IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1277 OF 2016 AND 3172 of 2Q1« CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1277 OF 2016 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment S.C.No.35 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, dated 31.10.2016. Between: Dumpa Buchi Babu @ Bujji, S/o. Yerrayya, (A-2) Aged 30 years, R/o. Segidi Street, Arasavalli, Srikakulam. ...Appellant/Accused No.2 AND The State of AP., rep., by its Public Prosecutor High Court of of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent € CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3172 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment dt.31.10.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.35 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam. Between: Reddi Govindarao @ Gopi Chandu, S/o Viswanadam, Aged about 32yrs R/o Killipalem Village, Srikakulam District ...Appellant/Accused No.1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants in both the Appeals: Smt. C Vasundhara Reddy Counsel for the Respondents in both the Appeals: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : f 1 KSR, J & SRK, J CrLA.Nos.1277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY. THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 COMMONJUDGMENT {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Since both Criminal Appeals arise out of th^ same Sessions Case i.e., S.C.No.35 of 2014, dated 31.10.2016 on the file of the . Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, they are being disposed off by way of this common judgment. 2. Accused. No.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2016; whereas Accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.3172 2018 in the above Sessions Case. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:- 2 KSR,J&SRK,J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 1) First charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1. 2) Second charge was under Section 364 IPC against A1. 3) Third charge was under Section 384 IPC against A1. 4) Fourth charge was under Section 363 IPC against A1. 5) Fifth charge under Section 120-B IPC against A1 and A2 and 6) Last charge under Section 363 read with 511 IPC against A1 and A2. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 29'^ July, 2013, at about 7.00 p.m., both the accused having conspired together in order to extort money/ransom from the father of Abhiram @ Abhinaya, kidnapped Abhiram and Koyyanna Govinda @ Gopisankar @ Govindarao (herein after referred to as ‘D1 and D2’) and took them by saying that they would be given C.D. Player Motors and A1 killed them by beating them with a cricket stump on their head and demanded ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from P.W.1 and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 384, 120-B and 363 read with 511 IPC. ( 3 KSR,J&SRK.J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of201S 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1 guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for “LIFE” and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found A1 guilty under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period often (10) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found A1 guilty under Section 384 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further found A1 guilty under Section 363 4 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, further found A1 and A2 guilty under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for “LIFE” and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to uridergo Simple imprisonment for six (6) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed all the substantive sentences imposed upon A1 shall run concurrently. KSR,J&SRK,J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows; (i) P.Ws.1 and 2 are the fathers of D1 and D2 respectively. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are the mothers of D1 and D2 respectively. They are residents of Killipalem Village, Srikakulam Mandal. P.W.1 is doing cement business in Srikakulam District. AT is the resident of Killipalem Village, whereas A2 is the resident of Arasavalli, Srikakulam Town. D1 and one Rahul Reddy were studying 6'^ class in Kesavareddi Convent at Arasavalli Road, Srikakulam District. D2 was also studying 6*^ class in Nagavali Public School, Killipalem Village. They all used to return home every day at about 5.30 p.m. After returning from school, D1, D2 and Rahul Reddy used to play Ramamandiram for some time. On 29.7.2013 at about 6.30 P.M., when P.W.1 telephoned to his wife, D1 attended the at call and informed him that he is going to play with D2 and P.W.14. At about 8.00 or 8.15 P.M. P.W.1 received a call from an unknown person, who informed him that he kidnapped D1 and demanded a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- to release D1. Immediately, P.W.1 telephoned P.W.8, who is the father of P.W.14 and enquired about his son and P.W.14. P.W.8 replied that D1, D2 and P.W.14 to were playing at 5 KSR.J&SRK.J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 Ramamandir and there was power cut at about 7.30 P.M., then he went to temple premises and brought his son back to home. Then P.W.1 enquired him as to whether any other person was present at