20 August 2004
Supreme Court
Download

DASARI SIVA PRASAD REDDY Vs PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.

Case number: Crl.A. No.-001425-001425 / 2003
Diary number: 21102 / 2003
Advocates: D. BHARATHI REDDY Vs MOHANPRASAD MEHARIA


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1425 of 2003

PETITIONER: DASARI SIVA PRASAD REDDY                         

RESPONDENT: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/08/2004

BENCH: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI & B.P. SINGH

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

By the impugned judgment, the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh reversed the acquittal recorded by the Sessions  Judge and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC  and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, the  acquittal under Section 498-A was confirmed. The appellant, who was an elementary school teacher,  married the victim Lakshmi Devi in the year 1991. A  daughter and son were born to them in 1993 and 1995  respectively. At the crucial time they were residing in  Pulivendla, Cuddapah District. It is the case of the prosecution that there were  intermittent quarrels between the couple and there were  also demands from the appellant for additional dowry. The  accused even suspected the fidelity of his wife. On the morning of 20th April, 1996, Lakshmi Devi was  found dead lying on a cot with injuries on the neck and  forehead. A jute twine rope was found underneath the cot,  according to some of the witnesses. The first one amongst  the prosecution witnesses who noticed her unnatural death  was her brother (PW3) who was a lecturer residing in the  same town. He went to the house of the accused at about  6.30 a.m. having been informed by the accused that  something happened to his sister. The accused himself took  PW3 to his house. According to the prosecution, the accused  made himself scarce thereafter. PW3 sent a jeep to bring his  parents living in a nearby village. The parents of the  deceased, her brother and other relations came down to  Pulivendla after 9 a.m. Suspecting foul play and the role of  the accused, the father of the deceased (PW1) gave a report  (Ex. P1) to the police at about 11 a.m., on the basis of which  the Head Constable (PW8) registered the crime and  prepared the FIR. In that report, PW1 stated that ever since  his daughter and son-in-law started residing at Pulivendla,  they used to quarrel in regard to some family matters.  She  was not allowed to come to his house for ’Ugadi’ festival.  PW1 then mentioned about the information he received  through a person who came in a jeep and his arrival at  Pulivendla with family members. PW4 stated that on the  observance of the dead body of his daughter, he was having  doubt that his son-in-law might have killed his daughter by  hanging. PW8 visited the scene of offence and recorded the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

statements of PWs 1 to 3 and others, prepared a rough  sketch of the scene of offence. He could not find the  accused. The inquest of dead body was held on 20th April,  1996 between 12.00 and 15.00 hours by the Mandal  Executive Magistrate, Pulivendla (PW7) in the presence of  V.A.O. and others, pursuant to a request received from the  ASI (PW8). In the inquest  report, it was noted that the  deceased would have died in the early hours of 20th April,  1996 by being strangulated with a rope tightened around  the neck when she was asleep and that the appellant was  the suspect. It was noticed that there was a black mark  around the neck, a scar wound on the side of the left arm- pit. The dead body was sent for postmortem a day later i.e.  on 21.4.1996 at 2 p.m. The autopsy was done by PW9, Civil  Assistant Surgeon of Government Headquarters Hospital,  Cuddapah. Dr. G. Swatantra Devi also joined him in  conducting the autopsy. Ex. P8 is the postmortem  certificate. The body was in a putrefying state. The head,  neck, face and chest bloated up. Skin was peeling off over  various parts of the body. The hair of head was coming out  easily. Tongue was protruded. Bloodstained frothy discharge  was coming out through nose. The external injury noted was  contusion of the size of 1= c.m. width all around the neck  encircling the middle of the neck. The following internal  injuries were noticed: "Neck Muscles contused on left side.  Hyoid bone\027 left greater horn fractured in the middle.  Surrounding tissues contused even on right side,  tissues around hyoid bone contused.

Larynx \026 Congested and edematous Chest   - Chest  muscles congested 3rd, 4th, 5th ribs       on left side fractured anteriority. Lungs  - Markedly congested exuding dark       coloured blood on sectioning and pressing it.         Heart  - Soft, Pale diolated and empty.         Stomach \026 Empty.         Liver \026 Spleen, leiding congested.

