Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 764  OF 2008

DANDU JAGGARAJU ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed  

the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below  

and ordered the acquittal of the appellant herein.

We are told that the appellant is in custody.  He  

shall  be  released  forth  with  if  not  wanted  in  

connection with any other case.  

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on  

record.   

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 20, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 2

  REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 764  OF 2008

DANDU JAGGARAJU ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF A.P. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. At the very outset,  Mr. M.K. Gupta, Advocate,  

who claims to be a junior counsel with Mr. J.M. Khanna,  

Advocate appeared before us and prayed that the matter  

be adjourned for the day as Mr. J.M. Khanna was not yet  

prepared with the matter and on the earlier date they  

had missed the case in the list.  We are told that Mr.  

J.M. Khanna is sitting in his Chamber.  We, accordingly  

refuse to recall the order dated 14th July, 2011.

2. The deceased Varalakshmi who was a Kshatriya had  

married  P.W.  1,  a  member  of  the  Scheduled  Castes,  

against  the  wishes  of  her  family  due  to  which  her  

family had become annoyed with her.  The annoyance was,  

particularly,  felt  by  the  appellant  who  was  the

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 3

paternal uncle of the deceased.  As per the prosecution  

story the appellant telephoned the deceased on the 14th  

of August, 2002, informing her that her grand mother  

was seriously ill and wanted to see her and that he  

would come to her village to pick her up later that  

day.  He also told her that as he would not be able to  

locate  her  house  somebody  should  be  sent  to  the  

telephone  booth  of  P.W.  4  to  guide  him.   P.W.  2  

thereupon sent her son P.W. 3 to the telephone booth of  

P.W.  4  and  after  a  short  while  the  appellant  too  

arrived at the telephone booth and was brought to the  

house of the deceased.  She introduced the appellant as  

her uncle to P.Ws. 2 and 3.  The deceased, believing  

the information that her grand mother was sick, left  

with  the  appellant  on  his  white  coloured  scooter  

leaving her young son with P.W. 2.  P.W.1, the husband  

of  the  deceased,  returned  home  from  work  late  that  

evening and was told by P.Ws. 2 and 3 that his wife had  

gone  with  the  appellant  and  had  not  returned  since  

then.  As the deceased did not return that evening or  

even the next day and as the efforts of P.W. 1 to  

search her out remained unsuccessful, he lodged a First  

Information Report on the 16th of August to the effect  

that his wife had left for the house of her relatives  

but had not been seen thereafter.   The dead body of

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 4

the deceased was, however, recovered later that day,  

whereupon a second F.I.R. was recorded at the instance  

of P.W. 1 in which he, for the first time, expressed  

his suspicion that she had been taken away under a  

pretext by the appellant and thereafter killed.  The  

appellant  was,  accordingly,  arrested  on  the  7th  

September,  2002  and  some  of  the  jewellery  that  the  

deceased was said to be wearing at the time of her  

disappearance was recovered from his pockets.  The dead  

body  of  the  deceased  was  also  subjected  to  a  post  

mortem examination and it was revealed that she had  

died of asphyxia due to smothering as her chunni had  

been thrust into her mouth.

3. On  the  completion  of  the  investigation,  the  

appellant was brought to trial for offences punishable  

under Section 302, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal  

Code.   The  trial  court  on  a  consideration  of  the  

evidence of P.W. 1, the first informant and the husband  

of the deceased, P.W. 2 the house owner in which the  

deceased and P.W. 1 were living, P.W. 3 the son of P.W.  

2 who stated that he had gone to the telephone booth of  

P.W. 4 and had brought the appellant to their house on  

the 14th of August, 2002 and  P.W. 4 the telephone booth  

owner who deposed to the fact that the appellant had

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 5

come to the booth on the day in question where P.W. 3  

had been waiting for him and thereafter gone along with  

him to the house of P.W. 2, P.W. 6 a press reporter and  

a colleague of P.W. 1 who had last seen the deceased  

and the appellant at the bus stand at Ravulapalem and  

as supported by the medical evidence and the recoveries  

of the ornaments from the appellant convicted him of  

the  offences  charged  and  sentenced  him  accordingly.  

The High Court has, in appeal, confirmed the judgment  

of conviction and sentence and the matter is before us  

after the grant of special leave.    

4. Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned Amicus for the  

appellant, has submitted that there was absolutely no  

evidence to connect the appellant to the crime and the  

First   Information   Report   recorded   on  the  18th  

August, 2002 was  no FIR in the eyes of law as the  

first FIR recorded was that of a missing  person on the  

16th August,  2002  and  in  this  report  the  first  

informant(P.W. 1) had not expressed his suspicion about  

the identify of the culprit.  He has also pointed out  

that except for the last seen evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3  

and  6,  there  was  no  other  evidence  to  connect  the  

appellant with the murder as the recoveries alleged to  

have been made by the police on the 7th of September,

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 6

2002 could not be believed.  It has, accordingly, been  

submitted that the chain of circumstances envisaged in  

a case resting on circumstantial evidence were clearly  

missing.  

5. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, the learned counsel for the  

State of Andhra Pradesh has, however, supported the  

judgment of the trial court and has pointed out that  

the last seen evidence and the recoveries by themselves  

did constitute such a chain and as both the courts  

below had found that the case had been proved, no case  

for interference was made out.   

6. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and gone through the evidence on record.   

7. It has to be noticed that the marriage between  

P.W. 1 and the deceased had been performed in the year  

1996 and that it is the case of the prosecution that an  

earlier attempt to hurt the deceased had been made and  

a  report  to  that  effect  had  been  lodged  by  the  

complainant.   There  is,  however,   no  documentary  

evidence  to  that  effect.   We,  therefore,  find  it  

somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had  

accepted  the  marriage  for  about  six  years  more

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 7

particularly, as even a child had been born to the  

couple.  In this view of the matter, the motive is  

clearly suspect.  In a case relating to circumstantial  

evidence, motive is often a very strong circumstance  

which has to be proved by the prosecution and it is  

this circumstance which often forms the fulcrum of the  

prosecution story.

8. We also see that the last seen evidence of P.Ws.  

2, 3 and 6 is equally uncertain.  Significantly, the  

statements  of  P.Ws.2  and  3  were  recorded  by  the  

Magistrate for the first time under Section 164 about  

four months after the alleged incident and though both  

witnesses  had  deposed  that  they  would  be  able  to  

identify the appellant who was otherwise a stranger to  

them,  no  effort  had  been  made  to  hold  a  test  

identification parade.   Mr. Mahesh Babu, has, however,  

placed  reliance  on  the  statement  of  P.W.  6  who  is  

stated to be a completely independent witness.  Even  

this witness had testified that he did not know the  

appellant personally but he still claimed that he had  

seen  the  appellant  at  the  bus  depot  on  the  day  in  

question along with the deceased and that he was called  

upon to identify him for the first time in Court  when  

his statement was recorded on the 4th of November, 2004

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 8

which was two and a half years after the murder.

9. The  only  other  piece  of  evidence  against  the  

appellant is the recovery of the ornaments allegedly  

taken from the deceased.  We find that the jewellery is  

of  the  variety   known  as  'disco  jewellery'  and  is  

commonly  available  to  all  and  sundry.   It  is  also  

difficult to believe that the appellant, who statedly  

killed his niece on account of family  honour, would  

act so low as to take the jewellery which was little  

more than trinkets from her dead body.   We also find  

it  completely  unacceptable  that  though  the  incident  

happened on the 14th of August, 2002 the appellant had  

continued to move around with the jewellery still in  

his pocket till its recovery from him on the 7th of  

September, 2002.  We also see from the record that the  

said  jewellery  had  not  been  recovered  under  a  

disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but was  

taken on a search of his person.  This circumstance,  

therefore,  does  not  even  remotely  support  the  

prosecution story in any manner.   

9. For the reasons recorded above, we find that the  

judgments of the courts below cannot be sustained.  We,  

accordingly, allow the appeal and order the appellant's

Crl.A. No. 764 of 2008 9

acquittal.  We are told that he is in custody.  He  

shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other  

case.  

10. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at `7,000/-.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 20, 2011.