MANGAMMAVVA @ NESE YESODAMMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 21-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MANGAMMA A VVA @ NESE YESODAMMA AND ORS. 
A 
·~ 
/ 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MARCH 21, 1995 
(MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND 
B 
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.) 
... '""' 
J-
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
S.302-Murder trial-Sole eye witnes.s-Evidence artificial and highly c 
improbable-Courts below relying on such evidence convicted the ac-
cused-Evidence reappreciated-Held: it is unsafe to rest conviction on suclt 
evidence-Accused entitled to acquittal-Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
D 
Art.136-Mztrder trial-Evidence of sole eye- witness-Improbable and 
artificial-Courts below relying on such evidence and convicting the ac-
~· 
cused-Reappreciation of evidence-Called for. 
The three accused appellants were inter-related, A-1 and A-2 being E 
sisters and unmarried while A·3 happened to be the husband of the 
younger sisters of A·l and A-2. They were convicted and sentenced on the 
charge of committing murder. A·l a Digambra Sanyasni, was running an 
Asharam. Her sister A·2 was also living in the Asharam. The deceased, a 
young Bachelor was so much involved in the upkeep and running of the 
.. .\: 
Ashram that he became indispensable to the Ashram and he used to stay F 
... 
. 
at the Asharam during nights • 
fl 
' 
The prosecution alleged that the deceased used to sleep with A·2 in 
-y 
one of the rooms in the Ashram; that he was moving in the company of 
A·2 to various places in connection with the affairs of the Ashram; and G 
-· 
that sometimes A_:l..-t6o would join the deceased in that separate room 
> 
giving rise to the suspicion of her illicit intimacy with the deceased; and 
"!'" 
thaf on coming to know that the deceased was to get married, out of 
jealousy and frustration A·l and A·2 killed the deceased With the help of 
A·3. PW.1 gave an eye-witness account or the alleged murder. The Courts 
below relied on her evidence and convicted and sentenced the accused. H 
887 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and acquitting the accused, this Court 
HELD: 1. It would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the 
appellants on the bare testimony of PWl. It is note-worthy that she was a 
B grown up young woman of 25 years of age, seemingly vigilant and alert. 
Her statement reveals that except for her serving the hoµsehold as maid 
servant no extra pressure stood put on her, from which it could be 
gathered that she was enslaved and could be frightened to submission to 
keep her mouth shut. Her alert eyes and ears had seen and heard A-1 
C dictating a letter to A-3 and yet there is no mention of this detail in the 
statement attributed to her in the Inquest report. She claims that after the 
crime was committed, and before the dead body was removed from a 
platform close to the Ashram, the contents of the pocket of the shirt of the 
deceased lying close-by were emptied by A-2, and yet the investigation 
claimed that a four-page I_etter was found in the pocket of the shirt of the 
D deceased, which was brought from the Ashram to be placed near. the 
deadbody of the deceased. It is ununderstandable as to why such an 
incriminating document, more so when the contents of the pocket of the 
shirt had been removed by A-2 in the presence of A-1 and A-3, was allowed 
to remain or put back in the pocket by A-2. It seems that the introduction 
E of the letter and its recovery and its authorship, to connect it with the visit 
of the deceased to the Ashram, was a thoughtless and clumsy attempt on 
the part of the investigation to supply the motive for the crime. 
(897-G-H, 898-A-B] 
2. What has been claimed by the prosecution to be an allurement to 
p 
the deceased to be visiting the Ashram, three days prior to his scheduled 
marriage, in order to discharge his obligations towards the Ashram, . 
cannot conclusively be said to be clandestine in character. The deceased 
may have with the best of his motive been led to clear the account with the 
Ashram and in particular with A-1. It was not unnatural for A-1 to have 
trusted the deceased when he was looking after and managing the whole 
G affairs of the Ashram. When his assistance and participation was 
withdrawn, the Ashram affairs must have become disarrayed. The letter 
Ex.P.5 does not appear to be conclusive on the subject, because in the first 
place it is not signed or thumb-marked by A- 1, in the second place the 
Inquest report does not disclose in any manner that the writing was of A-3, 
H even though PWl h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.