MANTHURI LAXMI NARSAIAH Vs STATE OF A.P.
Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-002111-002112 / 2008
Diary number: 13080 / 2008
Advocates: ANIL KUMAR TANDALE Vs
D. MAHESH BABU
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.