Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court acquitted three convicts from life imprisonment in a murder case on benefit of doubt by pointing out that the trial court had unfortunately not considered facts and evidence in a proper perspective for recording the conviction.
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Durga Prasad Rao was allowing two appeals by Bandela Jaipal Reddy, a resident of Malkajgiri, and Yella Moh-an and Battina Satya Varaprasad, of West Godavari district, against challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Narsapur. The judge had, on December 20, 2010, found them guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for killing of one K. Venkat Ratnam in Palakol.
The prosecution charged the trio for killing 67-year-old Venkat Ratnam, stating that all the accused were close associates and the deceased had lent money to the trio without any documentation. When he insisted on repayment of his dues, they hatched a plan and intentionally made him consume excessive alcohol. Afterwards, they smothered him to death with a pillow on the night of September 23, 2007.
The prosecution relied on their witnesses, a rickshaw puller, wine shop vendors, a bartender and a clerk in a lodge, where the accused were seen in the company of the deceased.
The rickshaw puller, who had picked up Venkat Ratnam from a bar in the town and dropped him near his house. He deposed that after dropping him, he had a suspicion that something was not right and hid in nearby bushes. He said he saw the trio smother the old man to death with a pillow.
The counsels argued that the deceased was an old man and was suffering from heart disease. The final report of the forensic doctors clearly indicated that he died due to asphyxia, which may be due to smothering or due to excessive alcohol intake.
The public prosecutor, while supporting conviction, argued that there were two views on the cause of death, but their evidence would clearly demonstrate that it was a case of murder.
The bench observed: “It must be noted that it is not the case of rickshaw puller that either the accused followed the deceased in the same rickshaw or in another vehicle. So, it is highly doubtful whether the accused sent the deceased in eyewitness’ rickshaw.”
The bench pointed out that the prosecution failed to establish the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. The bench observed that if any person was subjected to smothering, the possibility of cotton pieces stuffed into the mouth and nostrils could be ruled out. But in this case, the post-mortem had not indicated any foreign material in the mouth, nostril trachea and esophagus of the deceased.
