APHC010214492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1012/2018 Between: CHEDHALA LATCHI REDDY, C.KONDA REDDY SGT TEACHER AS GPS SCHOOL YARLAMAMIDI VILLAGE, N/O.CHILAKAVEEDHI VILLAGE, VEMULALAKOND PANCHAYAT RAMAPACHODAVARAM MANDAL, R/O.D.NO. 2-439, NEAR TEMPLE OF GOD KRISHNA RAMA ROAD, RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF TELANGANA, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.236 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 06.09.2014 at about 11.00 P.M., the accused strangulated one Chedhala Satyavathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who was having live-in relationship with the accused in his house situated at Door No.2-439, Rampa Road, Rampachodavaram and caused her death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) The accused is a resident of Rampachodavaram village. The material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kakawada village, Rampachodavaram Mandal. P.W.1 is the sister and P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was performed with one Madi Ganganna Dora of Lakkavaram village. Subsequently, the said Madi Ganganna Dora died and the deceased returned to her 3 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 parents’ house. Thereafter, the deceased developed acquaintance with the accused and she was having live-in relationship with the accused. The couple used to reside at Rampachodavaram village for the last 12 years prior to the date of incident. There were disputes between the accused and deceased. Because of the disputes, the deceased returned to her parents’ house at Kakawada village. Subsequently, the elders settled the disputes and the deceased started living with the accused. The accused was working as Second Grade Teacher. (ii) While so, on 06.09.2014 at about 4.30 P.M., the accused visited Kakawada village and took the deceased to his house situated at Rampachodavaram. On the next day i.e., on 07.09.2014 at about 8.00 A.M., the accused brought the dead body of the deceased in an auto belonging to P.W.10 to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. As the relatives of the deceased raised dispute, the accused took back the dead body to Rampachodavaram. Having seen the dead body of the deceased, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. On 07.09.2014 at about 3.13 P.M., P.W.13-S.I. of police, Rampachodavaram Police Station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P15 is the FIR. (iii) Having received express FIR, P.W.14-Inspector of police took up investigation. At about 3.50 P.M., P.W.14 along with his staff and mediators-P.W.12 and another went to the house of accused and found the dead body. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed through service camera. Photographs were marked as Ex.P16. He also prepared a 4 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 rough sketch-Ex.P17 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 5. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.12 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P12. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (iv) P.W.11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Rampachodavaram conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to “asphyxia venous congestion due to compression of neck veins”. He issued Ex.P8-post-mortem report and Ex.P10-final report. (v) On 08.09.2014 P.W.14 visited the scene of offence and recorded statements of P.Ws.9, 10 and others. On 10.09.2014 on credible information, P.W.14 apprehended the accused at Andhra Bank at about 3.00 P.M. in the presence of mediators P.W.12 and another. On the confession made by the accused, M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from his house under a panchanama-Ex.P14 in the presence of P.W.12 and another. P.W.14 arrested the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. (vi) In the meanwhile, P.W.14 sent viscera, pieces of stomach, liver, and kidney to RFSL under a letter of advice-Ex.P18. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P9. After transfer of P.W.14, his successor-P.W.15 took up further investigation. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. 5 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly, P.Ws.1, 2, 10 to 12, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that there is no eye witness in the present case and the prosecution rests its case only on circumstantial evidence. He contends that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the chain of circumstances. He further contends that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 through any independent witness. He further contends that P.Ws.3 to 8 did not support the prosecution. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the prosecution is able to prove the chain of circumstances. He further contends that admittedly the deceased was having live-in relationship with the accused and the couple used to reside at Rampachodavaram. The prosecution also established the disputes between the accused and the deceased. He further contends that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the accused and as per the provisions 6 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, no explanation is coming forward from the accused. As such, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case only on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, are as follows :- i. The 1st circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused and the deceased are living together in the house of accused at Rampachodavaram village. ii. The 2nd circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that there are disputes between the accused and the deceased and subsequently, the disputes were settled by the elders. iii. The 3rd circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused took the deceased from her parents house at Kakawada village on 06.09.2014 at about 4.30 P.M. to his house situated at Rampachodavaram village. iv. The 4th circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused brought the dead body of the deceased in the auto-rickshaw of P.W.10 at about 8.00 A.M. on 07.09.2014. v. The 5th circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused took back the dead body of the deceased to his house situated at Rampachodavaram immediately. vi. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the dead body was found in the house of accused on 07.09.2014. 7 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 13. So far as the 1st circumstance is concerned P.Ws.1 and 2 who are none other than the sister and mother of the deceased respectively have stated that after death of the husband of the deceased, she started living with the accused for the last 12 years. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 further discloses that there are disputes between the accused and the deceased and the accused used to harass her and was trying to get rid off the deceased for the purpose of marrying another lady. Though the independent witnesses turned hostile, they also stated about the live-in relationship between the accused and the deceased. The independent witnesses further stated that there were disputes between the accused and the deceased, which were settled by the elders. As such, the prosecution could able to prove the circumstance that the accused and the deceased are living together at Rampachodavaram. 14. So far as the 2nd circumstance is concerned i.e., the disputes between the accused and the deceased are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 9 are available on record. All these witnesses have specifically stated about the settlement of disputes between the accused and the deceased by the elders. As such, the prosecution could able to prove the 2nd circumstance also. 15. The 3rd circumstance is concerned i.e., the accused taking away the deceased at about 4.30 A.M. on 06.09.2014 from her parent’s house, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is crystal clear. Right from Ex.P1, it is the case of prosecution that on 06.09.2014 at about 4.30 P.M. the accused took the deceased from her parents’ house to his house situated at Rampachodavaram. As such, the deceased was last seen 8 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 in the company of the accused on 06.09.2014 at about 4.30 P.M. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the ‘last seen theory’ also. 16. So far as the 4th circumstance is concerned, P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 in their evidence have specifically stated that on 07.09.2014 at about 8.00 A.M. the accused carried the dead body of the deceased in the auto- rickshaw belonging to P.W.10 from his house to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 situated at Kakawada village. P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 in their evidence stated that when they raised dispute, the accused took back the dead body to Rampachodavaram village. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the 4th circumstance. 17. So far as the last circumstance is concerned, P.W.14-the Investigating Officer specifically stated that having received the report- Ex.P1 from P.W.1, he visited the scene of offence at about 3.15 A.M. on 07.09.2014 to the house of accused where he found the dead body. The mediator-P.W.12 also stated that he found the dead body of the deceased in the house of accused. As such, the prosecution could able to prove that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the accused. Apart from establishing the above circumstances, there is no explanation coming forward from the accused as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. 18. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana1 and contended that the prosecution could not able to prove the chain of circumstances in 1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395 9 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 connecting the accused with the alleged offence. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra2 wherein it is held as hereunder : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Cri LJ 1783] where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (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, (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 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 10 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 19. In the case on hand also, except minor contradictions, which do not affect the prosecution version, the prosecution could able to prove all the circumstances. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution pointing out the guilt towards the accused only, but to none others. The prosecution could able to prove the chain of circumstances. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 04.12.2017 vide Sessions Case No.236 of 2015 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant/Accused was already released on bail by order, dated 06.03.2024, in terms of the order, dated 02.11.2016, passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011), he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion of sentence forthwith. Failing which, the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram, is directed to secure his presence by issuing N.B.W. and commit him to prison to serve the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period of imprisonment 11 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dt. 18.09.2025 SAB 12 Crl.A.No.1012 of 2018 208 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1012 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 18.09.2025 SAB