there. On that P.W.8 replied that A1 was present near the temple. P.W.1 informed P.W.8 stating that somebody telephoned to him and demanded ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- for releasing D1. P.W.1 also informed the said fact to P.Ws.11 and 12 also. In the meanwhile, P.W.2, who is the father of D2, also came there and informed that his son was also missing. Thereafter, P.Ws.11 and 12, P.Ws.2 and 8 came there and made a call to the mobile number, which was received by P.W.1 and one person responded to the said call and informed that unless Rs.2,00,000/- is paid, he would not leave both the deceased. When they asked the said person the place at where the money has to be delivered, he disconnected the phone. Then P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to police station and gave a report- Ex.PI. (ii) P.W.19 -the Head Constable, Srikakulam Rural, on receipt of Ex.PI-report from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.208 of 2013 for the offence under Section 364 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. The said FIR was marked as Ex.P28. He recorded statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Thereafter, P.Ws.1, 2 and others searched for the missing boys in and around the village. On KSR, J S SRK, J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 the next day i.e., on 30.7.2013, at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.4 went to the house of P.W.1 and told him that D1 and D2 were found dead in her agricultural land. Then P.Ws.1, 2 and other villagers went to the agricultural land of P.W.4 and found both the dead bodies of the deceased. They found grievous injuries on the heads of both the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station report. and gave (iii) P.W.20-the then Head Constable, Srikakulam Rural Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P2-report from P.W.1, altered Section from 364 IPC to 302 and 364 IPC and issued copies of altered FIr\o all the concerned. Ex.P29 is the altered FIR. (iv) P.W.21-the then Inspector of Police, Srikakulam Town circle, took up investigation. He addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police for obtaining call data of sim numbers 8501818723 and 9603956942. Immediately P.W.21 went to Killipalem village and secured the presence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and examined them. He went to the scene of offence and prepared rough Sketch-Ex.P29(A).When he was going in search of missing bodies, he received a call from P.W.20 stating that P.W.1 of law came to police station and presented Ex.P2 stating that both the dead bodies of kidnapped children were found in the sugarcane tope of P.W.4. Then (' 7 KSR.jaSRK.J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 he went to the scene of offence i.e. sugarcane tope of P.W.4 and . secured the presence of P.W.16 and other mediators and examined the scene. He prepared rough sketch-Ex.P30 at the scene of • offence. Then he found both the dead bodies of the kidnapped children (D1 and D2) with head injuries. He seized blood stained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence. He also prepared observation report-Ex.P13 at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of P.W.16 and held inquest over the dead body of D2. Inquest report pertaining to D2 was marked as Ex.P14. He also held inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of P.W.17. Inquest • report pertaining to D1 was marked as Ex.P23. He secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. Thereafter ■ he went to Killipalem village and recorded statements of P.Ws. 6 to 8, 11 to 14. On 31.7.2013, he collected call data of sim Nos. 8501818723 and 9603956942. Thereafter he visited Voppangi village and secured the presence of P.Ws.9 to 12 and recorded their statements. Call data of the above sim numbers was marked as EXS.P31 and 32. (v) Alternate Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited, Hyderabad was examined as P.W.23 and call data-Exs.P31 and 32 were marked through him. 8 KSR, 1 Si SRK, J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 (Vi) On 04.8.2013, at about 11.30 a.m., VRO, Killipalem Village- P.W. 16, came to P.W.21 and produced A1 stating that he made an extra judicial confession before him that he killed both D1 and D2. P.W. 16 produced A1 along with the statement of A1- EX.P15. In the presence of P.W.16 and another, P.W.21 interrogated A1 and recorded his confessional statement. P.W.21 seized two mobile phones-M.Os 1 and 2 from A1. As already stated, the call data pertaining to these mobile phone numbers were marked as Exs.P31 and 32. He also seized Rs.500/- note from pant pocket of A1 , which is identified to be stolen property in Crime No.225 of 2012 of Srikakulam Rural Police Station. In pursuance of the said confession made by A1, P.W.21 seized cricket stump-M03, shirt and pant-Mos. 4 and 5 from the bushes at Nagavali river bank near Killipalem village under the cover of panchanama-Ex.P19. From there P.W.21 proceeded to the house of accused and seized gold piece which was the stolen property in Crime No.225 of 2012 of Srikukalam Rural Police station. From there P.W.21 went to the house of A2 at about 5.00 p.m. on the same day and took him into the custody and seized his mobile phone. He also seized Rs.500/- (two in number) from his pocket, which was also the stolen property one f 9 KSR, J & SRK, J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 in Crime No.225 of 2012 of Srikakulam Rural Police Station under cover of panchanama-ExP20. (vii) On 02.8.2013, P.W.24-the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam took up further investigation and verified the investigation already conducted by P.W.21. On 22.8.2013, he forwarded the material objects to FSL, Hyderabad. On 30.10.2013 he received RFSL report-Exs.P37 and 38 and after completion of investigation, P.W.24 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and marked Exs.P1 to P39 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 11. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them from the prosecution witnesses, but they did not choose to examine any witness in their defence. But, on behalf of defence, relevant portions in statement of P.W.15 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.DI and D2. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 9. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. 10 KSR, J & SRK, J CrlA.Nos.1277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 10. P.W.1 has specifically stated in his evidence that on 29.7.2013, D1 went out for playing with D2 and P.W.14. At about 8.00 or 8.30 P.M. on the same day when he returned home, he did not find D1. He further deposed in his evidence that at about 8.30 P.M. he received a call from mobile phone bearing No. 8501818723 and informed him that the caller kidnapped D1 ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of D1. informed the same to P.W.2 who also and demanded a Immediately P.W.1 told that his son also is missing. Immediately, P.Ws 1 and 2 enquired P.W.8 whose son i.e. P.W.14 was also playing with D1 and D2. that P.W.8 informed them that It is also stated by P.W.1 as there was power cut at about 7.30 p.m. he brought back his son-P.W.14 to home. P,W,8 also informed P.Ws. 1 and 2 that at that time the Ramamandir and he children were playing at saw A1 there at that time. Immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2 informed P.Ws. 11 and 12 about the demand made by A1. Thereafter, they telephoned to the same mobile number and asked him as to where the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has to be delivered. But A1 disconnected the phone. Thereafter, police station and gave report-Ex.P1. The evidence further disclose that on the next day at about 10.00 to P.W.1 and informed him stating that D1 and D2 P.Ws.-l and 2 went to the of P.Ws. 1 and 2 a.m. P.W.4 went were lying dead in 11 KSR.J&SRK.J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 her sugarcane tope. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and other villagers went to the sugarcane tope of P.W.4 and found both the dead bodies. Thereafter P.W.1 went to police station and gave Ex.P2- report, on the basis of which, FIR was altered. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 goes to show that both D1 and D2 were missing from the evening of 29.7.2013 and the dead bodies were found on the morning of 30.7.2013. 11. P.W.8 who is the father of P.W.14 specifically stated in his evidence that when he went to bring back his son-P.W.14, he A1 near Ramamandir. Further, the call data particulars clearly . indicate that A1 telephoned to P.W.1 at the relevant point of time, which was established by the evidence of P.W.23 coupled with EXS.P31 and P32. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the factum of missing of D1 and D2 on the evening of 29.7.2013 and finding of both the dead bodies on the morning of 30.7.2013 and also calls made by A1 to P.W.1 demanding ransom. 12. The next crucial evidence examined by the prosecution P.W.14, who is the son of P.W.8. P.W.14 is also studying class. He specifically stated in his evidence that on the date of alleged incident, he played with D1 and D2 near Ramamandir in the village from 6.30 p.m. onwards and there was a power cut at about 7.15 saw IS 12 KSR,J&SRK,J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 p.m. Then, his father P.W.8 came and took him to his home. As such, without any hesitation, it can be safely presumed through the evidence of P.W.14 that D1, D2 and P.W.14 played at Rammandir on the evening of 29.7.2013 up to 7.30 p.m. P.W.8 further stated in his evidence that while he was taking back P.W.14 to home, he found A1 at Rammandir. As such, except A1, no other person was present at Rammandir at relevant point of time, where both D1 and D2 were playing. 13. The next witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.9- who is none other than the brother-in-law of A1. P.W.9 in his evidence stated that the accused was working as a mason in Tagarapuvalasa village and he was addicted to vices. He further stated that A1 was using his mobile phone. 14. The other witness examined by prosecution is P.W.IO-the sister-in-law of A1. Of course, P.Ws.9 and 10 did not support the ' case of the prosecution. 15. The other witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.15. P.W.15 in his evidence stated that A1 is his uncle. He further stated that A1 has taken two CD player motors from him. He also stated that on 29.7.