Kandavilli Abbulu vs State of A.P.

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.—The appellant is A-1 in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1988. He and three others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. However, A-1 alone is convicted u/s 302 IPC., and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He is also convicted u/s 392 IPC., and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

It is alleged by the prosecution that, during the night of 20th October 1986, A-1 to A-4 killed Kanuri Appayyamma, and also robbed-off valuable articles belonging to her. Therefore, they are liable to be punished under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted A-2 to A-4 but convicted A-1 alone on the main ground that M.Os.4 and 5 were recovered at his instance and, as such, a presumption has to be drawn that he must have committed the murder and theft.

The prosecution-case is as follows:

P.W.1 is a resident of Vemulapalli village. The deceased was P.W.1''s sister. P.W.8 is the adopted son of the deceased. She was aged 56 years. She used to do money lending business at the time of the occurrence, she was wearing gold jewels, M.Os.6 to 15. P.W.5 owns a cycle shop. On 12th October 1986, A-1 approached P.W.5 to give one cycle, M.O.4, on hire. P.W.5 gave him M.O.4, cycle. A-1 went and pledged the same with the deceased and obtained some money. P.W.3 is also a cycle shop owner. A-1 came to him and took M.O.5, cycle, on hire, and pledged the same with the deceased. It is alleged that on 20th October 1986, P.W.1 had been to the house of the deceased whereupon the deceased asked P.W.1 to purchase wooden door planks, and P.W.1 promised to do so. As usual, the deceased went to bed i.e., she slept in the hall of her house on a cot after blotting the doors from inside. In the morning, at about 8 a.m., when P.W-1 went to her house he found the doors of the house of the deceased partly closed. When he called the deceased, there was no response from inside. On opening the door, P.W.1 found the deceased dead. P.W.1 then sent a telegram to P.W.8, her adopted son, about the death of the deceased. Information reached the police and police took the report. It was also noticed that gold jewels, and M.Os.4 and 5 were missing. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, handed over the dead body for post-mortem examination. The doctor conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia. P.W.16 sent for P.Ws.3 and 5 and from them learnt that A-1 took the cycles from them on hire. P.W.16 arrested A-1 to A-4, and it was at their instance that M.Os.4 to 16 were recovered. In the presence of the mediators and at their instance, P.W.16 recovered the stolen articles including M.Os.4 and 5. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16. The panch-witnesses, P.Ws.13 and 14 turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge, however, conducted A-1 on the ground that, so far as the recovery of M.Os.4 and 5 is concerned, A-1''s culpability is established because, P.Ws.3 and 5 have stated that A-1 took the cycle on hire from them.

Having carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, we are not able to agree with his reasoning. The prosecution, first of all, have not seized any registers or any other record to show that A.1 took the cycle on hire. Except the oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, there is no other evidence on record. Even otherwise, assuming that A.1 had hired the cycles and pledged them with the deceased some time prior to her death, it may be that A.1 redeemed by paying money. The learned Sessions Judge convicted A.1 mainly on the ground that M.Os.4 and 5 were received which A.1 is alleged to have pledged with the deceased. This, at the most, creates a suspicion. The learned Sessions Judge did not believe recovery of M.O.7 from A.1. Therefore, there is nothing to connect A.1 with the actual murder and theft of M.Os.4 and 5.

In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that there is no evidence worth mentioning which connects the accused with the crime.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentences awarded against the appellant are set aside, and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.