IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI 'C FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1257 OF 2017 Between: Vadlamani Murali, S/o. Achari, Occ: Carpentor, R/o. Kottipalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. ...APELLANT AND 1. Yadamakanti Damodarachari, S/o. Veerachari, R/o. Mundlapadu Village, Giddalaru Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Yadamakanti Veerachari, S/o. Veerabhadrachari, R/o. Mundlapadu Village, Giddalaru Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. Yadamakanti Nagabushanamma, W/o. Veerachari, Occ: Household R/o. Mundlapadu Village, Giddalaru Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi. ...RESPODENTS Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment in S.C.No.36 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur dated 15.05.2017 in acquitting the accused, the appellant filed this memorandum of Criminal :SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondents ; SMT A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents ; PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : 1 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.1257 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF MAY, 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.1257of 2017 JUDG M E N T {Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the Judgment of acquittal passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur, in Sessions Case No.36 of 2015, dated 15.5.2017, father of the deceased-P.W.2 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following two (2) charges. (1) The first charge was under Section 498-A IPC against A1 to A3. ’'i 2 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l257 OF 2017 (ii) Second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 3. Substance of the charge is that prior to 09.4.2014, A1 to A3 harassed one Yadamakanti Sireesha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who is wife of A1 and daughter-in-law of A2 and A3, subjected her to cruelty and on 09.4.2014 at about 6.00 A.M., they throttled her neck causing her death at Mundlapadu village, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions 4. Judge, disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, acquitted respondents No.1 to 3 for the above charges by Judgment dated 15.5.2017 in S.C.No.36 of 2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: A1 is husband of the deceased, A2 and A3 are parents of A1. The marriage between A1 and the deceased took place on 13.6.2009 and they were blessed with a daughter who died subsequently. Since then A1 started harassing the deceased on the instigation of A2 and A3 alleging that she will not give birth to children. As there were disputes between the deceased and A1, they 3 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l257 0F 2017 Started residing separately from A2 and A3 in a rented house. In the year 2012, A1 quarrelled with ttie deceased and went to the house of A2 and A3. Then the deceased went to the house of A2 and A3 and requested A1 to come back to their house. At that juncture, A1 to A3 beat the deceased with the pestle. Immediately, the neighbours shifted her to Ranga Reddy Hospital, Giddalur. Thereafter, father of the deceased gave a report to the police and subsequently the said case was compromised. One week prior to the date of present incident, the deceased informed P.W.2 about the harassment of A1 to A3 for want of children. After one week, P.Ws. 1 and 2 received phone call from the villagers stating that the deceased died. Immediately, P.Ws.t to 3 went to the house of accused and found the deceased dead. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. (ii) On 09.4.2014, at about 10.00 A.M, P.W.15 -The then Sub- Inspector of Police, Giddalur received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.81 of 2014 under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC. He issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P20. On the same day, at about 10.40 a.m. he went to Mundlapadu village and prepared an observation report-Ex.P22 in the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 12. He also took photographs at the KSR.JS VS,J CrI.A.No. 1257 OF 2017 scene of offence, which were marked as Ex.P21.He also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P23. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 at the scene of offence. (iii) On the same day, P.W.15 sent requisition to P.W.13 to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. At about 1.00 p.m., P.W.13 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 12. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P13. P.W.15 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (IV) P.W.14-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Giddalur, Dr.Nagendra conducted autopsy deceased. He opined the along with over the dead body of the cause of death was due to mechanical asphyxia and manual strangulation i.e. throttling. He Issued Post- mortem certificate-Ex.PIO. (V) On 12.4.2014, P.W.15 recorded statements of P.Ws.5, 6 and others. (vi) On 15.4.2014 between 2.30 and 3.00 P.M. A1 approached P.W.12-the then Village Revenue Officer, Mundlapadu of Giddalur Mandal and made confession admitting that he killed the deceased, under Ex.P12. On the same day, P.W.12 produced A1 along with Ex.P12 before P.W.15. On the basis He recorded statement of A1 ksr,j& vs,j CrI.A.No.lZS? OF 2017 Of EX.P12, P.W.15 altered the Section Alteration memo is marked as Ex.P24 of law from 306 to 302 IPC. (VII) On the same day. at about 6.15 P.M., P,W.16-the then Inspector of Police. Giddalur up further investigation. He . and recorded confessional statement EX.P25. He arrested A1 and During the course of investigation, A2 received Ex.P24 from P.W.15 and took secured the presence of P.Ws. 7 and 9 of A1, which is marked as sent him to judicial custody thereafter. and A3 surrendered before the of First Class, Giddalur. He send skin around the neck, Hyoid bone and parts of .dead body to RFSL. They were marked learned Additional Judicial Magistrate sent a letter of advice to SDPO to as EXS.P26 to 28. (viii) P.W. 11-Professor Pathology, GMC, Guntur, and Head of the Department of examined an irregular measuring 9 x 8 x 0.5 cms. She issued ooi ' piece of skin - opinion under Ex.PIO opining mortem nature of lesion. that it is consistent with ante (ix) P.W. 10-Professor, Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ongole and opined as “anterio- greater cornea of hyoid bone examined hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage posterior compression fracture of right side present with diffused tissue of hyoid bone on contusion to the surrounding soft on both sides present, red in colour, ante <■-31 6 KSR,J& VS,J Crl.A.No.US7 OF 2017 mortem in nature. No injuries or fractures noted on the parts of thyroid cartilage examined.” (x) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W. 16 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P28 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. 