L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashOne Sri Muneppa of Bellakogila Village, Santhipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, had two wives. Through his first wife, he had three sons, including Muni Venkatappa - P.W.1, and through second wife, he had a son, by name, Venkatesu and a daughter - Papamma. The children through the two wives are said to be living separately. Venkatesu was married to Prameela - A.2, in 1993, and they had two children. The spouses were said to be attending the agricultural work of one Muni Reddy, father of Gajendra Reddy - A.1, resident of Mardagatta Village of Karnataka State.
2. P.W. 1 submitted a complaint- Ex. P.1, on 25.09.2005, before the Station House Officer, Rallabuduguru, stating, Inter alia, that about 15 days prior to that date, A.2 informed wife of P.W.1, i.e. P.W.4, that both of them, i.e. Venkatesu and A.2, went to the house of Muni Reddy, and had dinner at that place, but A.1 asked A.2 to go home by stating that Venkatesu would remain there and would come afterwards. A.2 is said to have come to her house, but her husband did not turn up. On receiving this information, P.W.1, A.2 and other relatives are said to have gone in search for Venkatesu in the houses of their relations and in the surrounding places and did not find him.
3. On 24.09.2005, at about 8 P.M., P.W.1 and other relations are said to have gone to the house of A.2 and pestered her as to the whereabouts of Venkatesu, and that A.2 informed them that after herself and Venkatesu had dinner in the house of Muni Reddy, 15 days ago, A.1 came to her house at 11.30 P.M., woke her up and informed that he killed Venkatesu and requested her to give an empty fertilizer bag and a rope. She is said to have furnished the same and both the accused proceeded to a dried-off well of one Venkat Reddy. A.2 is said to have noticed the dead body of her husband in the well, with the help of torchlight, and thereupon, she asked A.1 as to why such a drastic step was taken, and that A.1 replied her stating that once Venkatesu is eliminated, both of them can lead happy life. A.2 is said to have further revealed that herself and A.1 have gone into the well, dug a pit and buried the dead body covering it in an empty bag.
4. Narrating all these facts, P.W.1 requested the Station House Officer, P.S., Rallabuduguru, to take necessary action. On the basis of Ex. P.1, the Station House Officer registered Crime No. 54 of 2005 and apprehended A.1 and A.2. The police party under the guidance of A.1 and A.2 are said to have proceeded to the place where the dead body was buried and that after exhuming the body, it was subjected to inquest and post-mortem. Thereafter, a detailed charge sheet was filed alleging that A.1 and A.2 conspired to kill the deceased and have hidden the dead body, to remove the evidence for their crime. The case was committed to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, and it was taken up as S.C. No. 42 of 2006. The charges were framed and on both the accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted wherein P.Ws.1 and 12 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.11 were marked and M.Os.1 to 13 were also taken on record. The relevant portions of the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.1, were marked as Exs. D.1 and D.2.
5. Through its judgment, dated 10.02.2010, the trial Court held both the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year was imposed for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. Punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months was imposed for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C. Hence, these appeals.
6. Smt. Vasundara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that despite placing voluminous material and adducing lengthy evidence, the prosecution was not able to state as to when the death of the deceased has taken place, much less the manner thereof. She contends that not a single fact mentioned in Ex. P.1 is believable and the suggestions made to P.W.1 and other witnesses that there were quarrels between the two branches of the family, of the deceased and P.W.1 assumes significance. She contends that if, in fact, P.W.1 received the information about the disappearance of his step-brother, the deceased, no reason is forthcoming as to why a complaint was not submitted for about 10 days. She further contends that the case presented by the prosecution is so unbelievable that it was mentioned in Ex. P.2, the inquest, that A.1 is said to have climbed down into the well of about 30 feet depth, which has no stairs or steps. She contends that even according to P.W.12, the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, the body was so decomposed, that it is beyond any recognition and identification and still the trial Court held the accused guilty of the offence.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that P.W.1 as well as the prosecution, had to face much difficulty, on account of the collusive act of both the accused not only in killing the deceased, but also making the body to disappear. She contends that being the wife of the deceased, A.2 was supposed to submit complaint or alert her relations, if, in fact, her husband was not seen, and instead, kept quiet and the information came out only when P.W.1 and others of the family threatened her. She submits that the very fact that the dead body of the deceased was exhumed from a place shown by the accused discloses that they confessed the commission of crime.
8. The prosecution made an endeavour to project the case on hand as the one where the wife of the deceased colluded with her paramour and both of them killed the gentleman. Such instances are not lacking and if the evidence supports the theory presented by the prosecution, the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court can certainly be upheld.
9. The information about the death of the deceased did not reach the police station or for that matter, any other person, till Ex. P.1 was submitted by P.W.1 on 25.09.2005. It is not as if P.W.1 came to know about the news as to the death of his step-brother, Venkatesu, on 25.09.2005. Even according to the contents of Ex. P.1 as well as deposition of P.W.1, 15 days prior to submission of the complaint, the deceased and A.2 are said to have gone to the house of Muni Reddy, father of A.1 and had dinner at that place, but A.2 alone returned to home on being informed by A.1 that the deceased would remain in their house at that night. It was also mentioned in Ex. P.1 that A.2 became a bit worried on account of her husband not returning and shared the same with the wife of P.W.1 i.e. P.W.4. P.W.1 and others are said to have gone in search of the missing person. When A.2 has clearly informed them that Venkatesu was in the house of A.1, and from there he did not return, it is not known as to why efforts were not made to go to the house of A.1 or his father and enquire about the deceased. Secondly, if the efforts to find out the deceased did not fructify, a complaint ought to have been filed immediately. However, P.W.1 and others did not bring the matter to the notice of the police. It is only on 24.09.2005, that P.W.1 and his other relations are said to have accosted A.1 about the missing of deceased and that she has narrated the events, which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
10. P.W.4, the wife of P.W.1, has a different version in this behalf. She did not make any mention about A.2 revealing to her about the missing of the deceased, after the deceased and A.2 had dinner in the house of Muni Reddy. She did not even make a mention about P.W.1 and others pestering or insisting on A.2, to reveal the information about the deceased. To compare these aspects, it is essential to extract the relevant portion of Ex. P.1, on the one hand, and the evidence of P.W.4, on the other hand.
