- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Narasimha Kumar And Others v. State Of A.P .
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This set of revisions arises from a criminal prosecution originating in C.C. No. 53 of 1990 before the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. A1 was charged under Sections 381, 411 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; A2–A11 and A15 were charged under Sections 120-B and 414, IPC; and A12–A14 were charged under Section 411, IPC. One accused (A4) died during trial and the case against A10 was separated.
The trial Court convicted the accused and imposed various sentences by its judgment dated 26-11-2000. Multiple criminal appeals were filed in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur (listed as Criminal Appeal Nos. 595, 598, 610, 616, 625, 631 of 2000 corresponding to different accused). The lower appellate Court, by a common judgment dated 3-12-2000, acquitted A5 and A7–A9 but sustained conviction and sentence against the remaining accused.
The accused thereafter filed criminal revisions in this Court (various R.C. Nos. of 2001 as listed in the opinion). The prosecution case was that question papers for a Group IV written examination scheduled on 24-2-1985 were prepared, printed, packed and dispatched under supervision; A1 participated in packing and is alleged to have stealthily removed question papers (Parts I and II) during packing in February 1985, had copies made at a Xerox shop run by P.W.26, and sold copies to other accused; A14 was caught copying at an examination center and allegedly revealed possession of a copy obtained from A1.
The prosecution examined 54 witnesses (P.Ws 1–54), produced Exhibits P1–P100 and Material Objects M.O.s 1–7. The defence contended that there was no material establishing the essential ingredients of the charged offences, no recoveries of stolen papers from A1, and many prosecution witnesses (including the officer supervising packing, P.W.19, and others involved in packing and sealing) did not implicate A1; the prosecution also did not examine the Investigating Officer.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution established, beyond reasonable doubt, that A1 stole the question papers (and thereby established the remaining connected offences) given the absence of recovery and the character of the evidence.
- Whether circumstantial evidence available in the case was sufficient to link A1 and the other accused to the alleged theft and subsequent distribution/sale of question papers.
- What significance should be attached to the non-examination of the Investigating Officer in a case where the prosecution relies on numerous disparate witnesses and documents to establish a linked chain of events.
- Whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial and lower appellate Courts should be sustained in light of the evidentiary record described above.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' (Accused) Arguments
- The entire prosecution case lacked basis: no stolen material was recovered from A1 or others, and the ingredients of offences such as Section 411, IPC were neither pleaded nor established.
- Key witnesses who oversaw the packing and dispatch of question papers (including P.W.19 and P.Ws 7, 10–12, 16, 17) did not implicate A1; P.W.19 specifically stated he did not notice any irregularity or leakage.
- P.W.26, the Xerox operator relied upon by the prosecution, did not provide evidence that the papers he xeroxed for A1 were question papers; his testimony was equivocal and lacked documentary corroboration.
- The prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer, despite having presented many witnesses and documents, thereby omitting the person who could explain how disparate pieces of evidence were linked.
Respondent (Public Prosecutor) Arguments
- The case, by its nature, had to be prosecuted on circumstantial evidence; starting from the detection of copying by A14, if events are traced sequentially, a complete chain would be established linking to A1 and others.
- Failure to examine the Investigating Officer was not fatal where sufficient documentary and oral evidence had been placed before the trial Court.
- The Public Prosecutor relied on the Supreme Court judgment Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar for the proposition that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer should not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 311 | The principle that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer should not automatically be fatal to the prosecution's case. | The Public Prosecutor relied on this decision to argue that non-examination of the Investigating Officer was not of consequence where sufficient oral and documentary evidence existed. The Court acknowledged this authority but distinguished the present case: given the highly fragmented testimony (many witnesses each addressing distinct aspects) and absence of recovery or direct linkage, the Court found the Investigating Officer's absence particularly significant here and held that the prosecution had effectively abdicated the duty of connecting disparate evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded by examining the evidentiary record and whether it established the core allegation of theft against A1, which was central to the entire prosecution theory and the ancillary charges against other accused.
Key factual findings from witness testimony:
- P.W.19 (Assistant Secretary of the Commission, who supervised packing and dispatch) gave a chief examination stating he personally supervised packing, affixed seals to bundles, kept bundles in a strong room and did not notice any irregularity or leakage. He did not suspect A1 or other packing staff.
- Several employees involved in packing and sealing (P.Ws 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17) uniformly stated they did not notice any tampering, torn bundles or leakage, and that there was no scope or possibility for removal of packets from their rooms.
- P.W.26, the Xerox operator, gave an equivocal account that A1 had brought some papers for xeroxing in February 1985 and that he made some copies, but he did not know the nature of those papers, maintained no registers or bills, could not corroborate that the papers were the question papers, and did not provide any documentary evidence linking the copies to the examination question papers.
On the legal import of these facts:
- The Court emphasized that theft-related offences typically require either direct evidence (rare in such contexts) or recovery of the stolen property and/or a clear chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the theft. In this case, no stolen question papers or copies were recovered from A1, and no material object admitted by the prosecution connected to the alleged stolen property.
- Because the packing process involved A1 and roughly twenty other employees, the element of identity (i.e., distinguishing A1 from others involved) was critical; the record did not differentiate A1 from other packers on any probative basis.
- The Court noted that the prosecution relied heavily on a large and disparate set of witnesses (50 witnesses) and documents (100 exhibits). Many witnesses each spoke only to distinct and isolated aspects; there was no single witness who could coherently connect all events. In such circumstances, the Court found the role of the Investigating Officer (who could have explained how diverse pieces of evidence form a coherent chain) to be significant.
- Although the Supreme Court authority cited by the prosecution states that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not ipso facto fatal, the Court observed that in this particular case the absence of the Investigating Officer was material because the prosecution had otherwise not provided the necessary linkage among scattered evidentiary pieces; thus the prosecution had, in effect, left the Court to draw inferential links without adequate basis.
- Given (a) the absence of recovery of any stolen papers or copies from A1, (b) the consistent testimony of packing staff denying tampering or leakage, (c) the equivocal and non-corroborative testimony of the Xerox operator, and (d) the prosecution's failure to produce the Investigating Officer to connect the evidentiary threads, the Court found the circumstantial case insufficient to sustain conviction.
- The Court also observed procedural and public-interest considerations, noting the long duration of the proceedings (an incident of 1985 resulting in a judgment only in 2000) and the apparent half-heartedness in prosecution investigation and presentation.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
The Criminal Revision Cases are allowed; the convictions and sentences imposed on the accused-petitioners are set aside and the accused-petitioners are acquitted.
Direct consequences and orders:
- The accused-petitioners shall stand acquitted.
- Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
- Fine amounts, if any paid, and any cash or negotiable instruments recovered from the accused-petitioners shall be refunded to the respective accused-petitioners.
Implications beyond the parties: The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel precedent; rather it applies established principles concerning circumstantial evidence, recovery requirements in theft-related offences, and the practical significance of examining the Investigating Officer where multiple, disparate pieces of evidence require linkage. The Court limited its decision to the insufficiency of the prosecution's case on the facts before it and the direct effect of acquittal and refund orders for the petitioners.
1. All these revisions arise out of the judgment of the Court of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur in C.C No. 53 of 1990. A1 was charged with offences under Sections 381, 411 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. A2 to A11 and A15 were charged with offences under Sections 120- B and 414, IPC. A12 to A14 were charged with offence under Section 411, IPC. A4 died during the trial of the case. The case against A10 was separated. Through its judgment dated 26-11-2000 the trial Court convicted the above said accused for the offences alleged against them and awarded sentences of various descriptions.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have filed the following criminal appeals in the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2000 (A1),
2. Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2000 (A2, A5 to A8 and A11),
3. Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2000 (A3),
4. Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 2000 (A9),
5. Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2000 (A12 to A14),
6. Criminal Appeal No. 625 of 2000 (A15).
3. The lower appellate Court rendered a common judgment dated 3-12-2000 in all these appeals. The lower appellate Court acquitted A5 and A7 to A9, but sustained the conviction and sentence against the remaining accused.
