DANDU JAGGARAJU versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 20-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 342 
A 
DANDU JAGGARAJU 
..... 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 20, 2011 
J 
[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 
difficult to believe that the appellant, who statedly killed his 
' 
F 
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 
G incident, the appellant continued to move around with the 
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 ELLA TE ·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 
• 
Appeal No. 93 of 2005 . 
B 
l 
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 
F 
appellant who was the 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 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 suspic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.