IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 820. 854. 929 and 1247 of 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.820 of 2017 Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment and conviction dated 17-07-2017 in S.C.No.38 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Rentapalli John Abraham, S/o. Abraham, age 34 years, R/o.D.No.10-55-133, VUDA layout, near Bank Colony, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam District. ...Appellant/Accused No.3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant : SRI D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.854 of 2017 Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment elated" 17.07.2017 in S.C. No.38 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Between: Silla Rajendra Reddy @ Venkatesh, S/o. Karunakar Reddy, aged about 30 years, R/o. Door No. 11-29-65, Visakhapatnam District. Smith Street, Bheemunipatnam, ...Appellant/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor : SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.929 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.38 of 2009 dated 17-7-2017 the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: on Veerabhadra Anji Reddy, S/o.Siva Sambi Reddy, aged about 30 R/o.D.No.2-7-6, Desapatrunipalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. years ...Appellant/Accused No.4 AND The State of A.P., through Inspector of Police, CID, RCIU, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant : SRI VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent ; Additional Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1247 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No. 38 of 2009 dated 17-7-2017 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: Kola Venkata Ramana @ Abbu, S/o.Ramakrishna, aged about 35 P.M.Palem, H.B. Colony, Ratnagiri R/o.MIG-104, years, Visakhapatnam. ...Appellant/Accused No.5 AND The State of AP., through Inspector of Police CID, RCIU, Visakhapatnam, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant : SRI G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 820, 854. 929 AND 1247 OF 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 17-07-2017 in S.C.No. 38 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, 'the trial Court'), the appellant-accused No. 3 filed Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2017, the appellant-accused No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2017, the appellant-accused No. 4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2017 and the appellant-accused No. 5 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2017. 2. Since all these criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. A charge sheet was filed against the appellants and accused No. 2. As accused No. 2 was found to be a juvenile, case against him was separated and he was sent to Juvenile Justice Board. 2. 4. The appellants were tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I charge was under Section 364-A IPC against accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5; II charge was under Section 120-B IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5; III charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 2 and 3; IV charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against accused Nos. 1,4 and 5; and V charge was under Section 201 IPC against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5. 5. Substance of the charges is that on 22-11-2005 at about 3.45 p.m., accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5, having conspired, kidnapped Wesley Raju (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), son of P.W.1, at Keetinpeta, Bheemunipatnam (also known as 'Bheemili'), and thereafter, caused his death and to screen away the evidence, they threw the dead body of the deceased in Gambheeram Reservoir, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. one 3 After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants- 6. accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 363 IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court also convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1,3 and 5 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution 7. witnesses is as follows: P.W.1 is father, P.Ws.2 and 3 are paternal uncles and P.W.4 is elder brother of the deceased. Accused No. 1 is none other than son of sister of P.W.1. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are close associates of accused No. 1. All of them are residents of Chillapeta Village, Bheemunipatnam 4 Mandal. Both the deceased and P.W.4 were studying II and IV standards respectively in Sun School, Keetinpeta. They used to attend school by bus run by the school. The son of P.W.2 was also studying in the same school. P.W.2 used to drop his son near school in the morning and bring him back in the evening on his two-wheeler after the school timings are over. On 22-11-2005, P.W.4 along with the deceased went to school as usual but P.W.4 alone returned home at about 5 p.m. At about 5 p.m., P.W.2 informed P.W.1 on phone that somebody took the deceased near the school. Having received the said call, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went to school and searched for the deceased in surrounding places but they could not find the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. On the same day at about 10 p.m., P.W.22-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Bheemili C.C.S., Visakhapatnam City, received Ex.PI from P.W.1 and registered it as a case in crime No. 345 of 2005 under the head 'Boy Missing' and issued copies of FIR to all the P.W.22 deputed staff to concerned. FIR was marked as bx.P28. search for the missing boy in different places but they could not get any clue. P.W.22 recorded statement of wife of P.W.1 and driver of the school bus on 23-11-2005. On 25-11-2005, P.W.1 again visited the police station at about 6 p.m. and gave another repot-Ex.P2 expressing his suspicion against one Chilla Dharma Reddy, Saragada Sivanjaneya 5 Reddy and their followers since he filed a writ petition against them before this Court alleging that they were trying to get the land in an extent of Ac. 40.00 cents belonging to a trust situated in Bheemili. Having received Ex.P2, P.W.22 altered the Section of law from 'Boy Missing' to Section 369 read with Section 34 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P29. P.W.22 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. On 26-11-2005 at about 4 p.m., the Inspector of Police, Bheemili, received information over phone about floating of a dead body in Gambheeram Reservoir. Having received the said information, P.W.22 once again altered the Section of law from 369 IPC to Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The information received from the Inspector of Police, Bheemili, was marked as Ex.P30 and the altered FIR was marked as Ex.P31. