MANTHURI LAXMI NARASAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 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: