DANDU JAGGARAJU Vs STATE OF A.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000764-000764 / 2008
Diary number: 20552 / 2007
Advocates: Vs
D. MAHESH BABU
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.