APHC010856702017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1283/2017 Between: Rajana Appala Raju, Vizianagaram Dt., State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respon 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) A.1 in S.C.No.109 of District & Sessions Judge Judge’) is the appellant. learned Sessions Judge under two charges. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH 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: 1283/2017 Rajana Appala Raju, Vizianagaram Dt., ...APP AND f Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPO ellant: SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO ndent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) 109 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, ‘learned Sessions the appellant. The appellant, along with A.2, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under two charges. [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY PELLANT ...RESPONDENT the Court of learned , Vizianagaram (for short, ‘learned Sessions tried by the 2 First charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2, and the second charge was under Section 201 IPC against A.1 and A.2 2. Substance of the charge is that on 07.02.2016 at about 10.00 P.M., both the accused caused the death of one Simhadri Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by beating him with hammer and squeezing testicles in his house situated at S.C. Colony, Thummikapalli Village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, and in the same process, they tried to make believe that the deceased met with natural death and tried to cremate the dead body, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ each and also to pay a fine of Rs.60,000/- by A.1 and Rs.50,000/- by A.2, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Sessions Judge further convicted them under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) Both the accused are residents of Thummikapalli Village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal. A.2 is none other than the wife of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and A.2 was performed about 9 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two children. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by doing carpentry work. The deceased used to go to Hyderabad and Goa for eking out his livelihood and used to stay there for a period of two or three months. A.2 developed illicit intimacy with A.1 about 3 years prior to the date of incident. A.1 used to visit the house of A.2 frequently in the absence of the deceased. In the month of January 2016, the deceased returned to village from Goa and some disputes arose between the deceased and A.2. While so, on 07.02.2016 at about 10.00 P.M., the deceased came in a drunken state and slept in the house. A.2 invited A.1 to the house. When both of them were preparing for sexual act in the house, the deceased woke up and witnessed them in compromising position. Thinking that the deceased will not leave them, both of them decided to kill the deceased. Accordingly, A.1 beat the deceased with sledge- hammer on the chest of the deceased, and A.2 squeezed his testicles and cut the penis of the deceased with an iron Chisel and caused bleeding injury. As a result, the deceased died instantaneously. On the next day morning, A.2 tried to project before the neighbours and villagers that the death of the deceased is natural and were making preparations 4 for cremation. When PWs 4 & 5 confronted A.2, she confessed the commission of offence along with A.1. On the same day, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report to the police. On 08.01.2016 at about 10.15 A.M., PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram Police Station, received report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.16/2016 under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P18 and the report of PW.1 is marked as Ex.P17. On receipt of information, PW.14 Inspector of Police, Gajapathinagaram, took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Thummikapalli Village. He prepared an observation report Ex.P9 in the presence of mediators. He also photographed the scene under Ex.P8. He prepared rough sketches Ex.19 and P20 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P10. He sent the dead body to Community Health Centre, Gajapathinagaram for Postmortem examination. PW.11 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Gajapathinagaram, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure secondary due to mediasternal bleeding, fracture of ribs and laceration over the left side of Heart. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P16. (b) PW.14 kept surveillance over A.2 as she was present in the house. On 09.02.2016 at about 03.30 P.M., he arrested A.1 in the 5 presence of PW.10 and another at Bodasingipeta Village. A.1 said to have confessed about the commission of offence along with A.2. On the confession made by A.1, PW.14 seized M.O.1 Hammer at his house. Thereafter, PW.14 proceeded to the house of A.2, who said to have confessed under Ex.P13. On the confession made by A.2, PW.14 seized M.O.2 Chisel from her house. Thereafter, both the accused were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW.14 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P20 and exhibited MOs 1 to 4. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. PW.1 is the sister of the deceased. PW.2 is the husband of PW.1, and PW.3 is the sister of PW.1. PW.4 is the neighbour. PWs 5 & 6 are 6 residents of same locality. PW.7 is the relative of the deceased. PW.8 is the Photographer. PW.9 is the mediator for observation report and inquest report. PW.10 is the mediator for arrest of the accused. PW.11 is the Doctor who conducted Postmortem examination. PW.12 is the daughter of the deceased. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime and PW.14 is the Investigating Officer. (a) PWs 1 to 4, who are close relatives of the deceased, did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. So far as PW.5 is concerned, he is resident of the same locality where A.2 was residing. PW.5 in her evidence has categorically stated that on the morning of 08.02.2016, having observed the mob in front of the house of the deceased, she went and saw the dead body of the deceased. Having suspicion over the death of the deceased, when PW.5 confronted A.2, the latter said to have confessed about commission of the offence along with A.1. It is only thereafter PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. Of course, PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. So far as PW.6 is concerned, she did not support the prosecution and she was also declared as hostile. So far as PW.7 is concerned, he also did not support the prosecution and he was declared as hostile. (b) As seen from the material available on record, all the material witnesses turned hostile except PW.5 who stated in her evidence that when she confronted A.2, she confessed about the commission of 7 offence along with A.1. Except said confession statement of A.2 which was retracted, there is nothing on record to incriminate the appellant / A.1 in the present case. Admittedly, the incident took place in the house of A.2 and as such, it is for A.2 to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. But, absolutely there is no explanation from A.2. Of course, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that A.2 was already granted remission by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.91, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.08.2021. Of course, A.2 has not preferred any appeal questioning the conviction and sentence. The present appeal is filed only on behalf of A.1. As already pointed out, except the so-called retracted extra judicial confession said to have been made before PW.5 by A.2, there is no other material. The said retracted statement made by A.2 cannot be used against A.1. As already pointed out, the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of A.2. So far as A.1 is concerned, he is residing elsewhere. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.109 of 2016 vide judgment dated 30.06.2017, insofar as the appellant / A.1 is concerned, the same cannot be sustained. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant / Accused No.1 by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in S.C.No.109 of 2016, 8 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and u/s 201 IPC, vide judgment dated 30.06.2017, are hereby set aside. Appellant / Accused No.1 is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other crime or cases. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 13.03.2025 MVA