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.25-the then Inspector of Police, Bheemili Circle. P.W.25 visited the scene of offence situated in Gambheeram Village and got the scene photographed. P.W.25 also prepared Ex.P34-rough sketch of the scene of offence and Ex.P9-observation report in the presence of P.W.16 and another. Thereafter, P.W.25 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence itself in the presence of P.W.16 and another. During the course of inquest, P.W.25 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and others. Inquest report was marked as Ex.PIO. P.W.25 seized M.Os.1 to 5 at the scene of offence under a cover of 6 panchanama in the presence of P.W.16 and others. P.W.25 sent the dead body of the deceased to Government General Hospital, Bheemili, for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.20-the then Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Bheemili, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.20 opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning. P.W.20 also gave answers to the questionnaire of the investigating officer which was marked as Ex.PI9. Accordingly, P.W.20 issued Ex.P20-posf mortem certificate. On 14-12-2005, P.W.25 sent a requisition to P.W.18- Administrative Manager, Airtel Network, Visakhapatnam, requesting to provide call detail record pertaining to the mobile numbers of the accused. On 05-01-2006, P.W.25 handed over case diary file to the Special Team headed by Sri M.V.Ramana Rao, Inspector, District Crime Records Bureau, on the instructions given by the Superintendent of Police in C.No. 1/SP-CampA/sp/06. P.W.27-the then Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam, received a memo-Ex.P41 from the Additional Director General of Police through the Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam. Having received the same, P.W.27 took up investigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and recorded their statements. On 24-10-2007, P.W.27 received call detail 7 record which was marked as Ex.P17. On 20-11-2007 at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.27 arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the presence of P.W.17 and another at Bheemili Football Ground situated at Tagarapuvalasa- Bheemili road. On the confession made by the arrested accused P.W.27 recovered M.Os.7 to 16 from the poultry farm of father of accused No. 2 under Exs.P13 and PI4. Thereafter, accused Nos. 4 and 5 were arrested near V.T. College Road, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam. On 22-11-2007, P.W.27 arrested accused No. 3 in the presence of P.W.17 at City Bus Stand and M.0.17-bag was recovered at his instance from the backyard of his house. Ex.P34 is rough sketch of the scene of recovery and Ex.PI 5 is confessional statement. On 29-11-2007, P.W.17-the then Revenue Inspector, Office of Rural Mandal Revenue, Visakhapatnam, secured the presence of P.W.19 and another and conducted identification proceedings of M.Os.7 to 16, in which P.W.1 identified them and the identification proceedings were marked as Ex.P18. On 06-12-2007, P.W.21-the then I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, conducted test identification parade, in which P.Ws.4 and 7 identified accused No. 4. Test identification proceedings were marked as Ex.P21. 8 After completion of investigation and after collecting required documents, P.W.27 filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 5. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 27 and got marked Exs.P1 to P42 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 18. 9. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence, however got marked Exs.DI to D3. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7, the trial Court convicted the appellants- accused as afore-stated. 10. Heard Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 3, Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 1, Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 4, Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No. 5, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state. 11. 12. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence available on record. 9 Out of P.Ws.1 to 27, P.Ws.2, 3, 11 to 13 and 15 did not support 13. the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.1 is none other than father of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that on 22-11-2005, the deceased along with P.W.4 went to school in morning hours but P.W.4 alone returned home and that as the deceased was missing, P.W.1 went to police station at about 10 p.m. on the same day and gave a report to P.W.22, on the basis of which a crime was registered under the head Boy Missing'. In Ex.PI, P.W.1 stated that the deceased did not return home in evening hours and P.W.4 alone returned. Except mentioning the said fact in Ex.P1, P.W.1 did not state anything. It was further stated in Ex.P1 by P.W.1 that when he enquired P.W.4 about missing of the deceased, the latter stated that the deceased was missing. The evidence of P.W.1 further disclosed that on 25-11-2005 at about 6 p.m.. he again visited police station and gave another report-Ex.P2 to P.W.22 alleging that one Chilla Dharma Reddy, Saragada Sivanjaneya Reddy and their followers might be responsible for kidnapping the deceased. On the basis of Ex.P2-report, P.W.22 altered the section of law under EX.P29. Neither in Ex.P1 nor in Ex.P2, P.W.1 