4. A1 filed Criminal R.C No. 1430 of 2001, A2, A6 and A11 filed Criminal R.C No. 1415 of 2001. A3 filed Criminal R.C No. 1424 of 2001, A12 to A15 filed Criminal R.C No. 1419 of 2001 and A15 filed Criminal R.C No. 1418 of 2001.
5. The case of the prosecution was that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, intended to undertake selection for various posts of Group IV services in the State. As part of the said process, it intended to conduct written examination for selection of the candidates. The written examination was scheduled to be held on 24-2-1985. The hall tickets were issued to the various candidates that have applied for the same.
6. The question papers for the said written test were got prepared and printed by the Commission. It ensured that no leakage of papers takes place. Having received the printed question papers, it has undertaken the packing of the question papers to be sent to the various centers for the examination to be held on 24-2-1985. P.W 19 was the Assistant Secretary of the Commission at the relevant point of time and he has supervised and overseen the packing of the question papers. He has drawn the services of about 20 persons including P.Ws 10 to 13; 16 and 17 as well as A1 for the purpose of packing the papers. The papers were dispatched to various centers under strict supervision and security.
7. One of the centers for conducting the examination was at Chilakaluripet in Guntur District. P.W 1 was the Principal of that college. P.W 2 is a Lecturer of that college and acted as Additional Chief Superintendent. P.Ws 3 and 4 were invigilators. A14 was one of the candidates taking the examinations. He was found copying from certain written material. The written material, the answer script as well as the hall ticket were seized from A14 by P.W 2 and a case against him was registered with the police. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that A14 revealed that he had come into possession of copy of the question papers from A1 and the answers were prepared on that basis.
8. A1 is alleged to have stealthily taken one of the question papers during the course of packing, secured copies of the same at the Xerox centre run by P.W 26 and, thereafter, sold it for huge amounts. The various accused were charged by the trial Court, commensurate with their participation in the entire crime.
9. The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 54 and it exhibited documents Exs. P1 to P100 and M.Os 1 to 7.
10. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. T. Bali Reddy appeared for the petitioners in Criminal R.C Nos. 1418 and 1419 of 2001, learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appeared for the petitioners in Criminal R.C Nos. 1415 and 1424 of 2001 and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. E. Ella Reddy appeared for the petitioners in Criminal R.C No. 1430 of 2001. They submit that the whole prosecution case was without any basis, in that, neither any material said to have been stolen by A1 or any other accused was recovered, nor any ingredients for the offence under Section 411, IPC or other related Sections were pleaded, much less established. According to them no witnesses, ranging from P.W 19 who supervised the packing of the question papers to P.Ws 7, 10 to 12, 16, 17 and 19 who dealt with the packing, sealing and forwarding of the question papers have spoken anything as to A1 committing theft of any question paper. They submit that P.W 19 has categorically stated that he did not notice any irregularities in the entire process. Learned counsel emphasise the fact that even P.W 26 whom the prosecution examined for showing that A1 has taken Xerox copies of the question papers from him, did not speak a word as to A1 being in possession of the said question papers. It is also their case that the prosecution has failed even to examine the In vestigating Officer.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that by its very nature, the case had to be proceeded on the basis of circumstantial evidence and if the events starting with the noticing of copying by A14 is to be traced one after the other, a perfect chain comes to be established. He submits that failure to examine the Investigating Officer was hardly of any consequence as long as the necessary documentary and oral evidence was placed before the trial Court. He relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 311 : 2001 Cri LJ 4632.
12. The examination for the purpose of selection of candidates for Group IV was held by the Commission way back on 24-2-1985. Nothing was noticed and no traces of leakage of the question papers were found till the commencement of the examination on that date. A14, who was taking the examination at the centre at Chilakaluripet was found to be in possession of certain written material. That was almost the starting point for the prosecution to undertake the investigation. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in cases of this type the prosecution has mainly to rely upon the circumstantial evidence and it is rather to next impossibility to expect the existence of any direct evidence.