Intestines, tissues of abdomen filled with foul  smelling gasses.

Bladder empty, Uterus, overis tubes congested.  Cavity empty.

Skull \026 Diffuse contusions seen below the scalp,  no fracture of skull. Brain matter liquefied."

It was noted in Ex. P8 and reiterated by PW9 that the  death would have occurred  about 48 hours prior to  postmortem. The cause of the death is stated to be asphyxia  due to strangulation. The accused was arrested by PW8 on 6.5.1996 at his  house. PW10\027the Inspector of Police took up further  investigation on 15.7.1996. He examined PWs 4 & 6, who  were neighbours of the accused at that stage and filed the  charge sheet. After committal, the trial was taken up by the  District and Sessions Judge, Cuddapah. Charges under  Sections 498-A and 302 IPC were framed. The learned trial Judge raised the following points for  consideration. 1.      Whether Dasari Lakshmi Devi’s death is  homicidal?

2.      Whether Dasari Lakshmi Devi died during the

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

intervening night of 19/20-4-1996?

3.      Whether the accused had motive to kill his  wife (Lakshmi Devi)?

4.      Whether the deceased (Lakshmi Devi) was  last seen in the company of the accused?

5.      Whether the plea of alibi raised by the  accused is true?

6.      Whether the accused absconded from  20.4.1996 onwards?

7.      Whether the prosecution proved beyond  reasonable doubt that the accused alone  murdered his wife?

8.      To what result?"

The death was held to be homicidal because the  medical evidence reveals that there was fracture of ribs  which means that the victim was subjected to violence at  the time of strangulation. On point No.2, the learned Sessions Judge came to the  conclusion, on the examination of medical evidence and the  text books on Medical Jurisprudence, that Lakshmi Devi’s  death was not on the night intervening 19th & 20th April,  1996 but it was around 2 p.m. on 19.4.1996. He quoted  extensively from Dr. Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and  Toxicology. Having noticed three stages in putrefaction  which starts after rigor mortis completely passes off, the  learned trial Judge observed as follows: "The medical evidence clearly shows that the body  was in the third stage as skin was pealing off and  hair from the head was coming out easily. So,  according to Dr. Modi, this is possible only  between forty eight to seventy two hours. There is  yet another indication. According to Dr. Modi, the  brain becomes soft and pulpy within twenty four  to forty eight hours in summer and becomes a  liquid mass from three to four days. In this case,  the postmortem certificate reveals that the brain  was liquefied and there was no injury to the skull.  This again points out that the time of death could  be after forty eight hours. Therefore, the body was  in the third stage of de-composition i.e., forty  eight hours. These features support the joint view  of the Medical Officers in the postmortem  certificate that the death could be 48 hours prior  to the postmortem examination."

It is on such reasoning the trial Court fixed the time of  death at about 2 p.m. on 19th April, 1996 which is obviously  against the prosecution case. Coming to the third aspect of motive, the allegations of  the accused demanding additional dowry or suspecting the  fidelity of his wife were examined and the learned trial Judge  held that the evidence did not establish these allegations  beyond doubt. Inter alia, the trial Court took account of the  fact that in Ex. P1\027report given by the father of the  deceased, nothing was said about dowry harassment. He  only stated that there were quarrels between the wife and  husband in relation to domestic affairs. Even at the time of  inquest, nothing was stated about the demand of additional

