18 that the chance prints are obtained immediately after the incident and, on comparison, they were found to be those of Accused No.1. The testimony of PW.18 need not be disbelieved or doubted in this regard, in the light of the other circumstances appearing against the accused in this case, like recovery of material objects and identification of the recovered jewellery by PW.2, and the accused staying in the lodge of PW-6.
The testimony of PW.17, who was working as a Scientific Officer in Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, corroborates the evidence of PW.18 that he went along with the clues team, expert i.e., fingerprints expert and photographers, to the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence, assisted the investigation officer and that the other team members have taken the photographs at the scene of offence and obtaining chance prints.
The testimony of PW.16, Tahsildar, Vijayawada Rural, reveals that he accompanied the Investigation Officer to Srikalahasti and also participated in the seizure of material objects from the accused. The recovery of gold ornaments from the accused and the pawn brokers does not raise any doubt about the said recoveries. PW.16 is an independent Officer from the Revenue Department. There is no need for him to falsely implicate the accused, as he has enmity with the accused. The testimony of PW.16 corroborates the testimony of PW-20, who recovered the material objects at the instance of the accused.
It is revealed in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused that PW.20 did not issue any written summons or proceedings to act as mediators and that, at his oral request, they came along with him to avoid delay to Srikalahasti. This fact reveals that though the summons or proceedings were not issued in writing to either M.R.O. or M.R.I. to act as mediators, in view of the urgency of oral request, they accompanied the Police. The testimony of M.R.O. or M.R.I. cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that there is no written communication to them.
As far as the alleged confessional statements of the accused are concerned, they are inadmissible in evidence as they are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the confessions of the accused leading to recovery of the material objects is concerned, the same are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In pursuance of the confession of the accused, Accused No.2 stated that he sustained a bleeding injury to his right palm at the time of committing the murder. Though the confessions in respect of the commission of murder need not be taken into consideration, in view of the medical evidence establishing the fact that accused No.2 had sustained injury to his right palm, he has to explain under what circumstances he suffered the said injury. In the course of examination, he stated that while boarding the train he received the injury to his right palm but in the light of the circumstances of this case, it can be taken that had suffered the said injury at the time of commission of the offence. It is also obvious that in pursuance of their confession, the accused went to Bapatla for treatment and thereafter they had gone to Srikalahasti, where they opened the bundle of stolen articles and had thrown away the rold gold ornaments and the clothes of the husband of the deceased worn by Accused No.2 at that place.
Seizure of Material Objects: The following are the material objects seized from the possession of Accused No.1:
1) Pledge receipt No.896, dated 12.07.2006 for Rs.37,000/- of kothari jewelers;
2) One Nokia Cell phone bearing No.9985025429, M.O.21, through which he rang up to deceased and spoke to her;
3) Cash of Rs.600/- marked as M.O.29;
4) A pair of chappals, marked as M.O.18
The following are the material objects seized from the possession of Accused No.2:
1) Cash of Rs.5,990/- marked as M.O.30;
2) One brass toe ring marked as M.O.22, taken out from the black colour bag, M.O.17, kept in maroon colour suitcase, M.O.16;
3) L.G. Cell phone with Reliance No.9396564555, M.O.20;
4) A pair of black shoes, M.O.19.
In pursuance of the confession, both the accused led the mediators to the Kothari jewellery shop at 04:30 p.m. and shown the pledge receipt to the shop owner and explained the case and shop owner, PW.11, Rajesh produced the gold ornaments viz., 1) gold necklace, MO.1; 2) gold bharat chain, MO.3, 3) gold Anjaneyaswamy dollor, MO.8, 4) A pair of baby rings, MO.9, 5) A pair of gold ear jumkalu, MO.5, 6) Gold matty, MO.6, 7) Gold chandraharam, MO.4 and stated that the accused pledged those ornaments for Rs.37,000/-. They were seized by the Police in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediatornama, Ex.P14. The Police have also seized pawn ticket book from Kothari Jewellers containing 100 receipts. Both the mediators attested the said book, which has not been produced in the Court but, however, in the light of the evidence of PW.20 and in the light of other evidence available on record and in view of recovery of the material objects, which are identified by PW.2, the recovery is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the accused led the Police and the panch witnesses to Badalchand Jain Jewellery shop at 05:30 p.m. where they pledged the gold ornaments, for which a receipt was issued by PW-10 in the name of Accused No.1. The ornaments pledged were one gold nanthradu, MO.2 and one V shaped gold ring, MO.7. The investigation officer has also verified the pawn ticket book of the jewellery shop and the pledge receipt number was mentioned as 010521, dated 12.07.2006 and after those ornaments were weighed, they were seized in the presence of above the mediators from the pawn brokers with pawn ticket book containing receipt Nos.010501 to 010600 under the cover of Ex.P15, mediators report. The mediators have supported the version of the prosecution with regard to seizure of the above said articles. Nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their version except non production of the receipt books and receipts.
Further, both the accused led the police and panch witnesses at 06:00 p.m. near to a place near Bhakta Kannappa temple at Srikalahasti, where they found 1) a pair of brass anklets, MO.23, 2) rold gold bangles, MO.24, 3) rold gold black beads locket, MO.25, 4) rold gold chains, MO.26, 5) Green colour pears chain, MO.27, 6) Full hands shirt, MO.28 and two cigarette pieces, which were seized under the cover of Ex.P16, mediators report. From there Accused No.1, led the Police and punch witnesses to his house bearing D.No.3-594 situated at Peerla Chavidi Veedhi in Srikalahasti, 2nd floor and brought Rs.25,000/- cash, marked as MO.31 and a nokia cell phone, MO.32, model No.3230 with Airtel sim connection bearing No.9949323222 and the same was seized under the cover of mediators report, Ex.P17. Thereafter, Accused No.2, led them to his house bearing Door No.10/275/3 at 08:45 p.m. situated in Padmasalipeta, I floor and brought one pant and shirt, MOs.14 and 15, and they were seized under the cover of Ex.P18, mediators report.
It was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-20 that signatures of both the accused are not obtained on any of the mediators reports; that the scribes were not cited as witnesses, that the names of those scribes were also not mentioned in the reports and that all the scribes are police personnel. In our opinion, if really, the police intended to implicate the accused falsely they would have not failed to obtain the signatures of the mediators and the scribes on the mediators reports. The mediators are genuine and they are no other than the M.R.O. and M.R.I. from the Revenue Department. Non obtaining of the signatures of the accused on the mahazars does not invalidate the proceedings of recovery. It was also elicited that the slips containing the signatures of the mediators and PW.20 affixed on material objects at the time of seizure were not found on some of the material objects i.e., black colour bag, maroon colour suit case, chappals and shoes and cell phones. It is obvious from this fact that some of the material objects are containing the slips with the signatures of the mediators and PW.20 and the same clearly reveals that during the investigation, the slips might have been misplaced or they could not be traced out or worn out. Therefore, the recovery of the M.Os. cannot be doubted simply because some of the slips are missing on the material objects. It was also further elicited in the cross-examination of PW-20 that no slips were affixed to gold ornaments; that the ornaments were not sealed; that he did not seize the pledge receipts of Badalchand Jain Jewellers from the accused and that all the seized articles were not sealed.
In this case, there are certain laches in the investigation done, which may show that the same is defective but it cannot be thrown out totally while considering the totality of the circumstances of the case. Time and again the Apex Court has reiterated that the defects in the investigation do not vitiate the trial and the accused cannot get benefit out of that, when there is other direct material evidence available on record. In the instant case, the very witnesses, like mahazar witnesses and police officials, lodge owner, pawn brokers, who were present, and participated in the investigation, are independent witnesses and they have no enmity with the accused. The mediators clearly deposed that the material objects have been seized and the test identification parade has been conducted in their presence. The evidence of the Magistrate also reveals that test identification parade was conducted by him and, similarly, all the material witnesses have identified the accused.
It was further elicited in the cross-examination of PW-20 that since Ex.P-19-Radio message does not contain the signature of the person who issued it and it does not contain the initials of PW.20. As Ex.P19, is a Radio message, it is obvious that it does not contain the initial of the official who issued it.
