1 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1291 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.572 of 2008 dated 10.5.2017, the de facto complainant (P.W.1) filed the present Criminal Appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 9/Accused Nos.1 to 9 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges. (i) First charge was under Section 120-B IPC against A1, A6 to A9. (ii) Second charge was under Section 147 IPC against A1 to A9. 2 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 (iii) Third charge was under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A4, and (iv) Last charge was under Section 201 IPC against A1 to A9. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 16.6.2007, A1, A6 to A9 having conspired to cause death of one S. Kalyan Chakravarthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) due to civil disputes and at about 5.00 p.m. on 16.6.2007, A1 started negotiating with the deceased in his house on behalf of A6 and A8 and as the deceased did not come to the terms, A1 to A4 strangulated the deceased with a plastic rope and caused his death and in the same process all the accused shifted the dead body to the railway track in between Banduraupalli Railway Station and Nallapadu Railway Station to screen the evidence and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 302 r/w 149 and 201 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, acquitted respondents No.1 to 9 for all the charges by Judgment dated 10.5.2017 in S.C.No.572 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Appeal. 3 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: One Sripati Susheela @ Papayamma established a trust in the name of her father and brother as ‘Krovi Jayaramaiah Naidu and Dr. Ganeswara Rao Charitable Trust’ and entrusted some properties to the said Trust and she was the founder and lifelong Chair Person for the said Trust. The deceased is the Trustee-cum-Secretary to the said Trust. Accused Nos.6 to 8 being the nephews of Sripati Susheela @ Papayamma started litigation over the Trust properties after her death. They filed civil suits i.e. O.S.Nos.103 of 2002 and 106 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking a declaration of Trustees of the Trust and for rights over the Trust properties and the said suits are pending. Some of the properties of the Trust were mortgaged by A6 with A9. Since the deceased was not cooperating with them, they decided to eliminate him. Accordingly, on 16.6.2007 A1 contacted the deceased over phone in the afternoon and asked him to come to his house for negotiations. At About 5.00 p.m onwards A1 started negotiations with the deceased on behalf of A6 to A8 in his house and offered Rs.15.00 Lakhs to him, but the deceased demanded Rs.40.00 Lakhs. As the deceased did not come to the terms, A1 to A4 strangulated him with plastic rope and thereafter all the accused 4 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 packed the body in a gunny bag and placed the same on railway track. As the deceased did not return to house, his mother-P.W.1 enquired with relatives and friends, but she could not trace out the whereabouts of the deceased. On 18.6.2007 at about 6.00 p.m. P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to the police station and presented a written report-Ex.P1. (ii) On receipt of report-Ex.P1, P.W21- the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet L & O Police Station, Guntur, registered a case in Crime No.167 of 2007 under the head ‘Man Missing’. Ex.P31 is the FIR. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the police station. He visited the house of P.W.1. While such was the position, on 24.6.2007, P.W.10-the then Revenue Inspector, Guntur approached P.W.21 and informed him that A5 confessed before him admitting the commission of offence. He produced A5 before P.W.21 along with his report. On the basis of the same, P.W.21 altered the FIR to Sections 120-B, 302, 341 and 201 IPC. Ex.P32 is the altered FIR. (iii) On 24.6.2007 at about 10.45 p.m., on receipt of information, P.W.22-the Inspector of Police, Guntur, examined P.Ws. 10 and 11 and recorded their statements. A5 was remanded to judicial custody. He went to the scene of offence and contacted Railway S.I. and ascertained that the Railway police also registered 5 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 a case in Crime No.64 of 2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P8. He seized wearing apparel –Mos. 7 to 10 from the Railway police. He also collected photographs from the Railway police. When P.W.1 was confronted with photographs and clothes she identified them belonging to the deceased. Then he re-examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others and recorded their statements. Thereafter the body was exhumed under a panchanama-Ex.P13 in the presence of P.W.19- Professor in Forensic Science, Guntur Medical College, Guntur. Then he went to the house of A1 and prepared an observation report-Ex.P2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 16. Ex.P33 is the rough sketch. He also visited grave yard and prepared rough sketch-Ex.P34. Exhumation proceedings were conducted in the presence of Executive Magistrate-P.W.13. After exhumation, P.W.19-Professor in Forensic Science, Guntur Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in the burial ground. He stated that no opinion is possible regarding the cause of death as the body was cut into pieces. He issued Post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P26 to that effect. (iv) On 28.6.2007 at about 11.00 a.m. P.W.22 arrested A1, A2 and A4 in the presence of P.Ws.17 and 20 at Pattabhipuram. They said to have confessed about the commission of offence. He 6 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 recovered MOs. 1 to 5 at the instance of the accused. Subsequently he arrested A6 to A8 under a panchanama-Ex.P24. (v) On 03.7.2007, A3 surrendered before the Court. On the confession made by A3, P.W.22 seized MO6-autorikshaw in the presence of P.W.20 and another under a panchanama-Ex.P30. All the arrested accused were remanded to judicial custody. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.22 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 30, marked Exs.P1 to P38 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 10. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. 8. Disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused vide Judgment dated 10.05.2017, which is impugned in the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused that A3, A6, A8 and A9 died during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal and case against them stands abated. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced written instructions submitted by the Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur, confirming the death of A3, A6, A8 and A9. 12. In view of the above statement, the present Criminal Appeal against the respondents No.3, 6, 8 and 9/A3, A6, A8 and A9 stands dismissed as abated. 13. P.W.1 is none other than the mother of deceased. Her evidence is that on 16.6.2007 in the evening the deceased left the house and did not return. P.W.2 is younger brother of P.W.1. P.W.3 is one of the members of the Trust by name ‘Krovi Jayaramaiah Naidu and Dr. Ganeswara Rao Charitable Trust’. He stated in his evidence that the deceased was looking after the court affairs of the Trust. P.W.4 did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.5 is the Superintendent, Railway Station, Guntur who gave report-Ex.P5 to the Railway police. P.W.6 did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.7 is the Gang Man of Railway department and he found the 8 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 dead body lying on the railway track. P.W.8 is the Head Constable, Railway Police station. He received Ex.P5 message from P.W.5, on the basis of which, he registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2007, which is marked as Ex.P8. P.W.9 is the witness for Inquest. P.W.10 is the Revenue Inspector before whom A5 made extra judicial confession under Ex.P12. P.W.11 is another Revenue Inspector. P.W.12 is the person who exhumed the dead body of the deceased. P.W.13 is the Tahsildar in whose presence the body of the deceased was exhumed. P.W.14 did not support the prosecution. P.W.15 is the photographer who took photographs and the said photographs were marked as Ex.P19 and Ex.20. P.W.16 is the another panch witness for exhuming dead body. P.W.17 is the mediator in whose presence, A1, A2 and A4 were arrested and recovered MOs.1 to 5. P.W.18 is the Assistant Professor, Guntur Medical College who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Certificate- Ex.P25. P.W.19 is the another Professor in Guntur Medical College, who conducted second post-mortem examination after exhuming the dead body in burial ground and issued Certificate-Ex.P26 stating that no opinion is possible regarding the cause of death. P.W.20 is the mediator for seizure of MO6-autorikshaw under Exs.P28 and 29. P.W.21 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the 9 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 crime. P.W.22 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.23 is the practising advocate who used to look after the civil suits on behalf of the deceased. P.W.24 is the person who knows disputes between the deceased and A6 to A8. P.W.25 is the practicing advocate who used to appear on behalf of A7. P.W.26 is the relative of Sripathi Susheela. P.W.27 did not support the prosecution. P.W.28 is the Member of the Trust Board. P.W.29 is not at all relevant and P.W.30 did not support the prosecution. 14. We have carefully analysed the entire evidence on record. Except the so-called extra judicial confession adduced through P.W.10, there is no other material to connect the accused with the alleged offence. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day, at relevant point of time, A1 telephoned to the deceased and asked him to come to his house for negotiations. The Investigating Officer-P.W.21 did not make an effort to enquire the call data details of the mobile number of the deceased. 15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in judgment at paragraph No.21 held as follows: “21 It is pertinent to note that the specific case of the prosecution is that the deceased was called by A-1 over phone for negotiations. The investigating officer also noted specific mobile numbers of the deceased and as that of the accused no.1. However, the investigating officer failed to the file the call details 10 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 and the other information relating to the ownership and identity of the persons in respect of the said mobile numbers. As can be seen from the prosecution case, there are no direct eye witnesses to the occurrence and admittedly the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. in the case of circumstantial evidence, where there is absence of direct evidence, the case must satisfy the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and there should be definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else that there must be such evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. it is also argued for the accused that men may lie but not the circumstances. Therefore none of the above said circumstances brought out and retied by the prosecution complete the chain to conclusively prove the involvement of any of the accused herein in causing the death of the deceased” 16. So far as extra judicial confession said to have made before P.W.10 and P.W.11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Paragraph Nos.22, 23 and 24 held as follows: “22. The other limb of the prosecution case targeting the accused herein is the extra judicial confession made by the accused no.5 as to the commission of offence in this case. At the outset, it is to note that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence that cannot be based for proving the guilt of the accused on its own and in the absence of substantive 11 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 evidence. The extra judicial confession of an accused in any criminal case can be made use of for collateral purpose, where there is substantive material evidence. In the case on hand, prosecution examined and relied on the statements of PWs.10 and 11 in support of its case that it was A-5 that had made extra judicial confession. It is appropriate to note what is stated by PWS.10 and 11 before this Court. PW10 stated that he worked as Revenue Inspector in Tahsildar office, Guntur during the relevant period, that A-4 came to him while he was working in his office about two years prior to his evidence and made an extra judicial confession in connection with the crime, then he informed the M.R.O., that the M.R.O directed them to record the statement and handover him to the police, that their Junior Assistant, Sarma, recorded the statement of F.I.R and handed over him to the police along with covering letters, that Ex.P12 is the extra judicial confession statement, in which he also signed, that A-4 disclosed his name as Borugadda John Babu before them, A-4 signed on Ex.P12 as B.John Babu. In his cross examination, PW10 stated that their office is in Taluq compound, the police station is abutting their office, police constables are visible and available in the compound, there is one Excise Police station and Arundelpet police station in the premises of their office, that he had no acquaintance with A-4. He denied the suggestion that A-4 did not come and give any statement to them and he did not sign before them, that the extra Judicial confession was made at the police station and that he signed in that at the police station and is deposing false. PW11 stated before the Court that he is working as Revenue Inspector in Macherla, earlier he worked as Junior Assistant in 12 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 M.R.O Office, Guntur from 24-11-2005 to 26-02-2009, that he knows PW10 who is the Revenue Inspector, that PW10 produced A4 Borugula John Babu on 24-06-2007 at 8-15 p.m., that he made extra judicial confession regarding his involvement in the murder of Kalyana Chakarvarhti, that they informed their Tahsildar and he advised them to record the statement and surrender him to the police, that accordingly he recorded Ex.P12 and forwarded him to the police, that he also signed in Ex.P12, that A4 signed as B. John Babu. In the cross examination, PW11 denied the suggestion that A4 did not come to him and no confession is made by him, that at the instance of his R.I., he prepared Ex.P12 at the police station and is deposing false. 23. Both PWs.10 and 11 were recalled for the purpose of clarifying that Borugu John Babu was the person that came and gave extra judicial confession, that as he was standing in the 4th position, they have stated before this Court earlier by naming him as A4 and in fact he is A5 in this case. It is argued for the prosecution that the most important and believable accepts that led to believe Ex.P12 as a trustworthy confession that was given independently and warranty by A5 to PW10 in the presence of PW11 can be seen from the other material and scientific accepts and other natural circumstances that were brought on record. On the other hand, it is argued for the accused that the statements of PWs.10 and 11 is quiet unnatural and it is a handiwork of PW22 the investigating officer and the same can be drawn from the conduct of PW10 and PW11 that resciled from their earlier version with regard to the identity of the person that confessed before them, that in the evidence of PW10 the police are admittedly available while giving confession, so the confession 13 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 is not at all admissible in the eye of law which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is also argued that there was no prior acquaintance between PW10 or PW11 with A4 and no person will give confession by passing through the police station when he is apprehending that a case is filed against him, that PW22 the investigating officer deliberately took the assistance of PWs.10 and 11 taking his position and planted them for getting the alleged confession with an intention to make the same a believable one. It is also argued that when no direct evidence is available, the prosecution is creating extra judicial confession statements, therefore Ex.P12 the confession statement of A5 cannot be believed and accepted in proving the guilt of the accused. 24. It is significant to note that as observed by me at the beginning of my appreciation of evidence that the prosecution relied upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by one of the accused in this case and that the extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak piece of evidence that depends on the other co-related reliable evidence, but cannot be used as the substantive evidence against the accused. To accept the extra judicial confession as pointed out by the defence side, the probability in the said circumstances of this case where the office of PWs.10 and 11 is situated in between Excise Police Station and Taluk Police Station and that one has to pass through either of the said police stations to reach the office of PWs.10 and 11 that is the M.R.O office in the Taluk office compound at Guntur. I am convinced with the argument of the defence side that no person apprehending arrest and having knowledge of registering a criminal case against him will go to the M.R.O Office by crossing the police station for the purpose of making 14 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 confession to an unknown public servant. The conduct of PW10 is also unusual that instructed PW11 to record the confession statement and further by giving Information to the superior officer. The circumstances behind the extra judicial