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

dowry. Moreover, PW1 stated in his cross examination that  the demand of dowry was only three years prior to the  fateful day. The trial Judge ultimately concluded that there  were differences between the wife and husband for unknown  reasons and the prosecution could only establish that much. Whether the accused was last seen in the company of  the deceased on the night of 19th April, 1996 is the next  question which was addressed by the trial Court. The trial  Court rejected the evidence of PW4\027a retired Government  Servant, who is related to PW1. PW4 was residing in the  same locality though not an immediate neighbour. He spoke  about the quarrels between the deceased and the accused  and the deceased narrating to him about the harassment  meted out to her for not getting additional dowry. According  to PW4, it was on his advice the accused shifted his  residence to his locality. PW4 then stated that on 19.4.1996  at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased was at her house in the  company of children of the neighbourhood. At that time, the  accused came and the accused and his wife with children  went inside. He further stated that between 10.00 to 10.30  p.m., there was some quarrel in the house and he observed  it from outside his house. He came to know of the death in  the early morning the next day and noticed the dead body of  Lakshmi Devi on the cot with marks around the neck and a  contusion on the forehead. PW4 also stated that he noticed  the accused when he went inside the house but later on he  slipped away. Though this witness stated that on the  evening of 20th April, 1996 the Inspector of Police examined  him for the first time and thereafter the Inspector once  again examined him after three months, the trial Court  found that PW4 was examined for the first time by the  Inspector of Police on 15.7.1996 i.e. about three months  after the offence. The trial Court therefore doubted the  veracity of his version. The trial Judge also adverted to the fact that in the  inquest report it was not mentioned that the accused and his  wife were last seen alive at 8.30 p.m. by PW4 or any other  witness. The learned trial Judge was also not inclined to  believe PW4 as he did not say before the Investigating  Officer that he had seen the accused going inside the house  at 8.30 p.m. On the discussion of the evidence, the trial  Judge remarked that the prosecution version that the  deceased was last seen in the company of the accused in the  night of 19.4.1996 was highly doubtful. The learned trial  Judge observed that the finding on Point No.2 (time of  death) further magnified the doubt on the correctness of the  prosecution case. The plea of alibi set up by the accused was disbelieved.   The accused took the plea that he went to his parents’ house  in another village, having applied for leave and that he left  for his house on the early morning of 20th April, 1996. The  trial Judge felt that the evidence of DWs 1 to 3 did not  establish that the accused was throughout in the parental  house on the 19th April and he was seen leaving the village  on the morning of the following day. As regards abscondence, the trial Court gave the  finding in favour of the accused by reason of the evidence of  PW3\027the brother of the deceased that the accused came to  his house at 6.30 a.m. on 20th April, 1996 and took him to  his house indicating that something happened to his sister.  The learned trial Judge observed that the accused did not  abscond initially but when the people gathered, he left the  scene. In such a situation, abscondence cannot be put  against him. Coming to the last point, following his findings in

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

regard to the time of death, the last seen evidence and the  absence of motive, the Sessions Judge held that from the  circumstances established by the prosecution, it is not  possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that the accused  and accused  alone killed his wife.

The High Court agreed with the trial Court that there  was no immediate motive that prompted the accused to kill  his wife. The High Court also affirmed the finding of the trial  Judge that the plea of alibi set up by the accused was not  well substantiated. The High Court however differed with the  findings of the trial Court in regard to the time of death and  the circumstance of ’last seen’. Having done so, the High  Court adverted to the post-crime conduct of the appellant  coupled with the false plea of alibi set up by him and came  to the conclusion that the accused must have committed the  murder. We must examine whether the reasoning of the High  Court is such as would justify the reversal of ’not guilty’  verdict recorded by the trial Court. The High Court rightly  took note of the recognized limitations on interference with  the order of acquittal, but in the actual application thereof,  the High Court, in our view, erred in reversing the acquittal. As regards the time of death, the High Court took note  of the fact that even according to the medical evidence  tendered by PW9, the occurrence of death between 38 to 40  hours cannot be ruled out as it was summer time. If so, the  time of occurrence could be in the night or midnight of 19th  April, 1996. The High Court pointed out that the time of  occurrence cannot be fixed with precision merely based on  the opinion expressed in the text books on Medical  Jurisprudence which only sets out certain broad indicators.  We shall proceed that the High Court’s view on this aspect is  correct especially in view of the clarification given by PW9  himself. Therefore, we shall assume that the  murder had  taken place on the night of 19th April or in the early hours of  20th April. In drawing an inference that the accused must have  been in the house on the crucial night, the High Court  mainly relied on the evidence of PW4 and also relied on the  fact that the accused set up a false plea of alibi. As already  noticed, the evidence of PW4 was to the effect that he saw  the accused entering his house at about 8.30 p.m. on 19th  April, 1996. He also spoke to the fact that he observed some  quarrel going on between the husband and the wife beyond  10 p.m. The High Court repelled the contention that the  police examined PW4 three months after the incident on a  wrong assumption that PW8\027the Head Constable, initially  examined PW4 after the case was registered. But, it is clear  from the evidence of PW8 that he did not examine PW4.  PW10 also clarified that he examined PW4 once only i.e. on  15.7.1996. There is absolutely no reason why PW4 who was  admittedly related to the deceased and who was in the  house of the accused soon after the incident, did not come  forward to give the statement about the facts observed by  him. There is no reason to think that the police would not  have examined him immediately if he was the person who  had seen the deceased last in the company of the accused  on the night of 19th April, 1996. Moreover, PW4 came  forward with an improbable version that he observed the  quarrel from his house which is separated by four or five  houses from the house of the accused. PW10\027the I.O.  categorically stated that PW4 did not tell him that at 10 p.m.  he observed the quarrel at the house of the accused. That  means, PW4 did not hesitate to go to any extent to help the

