Supreme Court of India
DANDU JAGGARAJUversusSTATE OF A.P.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 504
- Decided
- 20 July 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was acquitted.
Summary
Varalakshmi, an upper‑caste woman, married a Scheduled‑Caste man against her family's wishes. Six years later she disappeared after being lured by her paternal uncle, the appellant, who claimed her grandmother was ill. Her body was later found, showing death by smothering, and jewellery allegedly taken from her was recovered from the appellant's pocket. The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant under IPC sections 302, 201 and 379 based on last‑seen testimony, delayed statements under Section 164 of the Evidence Act, and the jewellery recovery. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the motive was unproven, the last‑seen evidence was uncertain, the delayed statements were unreliable, and the jewellery, being common ‘disco jewellery’, did not link the appellant to the crime, especially as it was not recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant for lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict under sections 302, 201 and 379 of the IPC.
- Whether the delayed statements recorded under Section 164 of the Evidence Act are admissible and reliable.
- Whether the motive of honour killing based on caste inter‑marriage can be inferred without direct proof.
- Whether the recovery of jewellery not disclosed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be used to prove the appellant's guilt.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 164, s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 379
Subjects
murdercircumstantial evidenceevidence admissibilitycastehonour killingIndian Penal Codeacquittalsection 27 Evidence Actsection 164 Evidence Act
Judgment
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 342
A DANDU JAGGARAJU
.....
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2008)
JULY 20, 2011 J
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201 and 379 - Victim,
member of upper caste married PW1, member of the
c Scheduled Caste against wishes of her family - Death of the
victim six years after the marriage - Allegation against
appellant-paternal uncle of the victim that he took away the
victim under some pretext and thereafter killed her -
Recovery of victim's jewellery, from the pocket of the appellant J
D on his arrest - Trial court on basis of the last seen evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence and the
recoveries made, convicted the appellant u/ss. 302, 201 and
379 - High Court upheld the conviction - On appeal, held:
The family of the deceased had accepted the marriage for
E about six years more particularly, as even a child had been
bom to the couple - Thus, the motive is clearly suspect - The
last seen evidence of the prosecution witnesses is equally
uncertain - The ornaments allegedly taken from the
deceased is commonly available to all and sundry - It is also
F
difficult to believe that the appellant, who statedly killed his '
niece on account of family honour, would act so low as to take
such trifle jewellery from her dead body ...,. It cannot be
accepted that from the date of the incident till the recovery of
the ornaments from the appellant i.e. till 24 days after the
incident, the appellant continued to move around with the
G
jewellery - Also the said jewellery had not been recovered
under a disclosure u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act but was taken
on a search of the appellant's person - Thus, the appellant
is acquitted.
H 342
DANDU JAGGARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. 343
,.I_->
CRIMINAL APP ELLATE ·JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal A
No. 764 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.02.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
•l Appeal No. 93 of 2005 . B
Siddharth Dave, Jemtiben Ao for the Appellant.
D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki, Savita Dhanda for the
Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
c
ORDER
.. 1. At the very outset, Mr. M.K. Gupta, Advocate, who
-r claims to be a junior counsel with Mr. J.M. Khanna, Advocate D
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. E
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 paternal uncle of the deceased. As per F
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 G
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. H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c not been seen thereafter. The dead body of the deceased was,
however, recovered later that day, whereupon a second F.l.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,.
0
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
E 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
F 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
G August, 2002 and P.W. 4 the telephone booth owner who
deposed to the fact that the appellant had 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
H the deceased and the appellant at the bus stand at
DANDU JAGGARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. 345
,..,...
Ravulapalem and as supported by the medical evidence an.d A
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
r grant of special leave. B
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
c
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
D
evidence to connect the appellant with the murder as the
recoveries alleged to have been made by the police on the 7th
of September, 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.
E
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
_I
and as both the courts below had found that the case had been F
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 G
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 H
~
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
A somewhat strange that the family of the deceased had
accepted the marriage for about six years more 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 which was two and a half years
after the murder.
F 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
G 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
H pocket till its recovery from him on the 7th of September, 2002.
DANDU JAGGARAJU v. STATE OF A.P. 347
We also see from the record that the said jewellery had not A
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.
B
10. 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 acquittal.
We are told that he is in custody. He shall be released forthwith
if not wanted in any other case.
c
11. The fee of the Amicus is fixed at Rs. 7,000/-.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search