confession in this case at the M.R.O Office when the office of M.R.O is located in between two police stations by one of the accused by passing through the police station to reach the M.R.O office and giving confession at the M.R.O Office to the persons that have no acquaintance and the circumstance that the confession was made to PW10 and was drafted by PW11, thereby informed to the M.R.O and to his direction the accused was handed over to the police along with the confession statement, on the face of it appear unnatural, unbelievable and unacceptable. If the extra judicial confession is kept aside, there is no other basis for the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime in this case. It is not out of place to make a mention of the circumstance brought out by the defence that the family members of the accused no.1, 6, 7 and 8 filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, against the illegal detention of the accused in this case and a Commissioner was also appointed to verify the Lock-up and that at the intervention of the Advocate Commissioner who visited the police station as per the orders of the competent Judicial Magistrate, A1, A2 and A4 were shown as arrested, the said circumstance would clarify the attitude of the police that bent upon involving the accused by illegally detaining them. It may be noted that during the course of cross examination, PW21 stated that he heard that the family members of A1, A6 to A8 filed Writ of Habeas Corpus and he 15 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 could not recollect whether he filed counter in the said writ, that he was not aware of the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in the said Writ. He denied the suggestion that on appointment of Advocate commissioner they have hurriedly shown the accused and that by illegally detaining the accused, this case is foisted against the accused. It is also admitted by PW22, the Investigating Officer that a Habeas Corpus Writ was filed on behalf of A1, A6 to A8 separately, that he was not aware of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, that by the time the Advocate Commissioner came A-1, A2 and A4 were already in their custody at Old Guntur police station Lock-up. He admitted that he is one of the respondents in the said Writ Petition, in which he filed counter. However, he denied the suggestion that by illegally detaining the accused this case is foisted by creating false documents. The above said admissions on the part of PWS.21 and 22, the police officers also tend to support the defence version that there were illegal detention of some of the accused in this case who were released as per the directions of the Writ petition. It is also not out of place to make a note of the situation in this case where under the 161 Cr.P.C statements were not filed into the Court periodically, but along with the charge sheet that were filed into the Court. The seized property i.e. M.Os.7 to 10 is produced on the day of examination of the investigating officer and not earlier." 16 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 17. If extra judicial confession made before P.Ws. 10 and 11 goes, absolutely there is no material to connect the accused with the above offence. Further P.W.22 the Investigating Officer filed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements only along with the charge sheet. 18. Further, this is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal, unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 17 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 19. It is well settled that the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in an appeal is limited. In ‘Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh & anr.1’, the apex Court held as follows: “…..Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue have been over looked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.” 20. In ‘C.Antony V. K.G.Raghavan Nair2’ while dealing with an order of acquittal, the power of High Court to interfere with the same, the Apex Court held thus: “Unless the findings of trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record.” 1 1998 (8) Supreme l 2 2003(1) SCC 1 18 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 21. In ‘State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran3’, the Apex Court held as follows: “While exercising the powers in an appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality land the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decisions is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view, which would upset the judgment, delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law land ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to fine out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” 22. In ‘Rupesh Manger (Thapa) Vs. The State of Sikkim45’, the Apex Court held as follows: It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different 3 (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.)162 4 2023 (3) ALT (Crl.) 129 (SC) 5 (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.)162 19 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 view on re-appreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. 23. In view of the above findings arrived at by the trial Court and in view of catena of decisions, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that there are no merits in the present Appeal. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity and illegality and as such no interference is required. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 10.5.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.572 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum- XII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 09.04.2025 GR 20 KSR, J & Vs, J Crl.A.No.1291 OF 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Criminal Appeal No.1291 of 2017 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date:09.04.2025 GR