13. The accusation against A1 was that he was one of the persons drawn for the purpose of packing and sealing the question papers and during that process on 11-2-1985, and that he pulled out one question paper of Part I stealthily from one of the bundles. The prosecution alleged that the same was found to be in a torn condition and it was taken to his house. It was further alleged that on 16-2-1985, A1 has taken out question paper of Part II, when the remaining persons drawn for the process have gone out for taking tea. He is alleged to have taken that paper also to his house. The further allegation is that he has obtained copies of the same from the Xerox shop of P.W 26. He and A2 are alleged to have conspired with A3 to A11 and A15 in disposing of the copies of the question papers stolen by A1, A2 and A6 are said to have sold copies of the same of A12 to A14. The outcome of this case would mainly depend on whether the prosecution is able to establish that A1 had stolen the question papers referred to above. If that is established, the rest of the aspects are almost ancillary in nature.
14. The basic allegation against A1 is one of theft. In the offences of theft, robbery or dacoity, it is rather difficult to except an eye-witness to be present. Such offences are to be established only on the basis of recoveries of the stolen property and identity of the persons who have committed the offences. Inasmuch as the theft alleged to have committed in this case is of a question paper which was handled by A1 as well as about 20 other employees, the ingredient of identity becomes rather irrelevant. Then one has to fall back on the aspect of recovery. The evidence on record does not disclose that either the question papers said to have been stolen by A1 or the copies made therefrom are recovered from A1. Having regard to the nature of the property said to have been stolen, the circumstantial evidence such as seals of the bundles are not being (sic) or other circumstances suggesting that the suspicion expressed by the supervising authority would certainly provide certain indication.
15. As observed earlier. P.W 19 is the officer who was entrusted with the packing and despatch of the question papers. It is essential to extract his entire chief examination, which is brief:
“I retired as Assistant Secretary. A.P.P.S.C, Hyderabad. I worked as such from 1982 to 1987. The Chairman, APPSC entrusted with me the papers of Group IV question papers for despatch to concerned centres. From, 7-2-1985 to 18-2-1985, P.W 10, Sakina Begum, P.W 11, Chandra Sekhar, Satyanarayana Murthy, B. Nukaraju, B. Kotireddy and others assisted me. Kotireddi is A1 herein, Ambireddi, Superintendent, gave gunny bundles containing question papers for packing. Some attenders were also present. All the persons named by me were not present on all the days of work, as they had their own personal engagements. I took precautions to pack the question papers in a separate room. I personally supervised the package. In my presence, staff counted the question papers and packed them into paper bundles. I affixed seals to packed bundles. After packing is over, I send all the bundles to Mr. Sambireddy, on each day, during that period. After packing work is over, all the bundles were kept in strong room. I was examined by police”.
16. It is evident that P.W 19 was satisfied as to the security and secrecy of the question papers till they were dispatched. He did not suspect any of the packing staff including that of A1 regarding bundling and sealing. The other witnesses who were en trusted with the task of packing and sealing the papers were P.Ws 7, 8, 10 to 12, 17 and 19. They stated as under:
“P.W 7 “I did not come across any malpractices”. P.W 8 stated that “to my knowledge no shortage of question papers reported to me”.
P.W 10 “I did not notice any breakage of paper packing bundles. I did not find any of the paper packet being in torn condition”.
P.W 11 “I did not see any of the paper bundles tampered with in any manner. I put the vax seals on the bundles which were passed on to me and which were found to be in proper condition”.
P.W 12 “I did not find any open bundle or torn bundle in the packets that were removed and placed before P.W 19”.
P.W 16 “there is no scope for anybody to remove the packet from my room when they were with me”.
P.W 17 “there was no possibility for anybody to take away the papers from our room”.
P.W 19 “I did not find any paper packing in torn condition. I did not notice any leakage of papers during the course of work”.
17. From the statements of the witnesses referred to above, hardly any circumstance can be inferred to indicate that there was any scope for leakage, or that A1 has stolen any paper.
18. The only bridge or link which the prosecution relied upon, to connect the en tire event to A1 was the evidence of P.W 26. He is the person running a Xerox shop at Hyderabad. His entire chief examination is to the following effect:
“I am resident of Hyderabad at Bakaram. I run Sarala Type Institute at Bakaram. I know A-1 in this case. I have no acquaintance with him. In February, 1985 A-1 brought some papers for Xerox copies and I prepared them and gave to him. They were in English and Telugu. I do not remember how much I charged. A-1 took around 20 or 25 copies of the material brought by him. I do not remember how much money he paid. Police recorded my statement in case.”
19. Even from the statement of P.W 26 that A1 brought some papers for Xerox to him in February, 1985, it cannot be inferred that what was got Xeroxed by A1 were the question papers. The chief examination it self was rather equivocal. It was hardly sufficient to provide any clue to connect A1 to the offence. In the cross-examination it was elicited through P.W 26 as under:
“I do not know the nature of papers Xeroxed by A1. We do not maintain any register. We do not have bill book also. I have no documentary evidence that is to show that A1 came to our Institute and got Xerox copies from out of the material he brought. There used to be 100 to 150 people who come for shop work. I cannot give the names of other persons who visited our Institute when A1 came to take Xerox copies or job work. I do not know where he resides or his occupation and I never talked to him previous to that day”.
20. Therefore, there is hardly anything in the evidence of P.W 26 which can be of any help to hold that A. 1 had stolen any question papers or committed other offences alleged against him.
21. The proceedings before the trial Court indicate that obviously because there was no direct evidence in the matter, the prosecution has gathered material from various witnesses and had marked several documents. As many as 50 witnesses were examined and 100 documents were marked. The witnesses and documents were so diverse that one hardly has any relation or connection with the other. It is only on linking the individual or sets of witnesses and documents, that a chain of events can be established. Hence, the examination of the Investigating Officer assumes significance.
22. It is true that in the judgment cited supra (1) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere non-examination of the Investigating Officer should not be fatal. However in cases of this type, it is only the Investigating Officer that would be in a position to explain the whole sequence of events. It is rather next to impossibility for any witness in this case to be in a position to vouch for the whole gamut of the case. The witnesses or group of them have only spoken to one aspect or the other. For example P.Ws 1 to 4 are the staff of the college where the examination was held. P.Ws 7 to 20 etc. are the employees of Commission. P.W 26 is an operator of Xerox machine. One had hardly anything with the other, either in the course of their regular activity or otherwise. It is only an Investigating Officer that could have been in a position to supplement one event with the other. For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution did not choose to examine the Investigating Officer. In a way, it can be said that it had abdicated its duty to the Court. Having examined 50 witnesses and marked 100 documents, it left the Court to draw its own inference. Without even providing the basis for connecting one with the other.
23. In theft and other related offences, it is only when the stolen property is recovered, a substantial portion of the charge can be said to have been established. In this case not a scrap of paper was recovered from A1. Therefore the entire accusation has to be only on the basis of imagination. If it is permissible to infer such a thing vis-a-vis A1, it should equally be possible to infer the same as regards the other persons who participated along with him in the packing and sealing of the question papers. The evidence on record does in no way differentiate A1 from others who participated in packing and sealing the question papers. None of the material objects marked by the prosecution have anything to do with the objects said to have been stolen. Therefore viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the prosecution had established its case against the accused.
24. The Courts below have brushed aside the inconsistencies as well as the material defects in the prosecution case. Though the statements of various witnesses do not disclose even the basic ingredients, they were treated as establishing the offences conclusively. The half-heartedness with which the prosecution has conducted this case, in not even choosing to examine the Investigating Officer discloses as to how the valuable and precious time of the Courts, which has already burdened with heavy pendencies, has been wasted. An incident relating to the year 1985 was investigated and the case went on for more than 1.12 decades. The judgment came to be rendered in 2000. This Court is left with no option except to allow the revisions and set aside the convictions and sentences imposed against the accused in the respective criminal revisions.
25. In the result Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the convictions and sentences ordered against the accused-petitioners in the respective Revisions are hereby set aside. The accused-petitioners shall stand acquitted. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine amounts, if any paid, and the cash and other negotiable instruments if any recovered from the accused-petitioners shall be refunded to the respective accused-petitioners.
26. Petitions allowed.
Alert