Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2111-2112 OF 2008

MANTHURI LAXMI NARSAIAH ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

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

O R D E R

1. The  deceased,  Venkatram  Reddy,  owned  some  

agricultural  land bearing  Survey No.  678 in  Village  

Pedched.  The paddy crop that had been sown on this  

land had been harvested four or five days earlier to  

the date of the incident and the deceased would sleep  

in the fields at night to keep a watch on the  paddy  

and the deceased as per routine, went to the fields on  

the evening of the 1st of May, 2004.  At about 6:30A.M.  

the next morning P.W. 6, the servant of the family,  

informed the family members that Venkatram Reddy had  

been murdered and the injuries had been caused with an  

axe.  P.W. 1, the son of the deceased, rushed to the  

field and found that his father was lying dead on which  

he  registered  a  First  Information  Report  against

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 2

unknown  persons.   During  the  course  of  the  

investigation it transpired that P.W. 2, another son of  

the deceased, had seen the wife of A1 requesting the  

deceased to go to the fields the next morning as the  

paddy had to be thrashed and that P.W. 9 had seen A1,  

his wife and son returning on a bullock cart at mid  

night  on  the  1st of  April,  2004  and  when  he  had  

questioned them they told him that they were going to  

the field  to thrash the paddy crop.  P.W. 9 also  

stated that he had also asked A9 to supply water from  

his cart for the marriage of his daughter which was  

scheduled to take place the next morning.  The police  

also recorded the statement of P.W. 10 to whom the two  

accused  had made  an extra  judicial confession  about  

20/25 days after the murder and had sought his help in  

dealing with the police and that he had advised them to  

surrender to custody.  The accused were, accordingly,  

arrested soon after the extra-judicial confessions had  

been made and on the statements made by both of them,  

the weapons of offence i.e. axe etc. were recovered in  

the presence of P.W. 12.  The trial court relying on  

the aforesaid evidence convicted the two accused under  

Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced  

them to imprisonment for life.  In appeal, the High  

Court observed that there were four piece of evidences

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 3

against the appellant viz:

“a) A-1 cultivated the lands of the  deceased  on  crop  sharing  basis,  there  arose differences in the context of the  demand made by A1 to give the other lands  of the deceased also on lease to him;

b)  PW-9 had seen A-1, his wife and  son coming on a bullock cart towards the  same field, late in the night on the date  of occurrence.

c) That A-1 and A-2 have confessed  before PW-11 that they have committed the  murder of Venkatram Reddy and

d) the recovery of material objects  at  the  instance  of  A-1  and  A-2  was  evidenced by PW-12.”

and on an analysis of the evidence concluded that no  

case was made out against A2 and as such his appeal was  

allowed whereas the appeal of A1 was dismissed.   It is  

in this situation that the matter is before us after  

the grant of special leave.

2. We have heard Mr. Niroop, the learned counsel  

for  the  appellant,  and  Mr.  R.  Sundaravardhan,  the  

learned Senior Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh.  

We notice that there are four circumstances which the  

High Court has made out against the appellant.  We deal  

with them ad seriatim:

(a) It is the prosecution story that A1 had cultivated  

the land of the deceased on crop sharing basis for some  

time and that the two had later fallen out on account

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 4

of the refusal of the deceased to give some more land  

to A1 for cultivation purposes.  We see from the record  

that the facts relating to the difference of opinion  

between the accused and the deceased did not figure in  

the  statements  given  by  any  of  the  prosecution  

witnesses  given  under  Section  161  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure and was an improvement made during  

the course of the evidence.  In that eventuality, this  

evidence by itself has virtually no value.

(b) This point has been taken to be the evidence of  

last seen.  This is a wrong perception for the reason  

that when P.W. 9 had seen A1 and his son returning from  

the fields late at night, the deceased was not with  

them.  To our mind, therefore, this evidence too is of  

no importance and merely because the accused had been  

seen coming from the field in which the murder had  

apparently  been  committed  could  not  be  taken  as  

evidence of last seen as it is the admitted case that  

A1 was also cultivating part of the land in which the  

murder had been committed.

(c) This is the primary evidence which the prosecution  

has relied upon against the appellant.  First of all,  

we find that the extra-judicial confession was jointly  

made  by the accused to P.W. 10.  We have also gone  

through the evidence of P.W. 10 and find from a reading

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 5

thereof that he was a convenient witness for the police  

as he admitted that he had stood bail in a large number  

of excise cases and that he was running a toddy shop.  

He also admitted in his cross examination that he was  

associated in some kind of business with P.W. 1 the  

first informant and the son of the deceased.  In the  

face  of  the  above,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

recovery of the axe and other incriminating articles do  

not  constitute  a  material  chain  of  circumstances  

against the appellant.  It is by now well-settled that  

in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain  

of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution  

and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused  

must get the benefit thereof.  We are of the opinion  

that the present is in fact a case of no evidence.  We,  

accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the judgment  

of the High Court insofar as the appellant is concerned  

and order his acquittal.  He is directed to be released  

forthwith if not required in connection with any other  

case.

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

Crl.A. Nos. 2111-2112 of 2008 6

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

NEW DELHI AUGUST 18, 2011.