y APHC010122002018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND the honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 5fi7 OF 9n>>B Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C 12-2017 passed by the IV Additional District in SC Nn ISBofPniR REDDY SATTI against the judgment dated 22- Sessions Judge, YSR Kadapa YSR Between: Elisetty Sudharshan S/o Subbramaiah, Constable, R/o Door No. City, YSR District Aged about 35 years, Occ; Police 3/958 New Police Quarters Police Line Kadapa ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following Judgment: SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THIS THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.567 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti) Sole accused in Sessions Case No. 158 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, filed the above criminal appeal. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges; The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC, The second charge was under Section 302 IPC and The third charge was under Section 201 IPC. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that prior to 30.12.2015 the accused used to quarrel with his wife by name Pallavi (hereinafter referred to as deceased), having developed illegal intimacy with one Muslim Woman and also demanding additional dowry from her parents. On 30.12.2015 at 5.30 a.m. the _ deceased quarreled with the accused and the latter caught hold of her throat and pressed with his right hand. As a result, the deceased breathed her last and in the same process, the accused handed the dead body with the help of her saree and rope to the iron rod to create a false story of suicide, to screen the evidence. Thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, and 201 of the IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 3. for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence available on 4. record, is; (i) The marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused on 20.11.2010 at Venkata Sai Kalyana Mandapam, Kadapa. At the time of marriage, the father of the deceased Sane Subba Rachaiah (P.W.1) had given Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. After the marriage, the deceased joined the accused at police quarters, Kadapa and led marital life. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with a son, Venkata Shanmukha, aged 4 years. For the past two 7 years, the accused developed illegal intimacy with neglected the deceased and also used to harass her one muslim woman and physically and mentally and used to come home in an intoxicated condition. The deceased informed / P.W.1, mother, brother, K.Gayatri (P.W.2) and other relatives about the harassment, who in turn requested the accused to change his attitude. On the 'demand of the accused, P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry; however, not satisfied with the amount, the accused continued harassment. The deceased suspected that the accused set up a separate family with the muslim woman. On 28.12,2015, the accused was deputed to duty near the Toll gate, Chennur. On 30,12.2015, the accused deceased quarreled regarding illegal intimacy. The accused the house, purchased biscuits came to the house, and the took his son, left and went awav/ p.m., and there was a quarrel between the at 5.30 a.m. the accused and deceased woke up and went to the bathroom, one after another. When the accused slept in the bedroom, the deceased quarreled with the accused. The accused requested the deceased not to talk about the f^j'oppea him at his house riie j ■ accused came to the house at 9.00 accused and the deceased. On 31.12.2015 muslim woman. But the deceased did not stop, due to which the accused caught hold of her throat, pressed with his right hand with force with the intention to murder her. The deceased struggled for life and lost her breath in the hands of the accused. After committing murder, the accused took the dead body of the deceased into the hall and hanged the dead body with a saree and plastic rope to the iron rod and created a false story that she had committed suicide. Thereafter, the accused opened the doors and informed the neighbours that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. (ii) Accused, Sri K.Rajesh Babu (P.W,4) and others shifted the deceased to Tirumala Hospital, where the deceased and found compounder examined the no pulse. Thereafter, they took her to Gajjala Ramakrishna Hospital, and the compounder checked her and found The dead body was shifted to her house and then to RIMS her dead. . Hospital, Kadapa, an auto. The medical officer examined and declared by P.W.2 and others in the death of the deceased. Later, the accused informed P.W.1 about the and son, came to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and thereafter gave a written report Ex.P1 on 31.12.2015 at death of the deceased. P.W.1, along with his wife o nn XU - U ! O - t. LJIJ I y oujjc?! I! uei! or roiice / i_i \!