11. In Ex. P.1, it was mentioned:
15 days prior to this day, Prameela came to my house and informed my wife Parvathamma, that her husband and herself both went to the house of Muni Reddy for coolie work for rasham growth, and on the same day at about 5-00 P.M., they ate chicken curry. Afterwards Gajendra Reddy informed Prameela to go her house and her husband would come afterwards. On hearing this, the said Prameela returned to her house, on the same day she also informed my wife that from that day till today her husband did not turn up. Immediately myself, Prameela and our relatives together searched for Venkatesu in our relatives houses and surrounding places and did not find the whereabouts of my brother Venkatesu. Yesterday night, i.e. 24.09.2005 at about 8-30 P.M., myself along with our relatives went to the house of Prameela and several times asked about my step brother and inform the whereabouts of my step brother. Then she (Prameela) informed that 15 days prior to this day, she and her husband ate food and chicken curry in the house of Gajendra Reddy on that night at about 11-30 P.M., while she was sleeping in her house, the said Gajendra Reddy came to her house and woke-up her informed that her husband was killed and requested her to give an empty urea bag and a rope, accordingly she gave those items to him, on receiving those items he asked her to come along with him....
12. The evidence of P.W.4, in this behalf was:
The deceased and A.2 used to go to the coolly work of accused No. 1. On one day in the evening hours A.2 returned from coolly work of A.1 and stated to me that herself and deceased had chicken curry in the house of A.1 and A.1 asked her to go to her house and deceased remained at the house of A.1. The deceased did not return to the village for about 15 days. 15 days thereafter A.2 had stated to me that one day night A.1 came to her house and revealed that he killed the deceased, herself and A.1 took one crow bar, one spade, one gunny bag, one rope and torch light to the well of Venkata Reddy and buried the dead body into the well. She further stated-that with the help of rope Al got down into well while A2 was focusing the torch light and A1 buried the dead body in the well. A.2 further revealed to me that when she questioned to A.1 why he killed the deceased, A.1 replied to her that he is having illicit intimacy with A.2 and that is the reason why he killed the deceased. I in turn informed to my husband the above aspect. Myself, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others i.e. L.W.2 Krishnappa and others went to the above well during night time and saw the signs of burial.
13. From the deposition of P.W.4, it is evident that the information about the deceased was first passed on by A.2 to P.W.4, and the latter, in turn, passed on to P.W.1. Added to that, there is no mention about A.2 informing P.W.4 about the missing of her husband, the making of any search by P.W.1 and others, and thereafter, the insistence of A.2 to furnish the necessary, information.
14. P.W.1 did not feel it appropriate to inform the police, soon after he is said to have got the information about the death of his stepbrother, and he took one full day to submit the complaint. During cross-examination, it was suggested to P.W.1 that he figured as accused in certain cases. Though he denied it initially, he admitted the same to be true. Suggestions were also made to the effect that the family of Muni Reddy, father of A, was the source of envy for many in and around the village.
15. What happened after the police has taken over the investigation is of utmost importance. The very source of information about the death of the deceased is said to be a revelation by A.2 under duress or threat. How far such information it can be accepted in law, is very much debatable. Be that as it may, the police proceeded to a well and the body was exhumed. A perusal of Ex. P.2, the inquest report, reveals that the depth of well is 30 feet and it did not have any steps or stairs. It is just un-understandable as to how A.1 would have gone into the well and buried the body of the deceased.
16. P.W.12 is the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body. In the chief-examination itself, it is stated that the body was in a totally decomposed condition. In the cross-examination, he stated:
My evidence is as per the record. I do not have any personal knowledge with regard to the P.M.E. of the deceased. As per the contents of Ex. P.11, the dead body was highly decomposed and it was not identifiable condition. It is true that in Ex. P.11 even approximate time of the death prior to P.M.E. is not mentioned.
17. When the body is not identifiable, it is difficult to treat it as that of deceased - Venkatesu. No D.N.A. test was conducted for identification of the body on scientific lines. If one takes into account the factors, such as
(a) the uncertainty about the date of death of the deceased;
(b) the delay in submission of complaint in Ex. P.1;
(c) the failure to take steps to go to the house of the father of A.1 and enquire about the deceased;
(d) the inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and his wife P.W.4 as to the nature of revelation said to have been made to them by A.2;
(e) the improbability of A.1 to climb down into the well and burry the body; and
(e) the evidence of P.W.12 to the effect that the recovered body is beyond identification and failure on the part of prosecution to undertake any scientific steps, for identification of the body;
18. They would certainly lead to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused.
19. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C. No. 42 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor, dated 10.02.2010, against the appellants-accused, are set aside. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.
20. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