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. A1 telephoned to him and enquired him about both the deceased. He informed A1 that both the 13 KSR, J a SRK, J CrI.A.Nos. 1277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 deceased were playing at Ramamandir. On the same day, at about 8.00 p.m. A1 once again telephoned to P.W.15 and asked him to bring soap, chappals and clothes to the backside of the school. P.W.15 went back side of the school and handed over them to A1. Thereafter A1 changed his clothes and went away. P.W.15 further stated in his evidence as follows; “/ was with my friends in the street, when I received phone call from A.1. on 29.7.2013, at about 6.00 p.m. On 29.7.2013 I have not gone to my college though it working day. Half an hour later I informed to A.1 that about the deceased boys were playing at . Ramamandiram. On that day A.1 Govindarao called cell phone thrice. I have no idea where I was when A.1 call me over cell phone time. I asked the wife of A.1 to give soap, chapels and clothes of A.1 as he was asking for them. I handed over them to A.1 at 8.30 P.M., night, at school bind.” was a me over 16. The next evidence adduced by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.16, before whom A1 made an extra judicial confession admitting that he killed both the deceased. Immediately, P.W.16 along with the statement of A1-Ex.P15 produced A1 before P.W.21. On the confession made by A1, P.W.21 recovered MOs.3 to 5 under a cover of panchanama-Ex.PIQ in the presence of P.W.16 and another. As such, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of 14 K5R.J&SRK,J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 P.W.16. Hence, the missing of D1 and D2 on the dead bodies at about 10 prosecution is able to prove the factum of evening of 29.7.2013 and finding the ■ on 30.7.2013 and also the factum of .a.m presence of A1 at Ramamandir at the relevant both D1 and D2 point of time when were playing and thereafter A1 killed deceased with M03 and thereafter changed the brought by P.W.15 and absconded later, is able to prove all the circumstances both the clothes, which Therefore, the prosecution pointing out the guilt towards person to kill both the were A1 alone giving no scope for another deceased. 17. 17. In view of the above facts evidence of prosecution witnesses and as there is nothing to disbelieve their the considered view that the appellant/ accused No.1 beyond all we are of the considered recorded by the trial Court needs appellant/AI in Criminal Appeal No.3172 of 2018 i and circumstances, as the inspire confidence of this Court evidence, this Court is of prosecution has proved the guilt of the reasonable doubt. Therefore view that the convictions and sentences no interference so far as IS concerned. 18. So far as A2 /appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1277/2016 IS concerned, absolutely there is no evidence on record, confession made by A1. Even according to confession except the made by A1 15 KSR, J 8 SRK, J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and3172 of 2018 A2 did not partake in the attack. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A2 with the aid of 120-B IPC. Absolutely, the prosecution has not placed any material to show conspiracy between A1 and A2 for committing the offence. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the conviction and sentence recorded against A2 under Section 120-B IPC cannot be sustained. 19. In the result. Criminal Appeal No.3172 of 2018 is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentences recorded against the appellant/AI by the learned III Additional District and •c Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Sessions Case No.35 of 2014, dated 31.10.2016, under Sections 302, 364, 384 and 363 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 120-B IPC against A1 is hereby set aside. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused No.1 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 20. Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2016 is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant/Accused No.2 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in Sessions Case S.C.No.35 of 2014, dated 31.10.2016. Accordingly the appellant/Accused No.2 is acquitted. As the appellant/Accused No.2 was already enlarged on 16 KSR, J & SRK, J Crl.A.Nos.l277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 bail, he is directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam for completing the legal formalities in terms of the Order passed by the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.\ Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/Accused No.2 shall be refunded to him. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. T 2016 (3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (AP) Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTlbN OFFICER To, Srikakulam III Additional District and Sessions Court 1. The Srikakulam District. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Sub - Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. 5. One CC to Sri. C Vasundhara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 7. The Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1277 of 2016 and 3172 of 2018 AND>^ X 06 FEB 2025 Co ^ . Current Section ^ ALLOWING THE CRL.A.No.1277 of 2016 AND DISMISSING THE CRL.A.No.3172 of 2018