\! -1 '1 1 V V . Wurnen Upgraded V-i w ' w. Police Station, Kadapa. (iii) P.W.11 registered the said report as a case in Crime No.93 of 2015 (Ex. P.8) under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and On 01.01.2016 took up the investigation. - on the request of P.W.11, N.Ravi Sankar Reddy (P.W.10), Tahsildar, conducted an inquest (Ex.P.2) over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of K.Suneetha (P.W.6), P.Ws.l Thereafter dead body was sent for post-mortem 2 and other family members. examination. (iv) Dr.L.Ananda Kumar (P.W.9) conducted body of the deceased and issued opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to P.W.9 also issued a final opinion (Ex.P6). an autopsy over the dead a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P5) and pressure over the neck. Page 5 of 16 (v) On 02.01.2016, P.W.11 examined the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch (Ex.PQ) and seized M.Os.4 to 7 under the cover of police proceedings (Ex.PIO). On 14.01.2016, the accused approached A. Srinivasulu V.R.O. (P.W.7) and made an extra-judicial confession before him. P.W.7 brought the accused to P.W.11, who seized M.0.1 nylon thread and arrested the accused under Ex.P4 arrest and seizure panchanama and sent the accused for remand. After completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed final report/charge sheet 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7. f^hen the dCt^Lised was examintrd under Section u - I u u O Ul , r X' W denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Ex.DI was marked oh behalf of the accused i.e. relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. 7. Accepting both ocular and documentary evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has ■ not considered the evidence of P.W.1 in proper perspective and, in fact, failed m to consider the vital evidence regarding the mother of the deceased getting treatment for her mental illness in NIMHANS, Bangalore. The prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive of the accused to kill the deceased and also failed to reveal the name of the muslim woman, with whom the accused allegedly developed an extramarital relationship, circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the links in the chain; however, in the case at hand, the prosecution failed to establish links.in the chain. The extra-judicial confession (Ex.P3) is inadmissible, and P.W.7 is a stock witness. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused throttled the deceased and thereafter hanged the deceased with the help of and in fact, the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.9 medical In a case based on a saree, ^ i U _ A * I! ! C-i i i .-i 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial Court. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. To establish the offence under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove the motive. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 to establish the motive; P.W.3 to establish illegal intimacy and P.W.7 to establish the extra judicial confession. 13. P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is a relative of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 neighBours. P.W.5, a tailor by profession, was examined to establish the are deceased, informing him about the illegal intimacy of the accused and also regarding the payment of additional dowry. P.W.6 attended the inquest. According to P.W.1, the mother of the accused is the daughter of his 14. senior maternal aunt. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that during the inquest, he did not inform P.W.10, the Tahsildar, about dowry. He further deposed that he never saw the muslim lady, nor was any complaint made against the accused regarding illegal intimacy. P.W.1 further deposed that he cannot say the date or month in which he paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused. It is also pertinent to mention here that P.W.1, in his cross-examination. 15. deposed that his wife is being given treatment at NIMHANS, Bangalore, as NIMHANS for also chocked at h is not n'lontally isuund ! nS bui I Wab headache. However, he denied the suggestion that his son had also been treated for any disorder. He further deposed that his other daughter, Priyanka, studying at Kadapa, used to visit the house of the accused and deceased now and then. He denied the suggestion that the deceased attempted to commit suicide two months before the incident, and he had taken his daughter to his house and performed some Pooja. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased was suffering from a mental disorder. He further deposed that the accused, along with P.W.2 and her husband, shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. He also admitted that a panchayat had taken place at the hospital, but he did not accept. Page 8 of 16 P.W.2 also stated that the accused had taken the deceased to Tirumala Hospital as well as Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy Hospital. When P.W,2 saw the dead body, it was lying on a cot, and thereafter, they shifted the deceased RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. The accused was also present during the whole 16. to day. P.W.3, the neighbour, spoke about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. She further deposed that when she heard cries from the flat of the accused and deceased, she had gone there and found Pallavi lying the floor, and the accused was standing by her side. The accused told P.W.3 that the deceased committed suicide. Since the ambulance did not arrive, the deceased was shifted to the hospital in the car of Smt.Rajeswari. 17. on P.W.4 neighbour deposed that he saw the accused going down, lifting the deceased on his shoulder, and he also followed him upto downstairs. He further deposed about the accused shifting the deceased to Tirumala Hospital and from there to Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy Hospital. 