APHC010864242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1316/2017 Between: 1. NANNURU SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, HOUSEWIFE R/O. 1/76A, ARUNDHATIYA WADA, N.R.PALLI, NELABALLI, NELLORE 1. STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, HYDERABAD 2. RONDLA MAHESH, S/O. SREENIVASULU, R/O. ALURUPADU VILLAGE, NAGAMMA COLONY, BUJABUJA NELLORE, NELLORE CITY, N/O. MANEGUNTAPADU, KODAVALURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK BABU, S/O. SHABBER, R/O. KONDURUPADU VILLAGE, INDUKURUPET MANDAL, SPSR N Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to agaisnt the judgment dated 12.09.2017 in SEssions Case No.78/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Special Jduge for Trial of Offences SCs & sts (POA) act cum V Additional SEssions Judge, Nellore, where the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) got acquitted for the offences U/s. 302 IPC and also U/s. 3(2) (v) of SC and St (POA) Act, 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1316/2017 NANNURU SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, HOUSEWIFE R/O. 1/76A, ARUNDHATIYA WADA, N.R.PALLI, NELABALLI, NELLORE ...AP AND STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, RONDLA MAHESH, S/O. SREENIVASULU, R/O. ALURUPADU VILLAGE, NAGAMMA COLONY, BUJABUJA NELLORE, NELLORE CITY, N/O. MANEGUNTAPADU, KODAVALURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. SHAIK BABU, S/O. SHABBER, R/O. KONDURUPADU VILLAGE, INDUKURUPET MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT,. ...RESPON Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to agaisnt the judgment dated 12.09.2017 in SEssions Case No.78/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Special Jduge for Trial of Offences SCs & sts (POA) act cum V Additional SEssions Judge, Nellore, where the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) got acquitted for the offences U/s. 302 IPC and also U/s. 3(2) (v) of SC and St (POA) Act, 1989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY NANNURU SUNEETHA, W/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, HOUSEWIFE R/O. 1/76A, ARUNDHATIYA WADA, N.R.PALLI, NELABALLI, NELLORE PPELLANT STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, RONDLA MAHESH, S/O. SREENIVASULU, R/O. ALURUPADU VILLAGE, NAGAMMA COLONY, BUJABUJA NELLORE, NELLORE CITY, N/O. MANEGUNTAPADU, KODAVALURU MANDAL, SPSR SHAIK BABU, S/O. SHABBER, R/O. KONDURUPADU VILLAGE, NDENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to agaisnt the judgment dated 12.09.2017 in SEssions Case No.78/2016 passed by the Hon'ble Special Jduge for Trial of Offences SCs & sts (POA) act cum V Additional SEssions Judge, Nellore, where the respondents 2 and 3 herein (accused 1 and 2) got acquitted for the offences U/s. 302 IPC and also U/s. 3(2) (v) of SC and St (POA) Act, 1989 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 2615 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Special leave to file Appeal agaisnt the judgment dated 12.09.2017 passede in sC.No.78/2016 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act cum V Additional Sessions Jduge, Nellore Counsel for the Appellant: 1. VENKAT RAO RAVULAPALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘learned Special Judge’) in Sessions Case No.78/2016 dt. 12.09.2017, the de facto complainant / PW.1 filed the present appeal. 2. Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for 3rd respondent conjointly submits that during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal, 2nd respondent / A.1 died. 3. In view of the said statement made by both the learned counsel, the present appeal is taken up only insofar as 3rd respondent / A.2 is concerned. 4. Both the accused were tried by the learned Special Judge under two charges: 1) The 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 & A.2; and 2) The 2nd charge was under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against A.2. 5. Substance of the charge is that on 01.02.2016, A.1 & A.2 caused death of one Nannuru Venkataiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who belong to Scheduled Caste, in the vacant site situated at Auto Nagar Phase I, Nellore Town, thereby committed offences punishable under Section 302 IPC 4 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989. 6. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) Both the accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nellore Town. The deceased was also resident of same town. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and PW.2 is the relative of the deceased. PW.1 and deceased were residing at Nagamma Colony, Buja Buja Nellore, since 2008. PW.1 was running a Tea Bunk near Hyundai Showroom at Auto Nagar, Nellore. She got acquaintance with one Palleti Padmamma who is watching the vacant site of PW.4. Said Padmamma used to visit the Tea Bunk of PW.1. She asked PW.1 to watch the vacant site belonging to PW.4 which is situated near her Tea Bunk as she wanted to go to her village. Padmamma took Rs.4,000/- from PW.1 for using the said vacant site for the purpose of parking lorries and other vehicles. PW.1 used to watch the said vacant site during day time. The deceased was working as water servicing man at Hyundai showroom. After attending his work in the showroom, the deceased used to watch the vacant site of PW.4 during night time. The deceased and PW.1 used to collect money from the owners of lorries and other vehicles for parking their vehicles in the vacant site. In the month of December, said Padmamma enquired about the collection of money and picked up a quarrel with PW.1 and deceased and collected an amount of Rs.5,000/- from them. PW.1 and deceased informed PW.4 about the conduct of Padmamma. PW.4 asked PW.1 and deceased to look after the vacant site 5 by themselves instead of Padmamma, for which Padmamma bore grudge against PW.1 and deceased. It is further alleged that A.1 was having extra marital relationship with PW.6 who used to visit the Tea Bunk of PW.1. It is alleged that PW.6 discontinued her relationship with A.1 due to the advice of PW.1, for which A.1 bore grudge against PW.1 and deceased. On 01.02.2016 at about 08.30 A.M., A.1 approached PW.1 and deceased and warned them to vacate the said site and hand over the same to said Padmamma and threatened them with dire consequences. As usual, at about 07.30 P.M. on the same day, PW.1 left the vacant site and the deceased started watching the site at night time. On 02.02.2016 at about 07.30 A.M., when PW.1 went to the vacant site, she found the deceased died in a pool of blood with bleeding injuries. (b) On the same day at about 09.30 A.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, V Town Police Station, Nellore, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.55/2016 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P9 is the F.I.R. On the same day, the Inspector of Police PW.11 took up investigation from PW.10. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report Ex.P10 in the presence of PW.7 and another. He also got the scene photographed through PW.5, marked as Ex.P4. He also seized Blood stained earth and Controlled earth marked as MO.s 1 & 2 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P4. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.7 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. At the 6 time of inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (c) PW.9 Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, ACSR Government Medical College, Nellore, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He found as many as 15 injuries on the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to “shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injuries”. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P8. (d) In the meanwhile, PW.11 recorded statements of Padmamma and other witnesses. He seized M.Os 8 & 9 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P11. On 03.02.2016, he recorded statement of PW.6. On 10.02.2016, on credible information, PW.11 apprehended the accused at Kavali NH-16 in the presence of PW.8 and another under a Panchanama Ex.P6. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused, he recovered M.Os. 3 to 7 knife and blood stained clothes at Drivers Colony under a Panchanama Ex.P7. Thereafter, he arrested the accused who were remanded to judicial custody. As the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was disclosed, the further investigation was handed over to Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.12. On 17.02.2016, PW.12 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by PW.11. He sent material objects to R.F.S.L, Guntur. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P18. He also obtained caste certificate of the deceased under Ex.P15. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.12 filed charge sheet. 7 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked exhibits P1 to P19 and exhibited MOs 1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, Exhibits D.1 & D.2 were marked. 8. Disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of both the charges. 9. Heard Sri Venkat Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for 3rd respondent / A.2, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 State. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. The evidence of PWs 1 & 2 is not at all helpful to the prosecution as they did not witness the incident. The prosecution came up with two versions with regard to the “motive”. The first version is with regard to vacating the vacant site belonging to PW.4, and the second version is that discontinuation of relationship by PW.6 with A.1 on the advice of PW.1. As such, the prosecution is not able to fix up the motive for A.1. Though the prosecution alleged that said Padmamma threatened PW.1 and deceased to vacate the vacant site belonging to PW.4, she was not shown as an accused in the case. As such, the prosecution could not able to prove the motive. 8 12. So far as witnessing the incident is concerned, the prosecution came up with the evidence of PW.3. PW.3 in his evidence has stated as follows: On 01.02.2016 in the night, we shifted the goods of our shop situated at Wood Complex to the shop at GNT road as there is opening of our shop on 02.02.2016. At that time, myself, Venkateswarlu and Vinay Kumar were shifting the goods in the shop. We observed that A.1 & A.2 altercating with one person in the site of PW.4 at the entrance and all of them went inside the vacant site by beating the said person by A.1 as identified by witness in the court hall. A.2 also accompanied A.1. After some time, both A.1 & A.2 came outside the vacant site by holding their hands one each other. I observed the blood stains on the shirt of A.1 and A.2. At that time, A.2 is wearing white colour shirt and they went straight by walk towards Bye pass highway road. On the next day morning, I came to my shop and came to know that the deceased was killed. The C.I. of Police came to the spot and enquired me. I stated to him about the descriptive particulars of A.1 and A.2 as they were altercated with the deceased on the previous day night. One of the person is having scars on his face i.e., A.1. When I observed the deceased, he was in pool of blood. The deceased was died due to stab injuries. I was examined by police and recorded my statement. Though PW.3 said to have witnessed the incident, he did not choose to give any report to the police. 13. In para 34 of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, held as follows: “34. The other evidence on record is PW3 who is a crucial witness for the prosecution case as he found the accused on the night of 1.2.2016 and his co-employees while shifting their goods from one shop situated at wood complex to the other shop to be opened at GNT 9 road as there is a opening of the shop on 2.2.2016. According to him, he observed A1 and A2 by beating one person at the vacant site entrance and later they all went into the vacant site by raising cries. On the said incident, PW.3 did not give report to the police or information to the police about the altercation between A1 and A2 and the deceased. He also did not inform to anybody that he observed the blood stains on the shirts of A1 and A2 and they are in fully drunken state and he did not stop them. It is further denied by him that A1 and A2 while beating the deceased and went inside the vacant site is not stated by him at the earliest point of time of examination by police and recording his statement. PW3 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case if really PW3 saw the accused on the night itself by PW3 what prevented him to inform to the police immediately as the police station is very nearer to the scene of offence even a person can reach the police station within five minutes by walk. The other colleagues of PW3 who are also present and examined by police but they were not examined by the prosecution and they were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The evidence of PW3 is too artificial to inspire confidence as he has admittedly seen the accused. The prosecution failed to conduct the test identification parade of the accused. PW3 first identified them on the date of alleged incident and again he identified the accused in the court hall while he was examining before the court. PW.12 who is the investigating officer categorically admitted that he did not conduct the test identification parade to the accused after they were arrested by PW.11. Even PW.11 also did not take steps for test identification of the accused simply he filed a memo stating that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the matter is referred to PW.12 by filing an alteration memo under Ex.P12. PW.3 also did not state before the police in his statement about wearing of clothes by A1 and A2 with colour but he deposed in the chief examination about wearing of clothes by A1 and A2 with colours which is a material omission in the evidence of PW.3.” 10 14. Apart from this, another fact is that if really PW.3 witnessed the attack by A.1 and A.2, the same ought to have been mentioned in the inquest report. We have carefully scrutinized the inquest report marked as Ex.P5. In inquest report Ex.P5, at column I(b), PW.3 was shown as “witness”. But, in column XV of Ex.P5, no reference was made stating that PW.3 witnessed the alleged attack by A.1 and A.2. In inquest report, a suspicion was entertained against Padmamma and others for cause of death of the deceased. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, PW.3 must have been planted by the prosecution projecting him as an eye witness at a later stage. If really, PW.3 witnessed the incident, he ought to have given a report to the police. Further, no reference was made in Ex.P5 about PW.3 witnessing the incident. Except the evidence of PW.3, there is no other evidence available on record. 16. Further, the present appeal arise out of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand1. In Para 11 (4) of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “11(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused 1 2025 (2) SCR 239 11 having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.” 18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Sessions Case No.78/2016, vide judgment dt. 12.09.2017, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. As such, said judgment needs no interference. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in Sessions Case No.78/2016 vide judgment dt. 12.09.2017. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J 08.07.2025 MVA