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

prosecution to substantiate the ’last seen’ version. The High  Court dismissed the criticism against PW4’s evidence by  merely observing that there was no reason for him to falsely  implicate the accused. We are of the view that the High  Court should not have upset the finding of the trial Court in  regard to the credibility of evidence of PW4 and buttress its  conclusion on the last seen factor by relying on PW4’s  evidence. As far as PW5 is concerned, the High Court  concurred with the trial Court’s view that his evidence  cannot be believed. The High Court then observed that since the plea of  alibi is found to be false, it can be inferred that the accused  was present in the house in the night of 19.41996. The High  Court after adverting to the observations in Prabhakar Vs.  State of Maharashtra [(1982) 1 SCC 426] drew the  further inference that only the accused and the deceased  were in the house at the relevant time and there was no  possibility for others to enter into the house. These  observations were primarily based on the unreliable  evidence of PW4. The High Court’s approach in seeking  support from the decision in Prabhakar’s case is clearly  unsustainable. The facts and circumstances in that case  unerringly pointed  to the presence of the accused at the  crucial time and there was no possibility of third person  being there. The inferences drawn in that case cannot  therefore be pressed into service here. If we exclude PW4’s  evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish the  presence of the accused in the house on the crucial night.  The fact that the appellant could not establish by cogent  evidence that on the night of 19th April, 1996 he remained at  the house of his parents in another village does not lead to  the necessary inference that the appellant must have   remained at his house on the night of 19th April, 1996. However, there is one circumstance which is suggestive  of the strong possibility of the presence of the accused at his  house. As per PW3’s evidence which was believed by the  trial Court, the appellant contacted him in the morning at        6 a.m. and brought PW3 to his house giving a hint that  something untoward happened to his sister (i.e. the  deceased). Added to this, the accused, in the normal course,  is expected to be at his house in the night. However, these  factors need not give rise to an irresistible inference that the  accused remained in the house in the previous night and the  accused alone must have been responsible for the murder.  At best, it can be said that the view taken by the trial Court  is not the only possible view. But, that is not enough to  reverse the acquittal. A strong suspicion, no doubt, exists against the  appellant but such suspicion cannot be the basis of  conviction, going by the standard of proof required in a  criminal case. The distance between ’may be true’ and ’must  be true’ shall be fully covered by reliable evidence adduced  by the prosecution. But, that has not been done in the  instant case. If, coupled with the circumstance unfolded by  the evidence of PW3, the evidence of PW4 had been  believed, it would have gone a long way in substantiating  the prosecution case. But, in the instant case, apart from  the fact that the appellant was at his house on the morning  of 20th April, 1996, there is no other circumstance  whatsoever which connects the accused to the crime, though  serious suspicion looms large about his involvement. The  view taken by the trial Court that the prosecution could not  establish the complete chain of circumstances incriminating  the accused is a reasonably possible view and the High  Court should not have disturbed the same. Having regard to

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

the state of available evidence, the benefit of doubt given to  the accused by the trial Court warranted no interference by  the High Court. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the  judgment of the High Court and affirm the verdict of  acquittal returned by the trial Court. The appellant shall be  released forthwith from the jail.