APHC010690442017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 567/2017 Between: DASIREDDY ANJANEYA RAJU (A-2) S/O. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. POST OFFICE STREET, RELANGI VILLAGE, IRAGAVARAM MANDAL. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP REP PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) AND 2 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 APHC010185992017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 615/2017 Between: PASUPULETI SATYAVATHI, W/O. KRISHNA @ KISHTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 7-134, OPP: POST OFFICE, POST OFFICE STREET, RELANGI(V), IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP REP PP, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the same Sessions Case, they are being taken up together for “hearing” and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Both the accused in Sessions Case No.130 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges :- i. 1st charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2; ii. 2nd charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 08.01.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. A.2 forcibly rounded the neck of Pasupuleti Krishna @ Kishtayya (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟) with a towel and strangulated him to death and A.1 sat on the deceased and caught the legs of deceased, causing his death and thereafter as per their preplan at about 4.00 p.m., A.1 called the neighbours in a hurried and weeping manner and then neighbours rushed there and found the deceased lying on the cot. She made phone call to the RMP doctor, who in turn visited and examined the deceased and suggested to take deceased to 4 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 the higher hospital, but by that time the deceased died, on that A.1 sent information to the father of the deceased in order to screen away the evidence and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, by Judgment, dated 29.05.2017 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for „LIFE‟ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences imposed against the accused No.1 and 2 were directed to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017; whereas accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2017. 6. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.567 of 2012 and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.615 of 5 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 2017 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.615 of 2017 has stated that Accused No.1 was already released by granting remission, vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated, 14-08-2022, and as such, he requests this court to close the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017. In support of his contention, he also filed a photocopy of the above said G.O along with annexures. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factum of granting remission to the Appellant/Accused No.1 by the Government. 8. While recording the above said statements, Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is liable to be closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.1 was already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14-08-2022. 9. The case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) Accused No.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased and they are residents of Relangi village, Iragavaram Mandal. P.W.1 is father, P.W.5 is mother, P.W.6 is brother and P.W.10 is the sister of the 6 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 deceased respectively. They are also residents of the same village. Accused No.2 is also resident of the same village. The marriage between Accused No.1 and deceased was performed about 10 years prior to the date of offence and they were blessed with a daughter, aged about 8 years. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural works. After 1 ½ years of their marriage, the deceased and Accused No.1 left for Bandapuram Village for doing agricultural coolie works. They both used to reside at the parents house of the Accused No.1. When P.W.1, father of the deceased, questioned him, he informed stating that Accused No.1 eloped with RMP Doctor. Six (6) months thereafter, the parents of Accused No.1 brought her back and left her in matrimonial home stating that she committed a mistake. Thereafter, Accused No.1 and deceased set up a separate house and they lived peacefully for one year. The couple used to quarrel as Accused No.1 was having illicit intimacy with others. Thereafter, Accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. (ii) While so, on 08-01-2014 at about 3.00 P.M, the deceased returned from coolie work in an inebriate condition and shouted at Accused No.1, abused her in an uncouth language. He laid on the cot in a drunken state. Then Accused No.1 came out and informed to Accused No.2, who was found on the road. Later, both Accused Nos.1 and 2 caused the death of the deceased by strangulation at about 4.30 7 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 or 5.00 P.M. P.W.1 received information about the death of the deceased. He rushed to the house and found the deceased lying on the cot and when he inquired Accused No.1, she replied stating that she tried to wake him up for serving a Tea, but he did not respond and she also informed to the local RMP Doctor by name Boby, who in turn came and examined and informed her to take the deceased to the Tanuku hospital. After arrival of the relatives, Pw.1 went to Iragavaram police station and gave a report. (iii) On 08-01-2014 at about 11.00 P.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police received Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2014 under Section.174 Cr.P.C. F.I.R is marked as Ex.P-23. He visited the scene of offence and deployed two Constables. On 09-01- 2014 at about 8.00 A.M, P.W.20 went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P-13 in the presence of P.W.15 and another. He also seized Mos.1 to 4 under Ex.P-13 and he got the scene photographed through P.W.11. Photographs were marked as Ex.P-9. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-24 at the scene of offence. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 11 and Accused No.1. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.15. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.18-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Tanuku conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the 8 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 cause of death was “due to ante mortem pressure over the neck probable due to throttling or strangulation may be combined with pressure over the face and ante mortem pressure over the chest.” He issued preliminary report-Ex.P-19 and final opinion-Ex.P-22. P.W.20 sent the material objects to R.F.S.L, Vijayawada and R.F.S.L report is marked as Ex.P.20. The further investigation was taken over by P.W.21. After receipt of R.F.S.L. report, P.W.21 altered the F.I.R to Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. Altered F.I.R is marked as Ex.P-25. On 01-07-2014 P.W.15-V.R.O, Relangi brought both the accused along with his report-Ex.P-16 stating that both the accused confessed before him about the commission of offence. He arrested both the accused under cover of panchanama-Ex.P-17. Thereafter, P.W.22 took up further investigation. On 29-06-2014 he verified the investigation done by P.W.20 and found it on correct lines. The statements of P.Ws.1 and 12 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. After completion of investigation, P.W.23 filed the charge. 10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 23, marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D-1 to D-14 were marked. 11. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 9 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 12. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused as aforesaid. 13. Sri.T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.567 of 2017 strenuously contends that except the so-called confessional statement made before P.W.15, there is no other material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. He further contends that the prosecution has not placed any material to show that Accused No.1 was having illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. He further contends that the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and on the sole basis of an extra judicial confession, the appellant cannot be convicted. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant requests this court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the Appeal. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal. 15. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.W1-father, P.W.5-mother, P.W.6-brother and P.W.10-sister of the deceased respectively did not whisper anything in their evidence about the alleged illegal intimacy between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2. Absolutely, no material placed by the prosecution to show that Accused 10 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 No.1 was having illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13 and 14 did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. Therefore, the only evidence available on record is P.W.15, who is V.R.O of Relangi village. P.W.15 in his evidence stated that on 01-07-2014 both the accused approached him in his office and informed him that they want to surrender before the police stating that they killed the deceased. Immediately, he recorded their statements and took them to the police station and handed over to P.W.21, who in turn arrested the accused. P.W15 in his evidence did not state that both the accused were acquainted with him. It is also not stated anything in his evidence that as to why they are informing P.W.15 about the commission of offence. Further, even according to the prosecution, the offence took place on 08-01-2014 and the so-called extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused was on 01-07-2014 i.e., nearly after lapse of six months. As seen from the evidence, P.W.15 is the panch witness for all the panchanamas and for all practical purposes. Except the sole evidence of P.W15, there is no other material to connect the appellant/Accused No.2 with the alleged offence. 16. In this connection, it is trite that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in a catena of cases especially in the following cases categorically held that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the 11 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 conviction cannot be recorded on the sole basis of the so-called extra judicial confession :- 1. Rahim Beg & another v. State of U.P., (1972) 3 SCC 759; 2. Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) Supreme Cases 526; 3. State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh., (1999) 7 SCC 714; 4. Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165; 5. Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu., (2012) 6 SCC 403; 6. Pedakapu Sannayya v. State of A.P., 2018 (1) ALD (Crl) 1029. Further, the extra judicial commission said to have been made by the accused before the P.W.15 is nearly six months after the alleged incident. 17. In view of the above circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the conviction and sentence recorded by the lV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, dated 29.05.2017 in S.C.No.130 of 2015 as against the Appellant/Accused No.2 is not sustainable and accordingly the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is liable to be allowed. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku in S.C.No.130 of 2015 12 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 on 29.05.2017 and the appellant/A.2 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections. 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted. Since the appellant/Accused No.2 was already granted bail at the stage of admission, his bail bonds stands cancelled automatically. The Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2017 is closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.1 was already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14-08-2022. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt. 05.03.2025 SAB / TSNR 13 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 91 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUJATHA COMMON JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal Nos.567 AND 615 of 2017 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 05.03.2025 SAB / TSNR