APHC0100195720-t8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 136 of 2018 and 268 OF 2019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 136 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the conviction and sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed in SC.No. 539 of 2015 dated 13-11-2017 on the file of the Sessions Division of Ananthapuramu at Ananthapuramu District. Between: Shaik Basha @ Lambu Basha, S/o Late Husaain Sab, aged about 32 years, R/o Chandravavu kottalu, Rudrampeta Panchayat, Ananthapuram Town and District ...Accused/Appellant AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Nitesh & Smt M Bhagyasri- Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Panini Somayaji, Additional Public Prosecutor APHC010093652019 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 268 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, against the order dated 13th November, 2017 as made in SC No. 539 of 2015 by the Honourable Court of the Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu at Ananthapuram District. Between: Shaik Bhasha, S/o Lambu Basha, Aged 35 years, R/o Chandrababu Kottalu, Rudrampeta Panchayath, Ananthapuramu Town, Ananthapuram District, A.P ...Accused/Appellant AND SHO, III Town Police Station, High Court Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, A.P. ...Complainant/Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V Nitesh Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Panini Somayaji, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 1 KSR, J & VS, J CrLA.Nos.136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT: {Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Both the Criminal Appeals, arose out of same Sessions Case, filed by the same accused. Initially, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2018 through Legal Aid and thereafter he filed Criminal Appeal No.268 of 2019 by engaging a private counsel. As such, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of this common Judgment. Sole accused in S.C.No.539 of 2015 on the file of the Court of District 2. and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months. Substance of the charge is that on 16.9.2014 at about 8.15 pm, the accused took his wife by name Shaik Vahida Bhanu @ Safiya (hereinafter 3. • V . 2 KSR,J&VS,J Crl.A.Nos.l36 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 referred to as the deceased) and while proceeding on the main road between Nethaji Nagar and Madarasa, by suspecting her fidelity, tag'ged a belt around' her neck and picked up a cement brick and hit on the left side of the head, causing severe injuries and also cut her throat with a knife causing her death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: Marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed about eight years prior to the date of incident, without the consent of the parents of the latter. The couple blessed with a daughter and a son, who' were examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the parents of the deceased. The accused was eking out his livelihood by plying auto rickshaw and the deceased was attending to coolie work. The accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity. The deceased informed about the same to her parents i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened, in which P.W.6 advised them to live amicably. But, again the accused used to harass the deceased. As a result, the deceased left the matrimonial home and started living at Bhagatsingh Nagar along with her two children in a rented house just prior to the date of incident. 4. 5. 3 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.N05.136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 16.9.2014, the accused asked the deceased to (ii) While so, on accompany him along with the children. Thereafter, the deceased and her accompanied the accused. While all of them were going on the ‘ two children Nethaji Nagar and Madarasa, the accused quarreled with the deceased and tied his belt around her neck and threw her on the ground, cement brick and beat the deceased on the left side of her head main road between He took up a causing severe injuries. He also cut her throat with a knife. As a result, the accused took P.W.4 and P.W.5 and deceased died on the spot. The dropped them near the house of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Immediately at about P.W.5 went to the house of P.W.2 and informed him 9.00 p.m, P.W.4 and that the accused killed the deceased. On the next day at about 9.30 a.m. ‘ P.W.2 went to the police station and gave a report. (iii) P.W.9, Inspector of,Police, III Town Police Station, received Ex.PI Crime No.205 of 2014 under report from P.W.2 and registered a case Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R to all the concerned. Ex.P4 is P.W.9 visited the scene of offence situated on in the F.I.R. At about 10.15 a.m to the mediators under Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. He of offence. He recorded the He held inquest over the dead body in the NH-44. He issued summons prepared a rough sketch Ex.P7 at the scene statements of P.Ws 2 to 6. of P.W.1 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. He took presence ‘ photographs of the scene of offence which were the dead body for conducting postmortem examination. marked as Ex.PIO. He sent KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.Nos.l36 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 (iv) P.W.8 Assistant Professor, Government Medical College, Ananthapuramu conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to head injury with intra cranial’ hemorrhage. He issued postmortem certificate Ex.P3. (V) On 20.9.2014 at about 1.00 p.m, P.W.9 apprehended the accused near M.G. petrol bunk, Bellary Road, Ananthapuramu. the possession of accused. He arrested the judicial custody. On the same day, he sent the He seized M.0.1 from accused, who was remanded to material objects to R.F.S.L. under a letter of advice-Ex.P8. R.F.S.L. report was marked as Ex.P9. After receipt of all documents and after completion of investigation , successor of P.W.9 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 10. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4, learned District 8. and Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri. V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant/accused as Sri Panini Somayaji, learned Additional as well Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 10. The prosecution projected P.Ws 4 and 5, who are the children of the accused and deceased, as eye witnesses. So far as, parents of the 5 KSR, J & VS, J CrLA.Nos.136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 deceased are concerned, they were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3 to show • motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. Prosecution also examined P.W.6 to establish the motive as he convened a panchayat between the accused and the deceased. P.W.7 is the Village Revenue Officer who was a panch witness for inquest Ex.P2. P.W.8 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. il. Having analyzed the evidence carefully, P.W.4 and P.W.5 alone were shown as eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.5 who is son of the accused and deceased, who was aged about nine years on the date of recording the • evidence, in his chief, categorically stated that while all the four were going on the main road, suddenly, the accused quarreled with the deceased. The accused tied belt around the neck of the deceased and when she fell down, he beat her with a cement brick on her head and thereafter he cut the throat of the deceased with a knife. Thereafter, he along with PW4 went to the house of P.Ws 2 and‘3 and informed them about the same. But, in the cross- examination, P.W.5 stated as follows; ‘It is true that we came to know about the death of my mother only when somebody told us in the morning that she was dead. ‘It Is true that I am stating as instructed by my maternal grand parents and police. I do not know anything about how my mother died. ’ 6 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.Nos.l36 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 In view of the said admission made by P.W.5 in his cross-examination he cannot be taken as an eye witness to the incident. Hence we are not placing any reliance on the evidence of P.W.5. Obviously, he might have been tutored by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the police. Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, who was aged about 10 years on the date of recording evidence, she categorically stated in her evidence that while all four of them were going on the main road, the accused killed the deceased by tying a belt around her neck and beating her with a cement brick on her head and cut her throat with a knife. She further stated that 12. immediately, they went to the house of their grandparents P.Ws 2 and 3 and informed them about the accused killing the deceased. Curiously, P.W.2 in his evidence sought to explain that though he came to know about 9.00 p.m through P.W.4 and P.W.5 about the accused 13. killing the deceased, he did not go to police station as it was late in the night and as it was raining, surprising. When both of them came to know through P.Ws 4 and 5 that the This conduct on the part of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is accused killed the deceased, at least, they ought to have visited the scene of offence where the dead body was lying. In fact, learned District and Sessions Judge also observed in the Judgment, which reads as follows; ‘However as contended by the learned counsel for the accused, their conduct prime facie appears to be un-natural as they did not go out to find out the fate of their daughter despite being told by P.Ws.4 and 5 that the accused had killed the deceased. ’ KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.Nos.136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 curiously, P.W.2 approached the police on the next day at about 9.30 a.m and gave a report to the police on the basis of which F.I.R. came to It is only thereafter the inquest and postmortem was But, be registered, conducted. But, the explanation offered by P.W.2 in his evidence is highly artificial and no prudent man stay at home, though he came to know about the killing of his daughter through P.Ws 4 and 5. All the above circumstances indicate that P.Ws 4 and 5 did not witness the incident and they were planted by prosecution at a later stage. The 14. version of the defence by way of suggestion saying that the deceased went thieves killed her for her to meet her paramour, and finding her alone, some his evidence has stated that the deceased was wearing jewellery. P.W.2, in jewellery, which was handed over report Ex.P2 at the end of Column No.7, it is specifically recorded that no ornaments were found on the body. The said fact suggests the probability of to him by the police. But, in the inquest the defence version. • the motive is concerned, the prosecution relied on the 15. So far as evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6. P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their evidence admitted that the deceased married the accused against who convened the mediation between the have specifically P.W.6, mediator accused and the deceased, in his cross-examination has stated as follows: their wishes. 7 cannot say the date on which I conducted mediation. I do not know the cause for their quarrel. It was a usual dtspute between wife and husband. I have no personal knowledge about 8 KSR, J &VS,J Crl.A.Nos.l36 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 the movements of the deceased prior to her death. I only know what I heard. I only went to see the dead body. I do not have any personal knowledge about the events leading to the death of the deceased. ’ In view of said admission made by P.W.6 in his cross-examination , the prosecution could not be able to prove the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. Coming to the medical evidence adduced through P.W.8 in his 16. evidence he has stated that about 12 external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. These injuries are attributable to different weapons and it is highly improbable to accept that the accused used different weapons to kill the deceased. This also suggests the probability of the defence of the fact that some thieves might have attacked for the sake of her jewellery. Having analyzed the entire evidence, this Court has no hesitation to 17. come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, he is entitled to be acquitted and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused is not sustainable and the same is liable to be interfered with. In the result. Criminal Appeal No.268 of 2019 is allowed setting aside 18. the conviction and sentence recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu in S.C.No.539 of 2015, dated 13.11.2017, Accordingly the if any, paid by the ^ appellant/accused is acquitted. Fine amount 9 a KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.Nos.l36 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 ^ppellant/Accused’ shall be refunded to him. The appellant/accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. In view of the Judgment passed in Crl.A.No.268 of 2019, no orders need to be passed in Crl.A.No.136 of 2018 as both the appeals were filed by the same accused arising out of the same Sessions Case No.539 of 2015. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram District, (with record) The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapurarn ^District/' The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram District. One CC to Sri. V Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. M Bhagya Sri, Legal Aid Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Two CD Copies 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Stu sree HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA Nos. 136 of 2018 and 268 of 2019 ^ 0 ii SEP 2025 ntSectmx^^y C/} O ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.268 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2018