APHC010286822016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 907/2016 Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad Shaik Subhani, Etukuru Road Guntur Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C.No.251/2008 preferred the present appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 907/2016 by Public Prosecutor, ...AP AND ...RESPO ellant: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) dent: SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, FAC II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C.No.251/2008 dt. 10.08.2009, the State preferred the present appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3517] THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special FAC II Additional dt. 10.08.2009, the State 2 2. The respondent was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge against the accused is that on 01.01.2008 at about 09.00 P.M., the accused caused the death of his wife by name Pattan Beebi John (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) near National Highway No.5 at Janachaitanya Plots situated opposite to Sai Trust, Guntur Rural by strangulating her. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent by way of impugned judgment. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Guntur town. PW.1 is the father and PW.2 is the sister of the deceased. PW.3 is the husband of PW.2. About three years prior to the date of incident, the marriage between the accused and deceased took place. For some time they led happy marital life. Thereafter, the accused having addicted to all vices used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased went to the house of her parents and started living with them. While so, on 01.01.2008, when the deceased was residing with her parents, the accused approached PW.3, who is his co- brother, and requested him to send the deceased along with him promising that he will look after her well. On that, PW.3 called PW.1, in the presence of whom the accused promised that he will look after the deceased properly and he will not harass her and he will bring back the deceased on the next day. 3 On the promise made by the accused, PW.1 sent the deceased along with accused. But, on the next day, as promised by the accused, he did not bring back the deceased. While so, on the next day i.e., on 02.01.2008 at about 4.00 P.M., the children of PW.1 found the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence and the same was informed to PW.1. Thereafter, they went and found the dead body. Immediately, PW.3 went to Police Station and gave a report to the police. At about 04.00 P.M., on 02.01.2008, PW.8 Sub- Inspector of Police received Ex.P1 report from PW.3 and registered a case in Cr.No.01/2008 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P12 is the copy of F.I.R. On the same day at about 4.30 P.M., PW.10 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report Ex.P.10 in the presence of mediators PW.5 and another. He also got the scene photographed through PW.4. Photographs and negatives were marked as exhibits P2 to P9. He also seized M.Os 1 and 5 to 8 at the scene of offence under a Panchanama. On 03.01.2008, at about 07.00 P.M., PW.7 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators PW.6 and another. He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for Postmortem examination. PW.9, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicines, GGH, Guntur, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He found as many as 18 injuries on the body. He opined the cause of death was due to strangulation associated with head injury. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P13. PW.10 also recorded statement of PWs 1 to 3. On 06.01.2008 at about 11.00 A.M., PW.10 arrested the accused 4 at Gujjanagundla centre, Guntur in the presence of mediators. On 04.02.2008, he sent viseara and original sclaps of the deceased to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Guntur through the Court. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P14. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked exhibits P1 to P16 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution could not able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, he acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. 8. Heard Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant, and Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. We have gone through the entire material on record. 9. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The only evidence available on record is that of PWs 1 to 3, who stated that on 01.01.2008, the accused approached PW.3 and requested him to convince PW.1 to send his wife, the deceased, along with him stating that he will look after the deceased properly. Their evidence further goes to show that the accused informed them that he will bring back the deceased on the next day. Subsequently, according to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the dead body was 5 found near National Highway No.5 at about 04.00 P.M. on 02.01.2008. It is only thereafter PW.3 went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1. On the basis of which, PW.8 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the crime. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 discloses that on 01.01.2008, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. But, the body of the deceased was found on the next day at about 04.00 P.M. As such, the time gap between the last seen and the presence of the dead body is too long. To cover up the said lacuna, the prosecution set up PW.11, who was examined after all the prosecution witnesses, to show that he has witnessed the accused along with the deceased on the National Highway. But, curiously PW.11 did not support the prosecution and he has specifically stated in his evidence that he is not aware of the accused and deceased. As such, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was found in the company of the accused. PW.3 in Ex.P1 report has specifically stated that on the next day at about 01.00 P.M., the accused was proclaiming in a drunken state that he killed the deceased on the previous night i.e., on 01.01.2008 at about 09.00 P.M. Curiously, none of these PWs 1 to 3 deposed in their evidence that the accused was proclaiming on the next day at about 01.00 P.M. stating that he killed the deceased. However, the prosecution has not come up with any motive for the accused to kill the deceased. As the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 does not inspire confidence of this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Further, even before giving Ex.P1 report by PW.3, the police were already present at the scene of offence. As such, the report Ex.P1 also is suspicious 6 in nature. Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be stated as unreasonable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned cogent and valid reasons in acquitting the accused. 10. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not placed single circumstance to show that it is the accused who killed the deceased. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.251/2008 vide judgment dt. 10.08.2009. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.251/2008 dt. 10.08.2009 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, FAC II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 22.01.2025 MVA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.907/2016 22.01.2025 MVA