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 15.5.2017, which is impugned in the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3/A1 to A3 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. P.W.1 is the brother, P.W.2 is the father, P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased respectively. So far as P.Ws. 4 to 7 and 9 are concerned, they did not support the prosecution and they were 7 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l257 OF2017 declared as hostile. P.W.8 is the Inquest Ranch. P.W.10 is the doctor who issued Ex.P9 with regard to the Hyoid bone. P.W.11 is another doctor, who examined the skin of the deceased and issued Ex.PIO. 11. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are the panch witnesses for inquest and other panchanamas. P.W.14 is the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body. P.Ws. 15 and 16 are the Investigating Officers. 12. Having analysed the entire evidence carefully, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 alone is required to be considered in the case on hand. 13. Though P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, they did not depose the details of harassment caused to the deceased by respondents No.1 to 3. P.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that except the incident that took place in the year 2012, there were no other cases filed against the respondents. P.W.2-father of the deceased also did not state anything with regard to the harassment except referring to the incident that took place in the year 2012. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is very cryptic stating that the accused started harassing the deceased. 14. So far as the other independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 4 to 7 are concerned, they did not support the prosecution. The other evidence available on record is the extra judicial confession said to 8 KSR, J&VSJ Crl.A.No.l257 OF 2017 have been made by A1 before P.W.12. But, unfortunately P.W,12 did not support the prosecution and he was declared as hostile. As such, there is no evidence on record to connect anyone of the accused with the alleged offence. Further, the dead body was found in the front yard of house of A2 and A3. The prosecution has not come up with any evidence as to who throttled the deceased to death. Admittedly, A1 and deceased are residing in separate rented house. As such there is no evidence to alleged offence. connect the accused with the 15. After elaborately discussing the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence let in by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He has given a categorical finding that the evidence of prosecution witnesses did disclose the offence under Section 498-A IPC beyond doubt. not reasonable 16. So far as cause of death is concerned, the version of the prosecution is that A1 put a towel around the neck of the deceased and pulled it. As such, prosecution version is that the cause of death was due to strangulation. But the medical evidence adduced P.W.14 coupled with post-mortem certificate-Ex.P19 the by cause of 9 KSR.Jg, VS,J Crl.AMo.12S7 OF 2017 death was due to throttling. The prosecution also confessed before P.W.12 stating that he tied alleged that A1 a towel around neck of the deceased and pulled the towel. As such, the ocular version spoke to by prosecution witnesses is not corroborated by medical evidence. 17. Further, this is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the has full 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 of the trial Court. If the trial Court has ai then it can be the findings given any perverse finding. 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. 10 K5R,J& VS, I Crl.A.No.l2S7 OF 2017 18. It is well settled that the order of acquittal in Khuman Singh & scope of interference with an an appeal is limited. In Vimal Singh v. the apex Court held as follows; anr I of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisionei power does ordmaniy interfere with Judgments of acquittal passed by Court unless there has been The interference with the order of t not the trial manifest error of law or procedure, acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional the order under cases when it is found that 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 r has illegally shut out the evidence which case or where the trial Court othenA/ise ought to have or where the material evidence which the issue have been over looked. These been considered clinches are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. ” 19. In C.Antony V. K.G.Raghavan Naii^’ an order of acquittal, the same, the Apex Court held thus; while dealing with power of High Court to interfere with the “Unless the findings of trial Court the material are perverse or contrary to on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its findings merely because another contrary on record. ” opinion was possible on the basis of material 1998 (8) Supreme I ' 2003(1) see 1 ^v. 11 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.1257 Of 2017 20. In State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran^', 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 order of acquittal unless the with 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 the decisions is to be characterized person and, therefore, as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view, which would upset the judgment, delivered below. However, the appellate by the Court court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the vh below is perverse and the of law land ignored the material view that the view arrived at by the court court has committed a manifest error evidence on record. A duty I. cast upon the appellate court. In such circumstances, to appreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed IS re- on record to fine out whether any of the commission of the crime he is accused is connected with the charged with. 21. In Rupesh Manger (Thapa) Vs. The State of Sikkim"*^ Apex Court held as follows; the It is settled that the judgment of Appellate Court only when there acquittal can be reversed by the is perversity and not by taking a different '(2007) 2 see (erl.)162 2023 (3) ALT (erl.) 129 (se) '(2007) 2 see (erl.)162 12 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l257 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 facts and circumstances of the case, 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 15.5.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.36 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur (with records if any) 2. The station House Officer, Giddalur Police Station, Parakasam District One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. A Gayatri Reddy 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 at Amaravathi THREE CD COPIES 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. psr TAC HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1257 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL