Kakaria Mohan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—As many as three deaths have taken place in Polinaidupalli Village of Nellore District on 02.06.2006. The sole accused, by name, Kakarla Mohan @ Mohan Rao, the appellant herein, is said to have caused all the three murders. The case was tried by the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore as S.C. No. 70 of 2007. Through its judgment, dated 05.03.2010, the trial Court held the accused guilty of offences of causing the murders of D1 to D3. Sentence of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, was imposed in respect of each offence, and all of them were directed to run concurrently. The sequence of events that gave rise to the incident is as under:

Kukkapalli Nagamma, D1 was married to one Kukkapalli Seetharamaiah, D3 of Polinaidupalli Village. One Kukkapalli Bakkaiah, D2 is their son. PW.1 is the sister of D1 and she was residing at Nellore. Janardhanapuram is the place of residence of parents of PW.1 and D1. On 02.06.2006, a marriage in the family is said to have taken place. PW.1, D1 to D3 and others are said to have attended the marriage. After lunch, D1 is said to have asked his sister PW.1 to come to their native place Polinaidupalli Village, and PW.1 acceded to the same.

By the time, D1 to D3 and PW.1 reached the Village, a tractor engaged by D2, was said to be ploughing the land. D1 to D3, the children of D2 and PW.1 are said to have gone to the field by walk. The accused is said to have come to that place and raised objection for ploughing the land. After some verbal duel, he is said to have first attacked D1 with a stick by hitting on her head and she has fallen on the ground on receiving injuries. On seeing that, D2 is said to have intervened. The accused is said to have beaten D2 with the same stick and D2 fell down. D3 is said to have tried to run away from the scene, being afraid of the attack, and the accused chased him, and beat with the same stick. All the three attacked persons were said to have died on the spot.

Narrating these events, PW.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1 at 8.15 a.m., on 03.06.2006. Crime No. 18 of 2006 was registered u/s 302 IPC by P.S. Vinjamur. The steps in the investigation, such as, preparation of scene of offence panchanama, conducting of inquest and postmortem on all the dead bodies, were taken by the police on 03.06.2006. The accused was arrested, and on completion of the investigation, a detailed charge sheet was filed alleging offences against the accused. They pleaded not guilty. In the course of the trial, PWs.1 to 14 were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P14 were filed. MO.1, blood stained stick, was also taken on record. A portion of the statement contained in Ex.P1 was marked as Ex.D1. The result of the case was indicated in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, this appeal.

Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the accused submits that though PWs.1 to 3 were examined as eye witnesses by the prosecution, there is no consistency between the evidence of those witnesses. She contends that if in fact a person, like PW. 1, has witnessed the murder of her sister, brother-in-law and nephew, the natural course of conduct would have been to pass on the information to the kith and kin immediately, apart from bringing the incident to the notice of the police. She submits that though the police station was at a distance of 1 KM, and that there was gathering of people at Janardhanapuram on the occasion of a marriage, PW.1 stated that she did not inform to anyone about the incident till her statement was recorded by the police at 8.15 a.m., on the next day.

It is also argued that whatever may have been alleged fear complex of PW.1, if independent persons have seen the occurrence; at least, they would have shared the information with the others or furnished the same to the police, but they did not take any steps in that direction. She further submits that it is just unimaginable that just by using a stick; one person can liquidate three, that too, in the presence of three more, at the same place and time. She argued that D2 was a married person and his wife did not submit the complaint nor her statement was recorded by the investigating officer, PW.13 and PW. 14, another investigating officer, did not examine any witness whatever. Learned counsel submits that the version of PWs.1 to 3 is not in conformity with the medical evidence.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the ghastly incident of causing the murder of three persons of same family has taken place and there is an eye witness account of as many as three witnesses. She contends that PWs. 1 to 3 have consistently stated that the accused raised objection for the land being ploughed, and he first attacked D1 and thereafter, D2, when she sought to intervene, and even when D3 was trying to run away, the accused chased him and killed. She contends that the failure by the eye witnesses to give a report to the police, immediately or to pass on information to others, was out of fear and shock, and the same cannot be treated as fatal. It is also argued that there existed a motive for the accused to cause harm to the family of the deceased in relation to the land, which was being ploughed. She contends that the trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and that the judgment under appeal does not warrant inference.

It is indeed shocking that three persons of the same family were put to death at a time. The case of the prosecution is that all the murders were caused by the sole accused herein. While narrating the facts of the case, it has been mentioned that the information about the entire incident was furnished by PW.1 in the form of Ex.P1. One aspect, which needs to be taken into account is that the incident is said to have taken place at about 3.30 p.m., on 02.06.2006, and Ex.P1 was submitted at 8.15 a.m., on the next date i.e., on 03.06.2006. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is said to be one kilometer.

The evidence of PW.1 plays a pivotal role in this case. She is none other than the sister of D1. Both of them are said to have met in the place of their parents i.e., Janardhanapuram on the occasion of a marriage, in their family. After lunch at the marriage, D1 is said to have requested PW.1 to visit her village, and accordingly, D1 to D3 and PW.1 came to that place. D2, son of D1 and D3, is a married person and was also blessed with children. The evidence of PW.1 discloses that the children of D2 also came to the field, which was being ploughed. The presence of the wife of D2 is not spoken to, in the narration. The entire occurrence, as stated by PW.1 in her chief examination, reads:

....We visited the field of the deceased at about 3.30 p.m. My deceased sister and her husband (D1 and D3) sent the tractor for ploughing the land. The accused came there, when we went to the field. The accused questioned us as to why they are getting to plough the land. The deceased persons claimed that they are ploughing their own land. As the accused objected the driver of the tractor stopped to plough the land. Then the accused picked up a stick and bet my sister (D1) on her head and she fell down. The accused asked me to go away but I stood aside. When the deceased Bakkaiah (D2) objected he was also beaten on the head of Bakkaiah. He also fell down with head injury. When the deceased Seetharamaiah (D3) came running, the accused also beat him on the head with the same stick. All the three people died. The tractor driver, myself and another person, who was my neighbourhood witnessed the incident. I cannot give their names. I returned to Janardhanapuram village. 1 went to the scene again in the morning and the police came there and I gave a complaint to the police....

Since there was a long gap between the time of occurrence and the submission of Ex.P1, a question on this, was naturally put in the cross examination. The answer given by PW.1 in this behalf, reads:

....the scene of offence is also about one kilometer from Janardhanapuram village. I went to Janardhanapuram at 5.00 p.m. after the incident. I was at the scene till then. I did not inform any of the villagers at Janardhanapuram as they already went for the marriage in another village. I did not go to Polinaidupalli village. I cannot give the name of the bride or bridegroom but I can give their parents'' names. I went by a bus to Janardhanapuram. There is a road facility. There will be movement of the autos also....

As regards the submission of Ex.P1, she stated that she cannot give the name of the person, who scribed it. From the information furnished by PW.1, it is evident that the village Janardhanapuram, the scene of offence and the police station are at a close proximity of 1 KM from each other. When such a ghastly incident of the murder of three persons occurred, natural conduct of any person in the place of occurrence, would be to raise hue and cry, wherever she comes across any person. However, PW.1 is said to have remained at the scene of offence till 6.00 p.m., i.e., for about 2 1/2 hours after the occurrence. She did not speak about the presence of anyone including PWs. 1 and 2. Another curious part of it is that nobody was said to be available at Janardhanapuram for her, to reveal the incident. The family from which she hails is so large that she has three brothers and three sisters. The marriage in the family was taking place in that very village. She however stated that there was no one in the village to share the information, with. It is also important to note that she alone is said to have come from the village to the scene of offence on the next day at 7.00 p.m. No effort was made to examine the wife of D2 or their children. The plea raised by the prosecution was that out of fear and shock, PW.1 did not share the information with any other. However, it is important to note that PW.1 is resident of Nellore, and it is not known as to why she did not inform the police, when the police station is at a walkable distance. It is also rather difficult to believe that the police station is not aware of the occurrence of the triple murder at a distance of 1 KM from the station till a complaint is submitted on the next day.

PW.1 did not speak about the presence of PWs.2 and 3. The prosecution examined PW.2, who is said to be an eye witness. The chief examination of this witness is brief, and it reads:

...I am resident of Polinaidupalli village. I live by agriculture. I know the deceased persons. The incident happened about 1 1/2 years ago at about 3.30 p.m. near the field of the deceased persons. I was working in my field and at that time the deceased persons, PW1 and other persons were at the field and the land is being ploughed. The accused objected for ploughing of the land and picked up a quarrel. The quarrel has resulted in beating. The accused beat the deceased Nagamma (D1) on the head with a stick when the deceased Bakkaiah (D2) went, he was also beaten with the same stick. He also fell down. The deceased Seetharamaiah (D3) came there and the accused beat him with the same stick on his head. All the three of them died MO1 is the stick used by the accused. I went to my house due to fear. I was examined by the police.....

It was elicited from him in the cross examination that D3 is closely related to him, and that his brother purchased the property of D3 after the incident. He stated that he did not observe the presence of PW.1. He stated that he did not give complaint to the police, since he was not aware of the need, and that he did not raise any cry due to fear. He admitted that the relatives and D2 i.e., Bakkaiah used to harass the wife of that person. PW.3 is said to be the driver of the tractor; a trial was engaged to plough the land of D3. He stated that the attack of D1 to D3 by the accused took place right in his presence, in the manner, stated by PW.1. This witness also stated that he left the village due to fear, but he was examined by the police on the next date. In the cross examination, he stated that he did not observe the presence of PW.1 at the scene of occurrence. A suggestion was made to him to the effect that he informed the children of the deceased that he does not know anything about the incident.

Though PW. 1 is close relation of the deceased, she is resident of Nellore and her presence at Polinaidupalli village, was incidental. Most aggrieved persons on account of the death of the deceased would be the wife and children of D2. The record is not clear as to whether D1 and D3 had any children, apart from D2. In the evidence of investigating officers also, it was elicited that they did not examine the wife of D2.

At the time of inquest, the presence of PWs.1, 2, sons of D1 and D3, i.e., Kakarla Malyadri and Kondaiah, and the children of D2 i.e., Mahender and Manasa was taken note of. The names of PWs.2 and 3 were mentioned. The inquest reports of the three deceased were marked as Exs.P2 to P4. Probable motive attributed to the accused as mentioned therein was that:

a) D2 beat his wife in November, 2005 in relation to a family dispute;

b) Mala Kondaiah, father of the accused intervened and tried to persuade D2;

c) D2 suspected that his wife has illicit intimacy with Mala Kondaiah, and on the same day poured Acid upon him leading to the death of Mala Kondaiah;

d) The accused wanted to take revenge against D2, and in the process, he killed all the three.

The failure of prosecution to examine the wife and children of D2 and other sons of D1 and D3, is a clear lapse. The medial evidence discloses that several external injuries were found on the dead bodies of D1 and D3. By referring to the postmortem reports, PW.12, the doctor stated that 4 injuries were found on the body of D1, 3 injuries on D2, and 4 lacerated injuries on D3. If in fact, the accused used only one stick, and beat the deceased, the injuries were supposed to be mostly contusions. At the most, they may have resulted in serious blow to the internal parts. However, there existed lacerated injuries on the deceased, which cannot be attributed to a stick. Further, if one goes by evidence of PW.1, an impression would be gained that with the dealing of one blow on each of the deceased, they fell down, and died, and other injuries are not accounted for.

This Court certainly finds it very delicate to undo the conviction ordered by the trial Court in respect of any triple murder case. Howsoever gruesome, the incident may be, when it comes to the question of fixing the liability, the Court has to invariably go by evidence on record, and nothing more. Personal reactions hardly matter. We have already demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs, as to how unnatural and unbelievable the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was. It is beyond anybody''s comprehension that all the three witnesses remained silent almost for 17 hours, and did not choose to inform the police, which is just at a distance of 1 KM.

It is not uncommon that some amount of delay takes place, in filing of a complaint with the police, after an incident. The Courts would tend to ignore or condone the same, if the factors, such as, there not being any person available to assist the victims or the absence of any communication or conveyance in the police station, or the long distance between the police and occurrence, or the occurrence of the crime during odd hours. None of those factors existed in the instant case. The incident is said to have taken place at 3.30 in the afternoon, and the police station is at a distance of less than 1 KM. The places are well connected and the so-called eye witnesses i.e., PW.1 to 3 were moving freely without any fear of attack. Under these circumstances, the delay of 17 hours in passing on the information to the police cannot be accepted. Another serious lapse is that FIR was received by the concerned Court at 4.00 p.m., on 30.06.2006. PW.1 was not able to furnish the name of the person, who drafted Ex.P1. It is not known as to whether she has gone to the police at all, or whether it was handed over at the scene of offence itself. The time of arrival of the police to the scene of offence is also not clear in the record. Therefore, we are left with no alternative except to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 70 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore, dated 05.03.2010, against the appellant-accused, are set aside. The appellant set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him.