18. P.W.5, Tailor by profession, got acquainted with the grandfather of the deceased; however, his evidence does not inspire confidence, as it is 19. hearsay. P.W.6, who attended the inquest, deposed about a black mark on the throat of the deceased, swelling on the back of the head and bleeding from 20. the right ear. Page 9 of 16 % 21. P.W.9, Assistant Professor, RIMS Medical College conducted the post-mortem, found the following injuries; Kadapa, who Ante-mortem ligature measuring 10 cm in length, 1 cm breadth, present the front of the neck over Thyroid cartilage, running horizontally on both sides from centre of neck located at a distance of 6 cm from Chin, 7 of mandible, 7 cm from left angle of mandible. The muscle attachment of Thyroid and tricoid cartilages, are contused. Hyoid bone is intact. The total neck circumference is 30 cm.” over cm right angle P.W.9 opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia due to pressure over the neck. In the cross-examination, P.W.9 deposed that manual strangulation is called throttling. In throttling, they found finger prints neck to the front part of the neck and also nail marks. over the In any violent asphyxia, petechial haemorrhage will be present. Cyanosis is seen in throttling. The above-mentioned features Manual throttling is ruled out. were not found in the case of the deceased. 22. P.W.11, investigating officer, in his cross-examination, deposed that per his investigation, the deceased was throttled, then a ligature mark created with the help of nylon rope, and then the body was hanged with a saree to an iron rod, connecting the same to the hook in the slab. He further deposed that as it was not possible to hang, the dead body was kept lying on . the floor. He further deposed that the accused shifted T^umala Hospital and then to Gajjala Ramakrishna investigation was made regarding the illegal intimacy of the as was the deceased firstly to Reddy Hospital. An accused with the muslim lady, and the same is correct. It is curious to mention that the name of the lady with whom the accused has allegedly been maintaining an extramarital relationship has not been revealed. Ex.PIO police proceedings dated 02.01.2016 were drafted at the police station. Thus, as seen from the evidence extracted supra, the case rests upon 23. circumstantial evidence and hence, the prosecution must prove the motive of the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. 24. It is a settled principle of law that in criminal jurisprudence, no innocent man should be punished, and at the same time, a guilty man does not escape liability. In State of U.P. Vs. Kishanpal\ the Hon’ble Apex Court examined the 25. importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence observed thus: The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.” 39. (2008) 16 see 73 r: ■ 26. In Pannayar Vs. State of T.N.^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the - absence of motive in that weighs in favour of the accused. a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor 27. In Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra^ the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para-27 observed as follows; Though in a case of direct evidence case of circumstantial evidence completing the chain of circumstances. motive would, not be relevant, in a motive plays an important link in 28. In Subhash Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi'* Court observed as follows; the Hon’ble Apex 24. Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the oeroetrator, which cannot, oftener than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency. Though in a case of circumstantial evidence, the complete absence of motive would weigh in favour of the accused, it cannot be declared as a general proposition of universal application that, in the absence of motive, the entire inculpatory circumstances should be ignored and the accused acquitted.” 29. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra®, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down five golden principles, to prove the guilt of the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held thus; (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. ^(2008) 16 see 73 ^'(2021) 5 see 626, (2025) 0 Supreme (Se) 645 ^ (1984) 4 see 116: 1984 See (eri) 487 (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Keeping the expression of the Apex Court, we have carefully analyzed the ocular and documentary evidence on record. Going by the prosecution's case, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on 30. 30.12.2015 at 2.30 p.m. and 9.30 a.m. and also on 31.12.2015 at 5.30 a.m. The accused was transferred to Yerraguntia Police Station from Kadapa I ' Town Police Station. The father of the deceased, in the cross-examination, as P.W.1, as 31. extracted supra, deposed about his wife suffering from mental illness and getting treatment from NIMHANS Bangalore; the other daughter used to visit the marital house of the deceased and accused. Except for deposing that earlier they requested the accused to mend his ways, no other cogent evidence is placed before the Court regarding the motive of the accused or the demand vis-a-vis additional dowry. P.W.1 is a related witness, and the court shall assess the same with great care and caution. The circumstances which abridged the case of the prosecution, are (1) The couple were blessed with a son aged about 4 years (2) No complaints before the incident, (3) The Mother of the deceased was suffering from mental illness (4) the conduct of the accused- in shifting the deceased to Tirumala hospital and to Gajjala Ramakrishna Reddy hospital and thereafter to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and the accused presence during the whole day. 32. In fact, P.W.2 deposed that the accused was present during the whole day. The evidence of P.W.9 Doctor, ruled out manual throttling. The death of the deceased is due to asphyxia with pressure over the neck. Though P.W.6 deposed about swelling on the backside of the head, nothing was mentioned in the post-mortem report (Ex.P5). Non-revealing the narrie of the lady, with whom the accused allegedly maintained an extra-marital relationship, is fatal to the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution failed to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. However, the accused had taken all the steps as a dutiful husband by shifting the deceased to two hospitals. 33. The prosecution absolutely failed to establish the motive of the accused to kill the deceased. The prosecution has not placed any material to establish the extra-marital relationship of the accused with another woman, which led to the murder of the deceased. ' 34. Of course, the death of the deceased is within 7 years of marriage. However, no charge was framed under Section 304-B IPC. Unless a charge is framed, convicting the accused of the said charge, without affording opportunity of a fair trial, is impermissible and improper. In fact, no witness was examined in that regard. an m During the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that he went for a morning walk and by the time he returned house, he found the deceased had hanged herself. P.W.3, deposed that hearing the cries from the flat of the accused, she went there and found the dead body of the deceased, which would suggest that the accused, after returning from a morning walk, found the deceased had hanged herself raised cries. 35. he to the on and 36. Learned Sessions Judge failed to consider these crucial aspects, wherein the prosecution failed to connect the links in the chain to establish the motive of the accused to murder the deceased. Q,- ■1 nc iriuicai! /-»{:! li loii. KViicaii any laoi 1:5 especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact IS upon him. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution; however, the nature and amount of evidence to be led by establish the charge cannot be of the cases of circumstantial evidence. it to same degree as is required in other 38. In the case at hand, as indicated supra, the prosecution failed to motive and the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The mainly relied upon the extra-judicial confession said prove prosecution to have been made by the accused (Ex.P3) marked through P.W,7, the V.R.O., who, in turn, deposed that .the accused came to him on 14.01.2016, and it was a holiday. The 'H ■■ deposition of P.WJ is not clear as to where the accused met P.W.7 and made an extra-judicial confession. 39. In Ex.P3, it was mentioned that P.W.7 is in the Tahsildar's office, and a person came to him and requested him to surrender before the Mahila Police Station. He did not plead any acquaintance. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of an extrajudicial confession in Sunny Kapoor Vs. State (U.T. of Chandigarh)®, held thus: It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make an extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence.” 16. 40. The evidence of P.W.7 does not inspire confidence regarding Ex.P3. Regarding the medical evidence, P.W.9 specifically stated that manual throttling has been ruled out. He also deposed that in throttling, they found finger prints over the neck to the front part of the neck and also nail marks. In ) any violent asphyxia, petechial haemorrhage will be present. Cyanosisis seen in throttling. The features mentioned above were not found in the case at hand. 41. Thus, the discussion supra, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 498A and 201 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the ^ AIR 2006 SC 2242 conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.158 of 2016 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, in S.C.No.158 of 2016 dated 22.12.2017 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. As the appellant/accused herein was already enlarged on bail by order dated 22.02.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, he is directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, for completing the legal formalities in terms of the judgment rendered by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.^. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand 42. closed. ^ 2016 (3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (AP) Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. (with records) 2. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, YSR Kadapa YSR District, (with records) 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa. 4. One CC to Sri. V R Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 7. Two CD Copies PR sree high court DATED:01/09/2025 JUDGMENT CRLANO. 567 OF 2018 allowing the criminal appeal