APHC010411702017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA RADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1109/2017 Between: KANDA NAGESWARA RAO (A.1), S/O. SATHIBAI, C/ KAPU, PALLPUVEEDHI, KATRAVULAPALLI VILLAGE, JAGGAMPETA MANDAL ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P REP BY P P, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of TElangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) AND 2 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 APHC010208822017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1060/2017 Between: TATAPUDI KUMARI (A.2), W/O. LATE VEERABABU, R/O. YERRAMPALEM ROAD, KATRAVULAPALLI VILLAGE, JAGGAMPET MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP REP PP, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. RAJASEKHAR TULASI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the same Sessions Case, they are being taken up together for “hearing” and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Both the accused in SC ST Sessions Case No.111 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum - X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Special Judge under the following two charges :- i. 1st charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2; ii. 2nd charge was under Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against A.1 alone. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 25.07.2011 after 11.00 P.M., A1 and A.2 in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of one Tatapudi Veerababu (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟), who belongs to Scheduled Caste, by strangulating him with a rope, and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 4 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. After completion of trial, the learned Special Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, by Judgment, dated 28.08.2017 and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for „LIFE‟ each and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days each. The learned Special Sessions Judge acquitted A.1 under Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1109 of 2017; whereas accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2017. 6. Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.1109 of 2017 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. During the course of hearing, Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 has stated that pending the Criminal Appeals, A.2 who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2017 was already released by granting remission, vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home 5 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated, 14-08-2022, and as such, he submits that no orders are required to be passed insofar as A.2 is concerned. On that, this Court requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to verify whether A.2 was granted remission by the Government in terms of the G.O referred to supra. 8. On instructions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the copy of G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated, 14-08-2022, and confirms the factum of granting remission to A.2 who was released vide the above G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated, 14-08-2022. 9. In view of the said stand, the Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2017 is liable to be closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.2 was already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022. 10. The case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) Accused No.2 is none other than the wife of deceased. They are residents of Katravulapalli village, Jaggampeta Mandal. They are eking out their livelihood by doing agricultural coolie works. A.1 is also resident of the same village. The material prosecution witnesses are 6 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 also residents of the same village. It is alleged that A.2 developed extra marital relationship with A.1, who belong to „Kapu‟ community. Having come to know about the same, the deceased reprimanded A.2, but she did not change her attitude and continued her relationship with A.1. About one week prior to the date of incident, A.2 went to her parents‟ house and returned. As A.2 did not disconnect the relationship with A.1, the deceased did not allow A.2 to attend agricultural coolie works. As such, A.2 along with A.1 hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. (ii) While so, on 25-07-2011 the deceased slept on a cot after taking dinner. While he was in deep sleep at about 11.00 P.M., A.1 came to the house of deceased and spent some time with A.2 near tank bund of the village and returned home and found the deceased in deep sleep. It is alleged that both the accused strangulated the deceased to death with a rope. At that juncture, P.W.1-father of the deceased was sleeping in the other room along with his wife-P.W.2. On the next day morning, P.W.1 woke up and felt that the deceased was sleeping. When P.W.1 went to the deceased he found him dead. At that time, A.2 went to answer calls of nature. After witnessing the dead body of deceased, P.W.1 started weeping and at that time the neighbours gathered there. P.Ws.1 and 2 found black stretch mark around the neck. Later, A.2 returned home after answering calls of 7 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 nature. When the neighbours asked A.2 about the cause of death, she did not give proper reply. When they confronted the 2nd accused repeatedly, she disclosed that she along with A.1 killed the deceased by strangulating him with a rope. Having got the said information from A.2, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. (iii) On 26.07.2011 at about 12.30 noon P.W.12-Station House Officer, Jaggampeta Police Station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2011 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P17 is the FIR. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.13-Sub Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram and he visited the scene of offence. He got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.6. Photographs and C.Ds. are marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared an observation report in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9, which is marked as Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P19. He seized M.Os.2, 3 and 4 under Ex.P6. He held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P7. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and others. He shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Peddapuram for post-mortem examination. P.W.7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Peddapuram conducted autopsy over the dead body of the 8 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia by strangulation. He issued final post-mortem opinion-Ex.P5. (iv) On the same day i.e., on 26.07.2011 at about 6.30 P.M., P.W.13 arrested A.2 at the scene of offence and kept her under surveillance of a woman Home guard of Jaggampeta Police Station. On 27.07.2011 P.W.13 produced A.2 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, who remanded her to judicial custody. He addressed a letter to P.W.11 to furnish the caste certificates of both A.1 and A.2 and P.W.1. On 27.07.2011 at about 11.00 A.M., P.W.12 informed him stating that P.W.9-VRO, Katruvalapalli village came to the police station along with A.1, who said to have confessed before him. Immediately, P.W.13 proceeded to Jaggampeta police station and received the statement of P.W.9, which is marked as Exs.P11 and P10. He secured the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9 and arrested the 1st accused. On the confession made by the 1st accused, P.W.13 seized M.O.1-white colour plastic rope from the house of A.1 under a panchanama. P.W.13 sent the Material Objects to R.F.S.L, Vijayawada by letter, dated 18.08.2011, for an expert opinion. R.F.S.L report is marked as Ex.P4. After receipt of post- mortem certificate, R.F.S.L report and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet. 9 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 11. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 was marked. 12. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 13. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted both the accused as aforesaid. 14. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 15. P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the father and mother of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. P.W.5 is the relative of deceased. P.W.6 is the photographer, P.W.7 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the mediators to the inquest, observation report and arrest of the accused and also recovery of M.O.1-rope. P.W.10 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.11 is the Tahsildar who issued caste certificates-Exs.P14 and P16. P.W.12 is the Station House Officer, Jaggampeta Police Station who registered the crime. P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer. 16. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses in the present case. The prosecution rests its case only on circumstantial evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are none other than the father and 10 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 mother of the deceased show that the 2nd accused was having an extra marital relationship with A.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further disclose that on the fateful day, they slept in one room whereas the deceased and A.2 slept in another room. The evidence of P.W.1 further disclose that on the next day morning, he saw for the first time the deceased lying dead. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 only show that A.2 was having extra marital relationship with A.1. Except to the extent of proving the extra marital relationship between A.1 and A.2, their evidence is not at all helpful in any manner to connect the appellant/A.1 with the alleged offence. As such, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.10, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.10 in his evidence has deposed that he is eking out his livelihood by plying an auto-rickshaw. He further stated in his evidence that at about 12-00 mid night on the fateful day, while he was returning to home, he saw A.1 coming out of the house of the deceased hurriedly. Having witnessed the same, he did not disclose the said fact even to his wife, who is none other than the sister of the deceased, about A.1 going away hurriedly from the house of deceased. P.W.10 is closely related to the deceased as well as P.Ws.1 to 4. Till the morning of 26.07.2011 P.W.10 did not even choose to inform either to P.Ws.1 to 4 about he witnessing A.1 coming out of the house of deceased in a hurried manner. For the first time, P.W.10 is coming up with a version stating that he saw A.1 at about 12.00 midnight on the fateful day 11 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 coming hurriedly from the house of deceased and A.2 during the course of trial. If P.W.10 has informed P.W.1 about the witnessing A.1 coming out of the house of the deceased in a hurried manner at about 12-00 mid night, P.W.1 ought to have stated the same thing in his earliest report (Ex.P1). In the inquest report, P.W.10 was shown as one of the relatives of the deceased witnessed at the time of inquest, but in coloumn No.15 no reference was made about P.W.10 witnessing A.1 at about 12-00 mid night. If really, P.W.10 has witnessed A.1 coming out hurriedly from the house of the deceased, either in Ex.P1 or inquest report-Ex.P7, the said fact ought to have been mentioned. Curiously, for the first time, during the course of trial, P.W.10 was planted by the prosecution stating that he witnessed A.1 coming out of the house of deceased in a hurried manner at about 12-00 mid night. As such, the evidence of P.W.10 does not at all inspire confidence of this Court to place reliance on his version. 17. Admittedly, the death took place in the house of A.2 where P.Ws.1 and 2 were also present. As A.2 was already released by the Government by granting remission, we are not inclined to discuss about the role of A.2 in the present Appeal. So far as A.1 is concerned, he is residing elsewhere and he is not related to the prosecution party. As such, the prosecution has to prove his involvement with cogent evidence. But, in the case on hand, except the belated evidence of 12 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 P.W.10, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of A.1. So far as P.Ws.1 to 4 are concerned, their evidence disclose that there is extra martial relationship between A.1 and A.2. They may be having suspicion and only on the basis of mere suspicion, conviction cannot be recorded. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the only evidence available is P.W.10. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.W.10 do not inspire confidence of this Court, as he witnessing A.1 coming out of the house of deceased in a hurried manner was not found place either in Ex.P1 or in Ex.P7. 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the considered opinion of this court, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum - X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, dated 28.08.2017 in SC ST Sessions Case No.111 of 2014 as against the Appellant/Accused No.1 is not sustainable and accordingly the Criminal Appeal No.1109 of 2017 has to be allowed. 19. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.1109 of 2017 is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum - X Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in SC ST Sessions Case No.111 of 2014 on 13 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 28.08.2017 and the appellant/A.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section. 302 read with 34 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted. Since the appellant/Accused No.1 was already granted bail at the stage of admission, his bail bonds stands cancelled automatically. The Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2017 is closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.2 was already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14-08-2022. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt. 19.03.2025 SAB / TSNR 14 Crl.A.Nos.1109 AND 1060 OF 2017 113 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUJATHA COMMON JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal Nos.1109 AND 1060 of 2017 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 19.03.2025 SAB / TSNR