Injuries received by the deceased: Another important circumstance in this case is the nature of injuries received by the deceased and the manner in which they were inflicted by her. PW.21, Dr. T. Sakuntala, is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Rajeswari on 12.07.2006, on the requisition of I Town P.S. Vijayawada, between 12:00 to 01:00 p.m and found the following ante mortem injuries over the dead body of deceased:
1) Chop wound below the neck measuring 15 c.m. x 5 c.m. bone deep margins are contused. Vertebrae felt through the wound, Muscle, Vessels are cut;
2) Cut injury over back of upper part of right elbow 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. (above elbow);
3) Cut injury over back of upper part of right elbow just below No.2, 12 c.m. x 3 c.m.;
4) Cut injury over back of lower part of right elbow measuring 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. (below elbow);
5) Above the umbilicus leaner injury over the abdomen measuring 20 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x superficial;
6) Cut injury below No.5, measuring 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 1 c.m.;
7) Cut injury over left hand terminal pharynx and thumb 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m.;
8) Cut injury over right hip about 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. and
9) Cut injury over right index and middle finger 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m.
The nature of injuries reveals that they were caused with sharp edged weapon as they are cut injuries. It is the version of the prosecution that the accused purchased a knife at Srikalahasti, one day prior to the incident. This fact corroborates the version of the prosecution that the accused caused the injuries with the knife, purchased by them. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was due to Hemorrhagic shock due to chop wound present over front of the neck. She further opined that the time of death was about 20 hours prior to her examination. The injury on the left hand terminal pharynx and thumb, injury over upper part of the right elbow, and the injury over the right index middle finger of the deceased, indicate that she might have resisted the assailants while they were stabbing her with the knife.
It is pertinent to note that Accused No.2 also received an injury on his right palm. In the absence of plausible explanation by accused No.2, this circumstance clearly reveals that during the scuffle, while the deceased was trying to escape while he was stabbing her, he might have received the cut injury on his right palm. PW.15, who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, G.G.H., Vijayawada, observed the following injuries on the person of accused No.2 when he was examined on 18-7-2006 at the instance of the Police :
(1) A sutured wound on the right palm, wound healed and
(2) Pain in left knee.
PW-15 opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and the age of injury No.1 was one week prior to his examination. It clearly reveals that during the scuffle, accused No.2 might have received the above injuries and in the similar manner, the deceased also received various injuries while trying to escape from the accused. The scuffle by the deceased and Accused No.2 clearly proves the nature of the injuries received by her on various parts of her body like injury on abdomen, injury over right hip, injury on the right index middle finger and other injuries. As the deceased was trying to get released from the clutches of the accused, the accused even caused injury on her abdomen and right hip and when she resisted, she received injury to her right index middle finger. This is also one of the important circumstances to prove the brutal murder committed by the accused.
On consideration of the evidence available on record and the judgment of the trial Court and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the following incriminating observations are being made:
1) Immediately after the incident the Police Commissioner has constituted the clues team and sent it to the house of the deceased. When the chance finger prints taken on verification with those of the other offenders were compared, they were found to be matching with that of the accused. This is the basis for Police to suspect the accused and commence the investigation.
2) The scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects from the scene of offence also incriminate the accused in the commission of the offence;
3) The accused stayed in Bhavani lodge in Vijayawada on the date of incident, giving fictitious names to PW-6-lodge owner;
4) The PW-6 identified the accused and stated that they visited the lodge on two occasions, one prior to the incident and the other on the date of the incident and stayed in the lodge.
5) Identification of the accused by the lodge owner would definitely incriminate the accused in this case. The accused giving fictitious names on both the occasions when they visited the lodge to PW-6 reveals their mens rea and culpability.
6) The ornaments pledged by Accused Nos.1 and 2 with PW-10 and PW-11, the pawn brokers, were seized at the instance of the accused from the pawn brokers;
7) The ornaments seized from the accused are identified by PW.2 as belonging to him and his wife;
8) PWs.10 and 11 are the pawn brokers belonging to Srikalahasti and they stated that A-1 was residing in the lane nearer to their shop. The subsequent conduct of the accused after commission of the offence is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and the same is proved by the witnesses PWs.10 and 11 as the accused came to them and pledged the property stolen by them;
9) PW-12, the independent mediator deposed about conducting test identification of the stolen property in the school premises and identification of the same by PW.2;
10) The accused purchased a knife on 10.07.2006 in Srikalahasti. PW.9 identified Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators. This clearly proves the intention of the accused regarding their preparation for commission of the offence by purchasing a knife one day prior to the incident;
11) There are four stages in Crime; motive, preparation, attempt and commission. The accused had the motive for the commission of the offence of theft and killing the deceased and it was a premeditated murder. The accused have purchased a knife in Srikalahasti which amounts to preparation of commission of the offence. They came to Vijayawada and stayed in Bhavani Lodge on 11.07.2006. When they were asked during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence appearing against them with regard to their stay in the lodge, they simply denied that they did not go to the lodge. The accused are supposed to explain the circumstances under which they stayed in the lodge on the date of incident when there is strong incriminating evidence appearing against them, but they failed to discharge the burden cast on them under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
12) PW.6, the owner of Bhavani lodge had identified the accused and stated that they took a room on 28.05.2006 in Nagarjuna lodge by mentioning their name as Ashok from Nellore and also on 11.07.2006 by mentioning the name as Navin Kumar from Tirupati. When PW.6 had identified the accused, they have a duty to explain whey they changed their names and came to Vijayawada and again why they came to Vijayawada on the date of incident and stayed in the lodge.
13) Both the accused went to PW.7�s clinic and stated that accused No.2 received the cut injury on his hand when he fell down as some one pushed him while boarding the train. The medical evidence discussed and the circumstances appearing against the accused would reveal that the accused No.2 received injury during the scuffle with the deceased while he was committing the offence. Further, PW-8, the pharmacist, also identified the accused as the persons who visited the clinic earlier.
14) Thus, all the four stages of crime are complete and the mens-rea of the accused is also proved by the circumstances appearing against the accused;
The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the investigation is defective and as such the accused are entitled for acquittal, cannot be accepted, for the reason that the same does not entitle the accused for acquittal. The scientific investigation in India is not very organized, but in this case the police relied chance finger prints, which led to the identification of the accused. The non production of the registers and receipts, also do not entitle the accused to get away with the charges in the light of the overwhelming testimonies of the Government Officials i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Investigation Officers, Medical Officers, M.R.O. and the other material prosecution witnesses. The evidence on record clearly reveals that the accused alone committed the offences and none others.
The submission of the appellants that they are innocent and are falsely implicated in this case and that the evidence was created and that the witnesses and material objects were planted, cannot be accepted, as there are innumerable incriminating circumstances pointing out to their guilt. No doubt, there may be some lapses on the part of investigating agency but, in our opinion, the same do not affect the case of the prosecution as the direct evidence of PW-6-lodge owner, PW-10 and PW- 11-pawn brokers, PW-12 and PW-16 - mediators and PW-18 to PW-22- the Police Officials and that of PW-15 and PW-21-Medical Officers, can be believed as they are all independent witnesses. We cannot consider the plea of the appellants that for the sake of Police, all these witnesses have spoken falsely against them. All this evidence adduced cannot be brushed aside as falsehood created by the prosecution for the purpose of incriminating the appellants in this crime.
The police, in the anxiety to detect the crime, some times may implicate some one as accused in the offences that have taken place in their territorial jurisdiction, but in this case creating this kind of evidence from Vijayawada to Srikalahasti and weaving a story against the accused, involving both private citizens as well as the Government officials, is definitely not possible even to think of. There is no necessity for the lodge owner, pawn brokers, mediators, police and the Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade, to give false evidence against the appellants/accused to implicate them in this case as none of them had any prior acquaintance with the accused. In fact, no enmity is established by the defence between the material prosecution witnesses and the appellants/accused.
The investigating agency has taken pains in conducting the investigation and though there are some lapses on its part, the same, in our opinion, do not affect the case of the prosecution. In the light of the strong circumstances appearing against the accused and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the that the appellants/accused have committed the murder of deceased-house wife, for gain, with premeditation. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the same.
Therefore, the Appeals are liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, they are dismissed confirming the conviction and sentences recorded by the trial Court in S.C. No.242 of 2007.