stated anything about the information given by P.W.4 i.e. the deceased went along with accused No. 4. As there was no progress in the investigation on the report made by P.W.1, case diary file was transferred to CID and thereafter, P.W.27 10 took up further investigation on 07-05-2007. It is only for the first time statements of P.Ws.4 and 7 were recorded by P.W.27 i.e. nearly after one and half years from the date of incident. So far as the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is concerned, they did not 14. support the case of prosecution and they were declared hostile. The evidence of P.W.5-School Teacher is also not helpful to the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.Ws.6, 8 and 10 only shows that they found the dead body of the deceased floating in Gambheeram Reservoir. P.W.9 is none other than correspondent of the school and his evidence is also not helpful to the case of prosecution in proving the alleged incident. P.W.11 is auto rickshaw owner and he also did not support the case of prosecution. P.W. 12, who is shown as a witness before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confession. also did not support the case of prosecution. P.W. 13, who gave his motorcycle to accused No. 1, also did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.14 is owner of telephone booth and his evidence is P.W. 15 is owner of also not helpful to the case of prosecution, hardware shop, wherefrom accused No. 3 said to have purchased nylon ropes-M.Os.3 and 4, but he too did not support the case of prosecution. P.W. 16 is panch witness for all the panchanamas. P.W. 17 is mediator P.W.18 is Administrative Manager, for recovery of M.Os.11 and 16. 11 Airtel Network, who provided call detail record under Ex.P17. P.W.19 is Village Revenue Officer who conducted test identification parade under EX.P18. P.W.20 is Doctor who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.21 is I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who conducted test identification parade under Ex.P21. P.W.23 is Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, who issued his opinion under Ex.P32. P.Ws.24 to 27 are investigating officers. 15. Having analyzed the entire evidence available on record, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7, who were also students of the same school in which the deceased was studying, alone is available. P.Ws.4 and 7 in their evidence stated that on 22-11-2005 after school hours while they were boarding school bus, accused No. 4 came there and took the deceased stating that he was none other than friend of accused No. 1 and he would provide chocolates to the deceased and thereafter he would leave the boy at his residence and that thereafter the deceased boy was missing. As already pointed out, neither in Exs.P1 and P2 nor in EX.P30, P.W.1 stated anything about the information given by these two witnesses i.e. P.W.4 and P.W.7. For the first time, P.W.27, after taking charge to conduct investigation in the present crime, recorded statements of P.W.4 and P.W.7 on 09-05-2007 and 10-05-2007 respectively i.e. more than one and half years after the incident. 12 Obviously, P.Ws.4 and 7 were set up by the prosecution after investigation was taken over by P.W.27 after more than one and half years. It is only after recording statements of P.Ws.4 and 7, P.W.27 arrested all the accused. Except the belated version of P.Ws.4 and 7, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of these appellants in the present crime. Though statements of P.W.4 and P.W.7 recorded on 09-05-2007 and 10-5-2007 respectively, P.W.27 arrested the accused in the month of November, 2007, and it is only thereafter, test identification parade was conducted 16 days after the date of arrest of the accused. Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.4, he also gave descriptive particulars of accused No. 4 but curiously the earlier investigating officers did not record statement of P.W.4 obviously for the reason that P.W.1 did not inform them. were During the course of investigation by the previous investigating officers, P.W.1 never informed them about the information furnished by P.Ws.4 and 7. For the first time, P.Ws.4 and 7 were projected as witnesses in the present case on 09-05-2007 and 10-05-2007 respectively. As the version of P.Ws.4 and 7 is belated and as they were projected as witnesses for the first time on 09-05-2007 and 10-05-2007 respectively, we are not inclined to place any reliance on their version. Further, P.W.27 went to the extent of recovery of M.Os.7 to 17 from the poultry farm of father of accused No. 2 that too nearly two years after the incident. It is 13 unbelievable that a person could hide M.Os.7 to 17 for two years in a poultry farm. It is therefore highly improbable to accept the recovery of M.Os.7to 17. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt. 16. In the result, all the criminal appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 by judgment dated 17-07-2017 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants-accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 shall be set at liberty if they are not required in any other case. As the appellant-accused No. 3 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 11-05-2023 in I.A.No. 2 of 2023 in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 24-04-2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 1235 of 2023, he is directed to surrender himself before the concerned jail authorities for completing the formalities for his release. Fine amount paid by the appellants- 17. accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, if any, shall be refunded to them. 14 18. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Charlapalli, Medchal, Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. The Inspector of Police*'dfrime Investigation Department (CID), RCIU, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] One CC to Sri D Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC] 11.Three CD Copies To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.820, 854, 929 & 1247 of 2017 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS’