APHC010931742017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1643 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the Judgment, dated 31-10-2017 passed in SC.No.21 of 2016, on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. Between; Kota Ramana Reddy, S/o.Late Papidi Reddy, aged 38 years, Reddy by Caste, R/o.Narasingapadu Village, Nakerakhallu Mandal, Guntur District. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of A.P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravati. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : SMT A.GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : Counsel for the Appellant 7 '/ - fS APHC010931742017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] THURSDAY,THE TENTH 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: 1643 OF 2017 I Between: Kota Ramana Reddy ...APELLANT AND The State Of A P Counsel for the Appellant: 1.AGAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ...RESPODENT ■ / r 2 iM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1643 OF 2017 JUDGMENT:- (PerHon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2016 on the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram is the Appellant herein. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under three Charges. First Charge was under Section 393 IPC, Second Charge was under Section 302 IPC and Third Charge was under Section 392 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 27.05.2014 the Accused caused death of one Teki Uma Maheswara Rao @ Panthulu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) by throttling him causing his death and in the same process he robbed an amount of Rs. 29,600A from the pant pocket of the deceased thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 392, 393 and 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Sessions Judge further convicted the Appellant under Section 393 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run ^ncurrently. 3 4. Case of the Prosecution, briefly, is as follows:- The deceased was a resident of Guntur and was eking out his livelihood by driving a lorry. PW-3 is the son and PW-4 is the son-in-law of the deceased respectively. PW-11 is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 07 TU 7539. When PW-11 was trying to dispose of his lorry, PW-10 approached him and took the said lorry by paying finance. The deceased was appointed as driver and Accused was appointed as a cleaner of the said lorry. While so, on 26.05.2014, PW-10 sent the said lorry along with the deceased and Accused with juice load to Ichapuram by collecting freight charges of Rs. 29,600/- Thereafter, PW-10 instructed the deceased to go to C.P Company at G. Chodavaram, Pusapatirega for taking prawns load to Peddapuram. At about 10.30 p.m on the same day, PW-10 received a phone call to the effect that the driver of the said lorry died. Immediately, PW-10 and 11 started at 11.00 and reached the lorry at Pusapatirega at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m on the next day. They found the deceased in the cabin of the lorry with a scar on the throat. They did not find the Cleaner of the lorry. p.m 5. At about 8 a.m on 28.05.2014, PW-1 V.R.O, Kanimetia Cluster of Pusapatirega Mandal received information about lying of dead body in the lorry cabin at C.P.Company. At about 9 a.m PW-1 went there and found the unknown dead body in the lorry cabin parked on the road margin. Immediately, PW-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. C r T 4 6. PW-13 S.l of Police, Pusapatirega P.S, received Ex.P1 report from PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P13 is the First Information Report (FIR). Immediately he visited the scene of offence along with PW-1 and another and photographed the scene with his mobile phone. The Photographs were marked as Ex.P14 and EX.P15. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.PI6 at the scene of offence. He also prepared an Observation Report Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. He shifted the body from the lorry cabin to outside and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW-1 and another. Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P9. He recorded Statements of PWs 1 to 5 at the scene of offence. 7. On 05.06.2014 at about 11 a.m, PW-1 produced the Accused before him stating that the Accused made a confession before him about the commission of offence. Report prepared by PW-1 was marked as Ex.P3. Thereafter, PW-13 altered the FIR from 174 Cr.P.C to Section 302 and 379 IPC. Ex.P17 is the altered Memo. PW-14 Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Circle, took up further investigation on 05.06.2014. The Accused was produced before him along with Ex.P3. Immediately, he visited Pusapatirega Police Station and perused the C.Cr file. He examined PW-1 and another and recorded their Statements. He secured the presence of the mediators and in their presence, he recorded the confession statement of the Accused. On the confession made by the Accused, PW-14 recovered M.0-1 cash and M.0-2 Dollar Company blade. Thereafter, he recorded the Statements of PWs 2 and 5 to 7. He arrested the Accused, who was remanded to judicial custody. \, 5 8. In the meanwhile, PW-12 Civil Assistant Surgeon. Vizianagaram body of the deceased and he conducted autopsy over the dead the death was caused due opined that to “mechanical asphyxia due to throttling and issued Preliminary Postmortem Strangulation/ Certificate Ex.PIO and final opinion under Ex.P12. Further i Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Circle 10 and 11. After investigation was taken over by PW-15 who recorded the Statements of PWs after completion of receipt of all the documents and investigation PW-15 filed Charge Sheet. 1 9. In support of its marked Ex.P1 to P17 and M.Os Prosecution Witnesses, learned Sessions' aforesaid. case, the Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and 1 and 2. Accepting the evidence Judge convicted the Accused of as 10. Heard Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Respondent/ State. Counsel for the Appellant Additional Public Prosecutor for the 11. We have carefully scrutinized entire evidence on record. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the under PW-10 for the lorry bearing No. fact that the Accused in dispute that on 26.05.2014 deceased was working as driver AP 07 TU 7539. It is also undisputed was working as a Cleaner for the said lorry. It is also not at about 7.00 a.m the deceased and the Accused left in the said lorry with a juice load to unload the Ichapuram. same at 13. The evidence of PWs-3, 4, 10 and 11 clinchingly show that 26.05.2014 the deceased along with the Accused went to Ichapuram with juice load. It is also the evidence of PW-10, on the morning of 27.05.2014 the deceased telephoned him and informed him stating that he has already unloaded juice stock at ichapuram and collected freight charges of Rs. 29,500/-. on 14. PW-10 in his evidence further stated that he instructed the deceased to go to C.P Company at Pusapatirega to take Prawns load to Peddapuram. PW-10 stated that on the,same day at about 10.40 p.m, PW-11 informed him that the deceased died. Immediately, they went to Pusapatirega and found the dead body of the deceased in the cabin of the lorry. As such, the Prosecution is able to establish that the deceased was in the company of the accused on 26.05.2014. 15. Another witness, who was examined as PW-9, stated in his evidence that he was working as a driver for lorry bearing No. AP 07 TT 5335. In his evidence he has stated that he found the deceased at about 12 noon on 27.05.2014 along with deceased in the lorry. Subsequently, having come to know about the death of the deceased, he went there and found the dead body in the cabin of the lorry. He further stated in his evidence stating that at that time, the Accused was not found near the lorry. As such, the Prosecution is able to prove that the deceased and Accused were seen together just prior to his death through the evidence of PW-9. % 16. The next circumstance relied on by the Prosecution is the extra judicial confession. PW-1 in his evidence has categorically stated that 05.06.2014 when he was in his office near C.P Company, the Accused approached him and confessed stating that he killed the deceased 27.05.2014 in the lorry bearing No. AP 07 TU 7539 and committed theft cash from the pant pocket of the deceased and hidden the Mango Garden situated nearby C.P.Company. 'fv. on \ on of same in a pit at 17. PW-1 further stated that immediately he prepared a Report Ex.P3 and produced him before PW-14, who recorded the confession statements under Ex.P4. On the confession made by the Accused, PW-14 went to Mango Garden situated near C.P.Company and dug a pit and found polythene containing Rs. 15,850/- which is marked as M.0.1. He seized the same in the presence of PW-1 and another under cover of Mahazar i.e Ex.P5. From there, the Accused led PW-14 and mediators to the nearby bushes where they seized M.0.2 Blade. PW-14 seized the same under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P6. As such, the Prosecution is able to prove the confession made by the Accused, which led to recovery of M.Os 1 and 2. cover 18. The other circumstances relied on the Prosecution is the conduct of the Accused. Admittedly, the alleged incident took place on 27.05.2014. It is also admitted fact that the Accused went to Ichapuram and from there to C.P. Company in the same lorry along with the deceased, but after the incident, the Accused was missing. As per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is for the Accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal // 8 death. No such explanation i Accused absconded till IS coming forward. Instead of explaining the 05.06.2014. Further the Accused stated in his ■P.C that on 27.05.2014 itself he and the extra judicial confession by the Investigating Agency, through PW-1. Though he has pleaded the in 313 Cr.P.C Statement, I statement recorded under Section 313 Cr taken into custody by the Police was was planted same or PWs 13 examination about the Police taking him to custody on the no suggestion was given either to PW-1 to 15 in their cross same day. 19. As seen from the entire in absconding from the date of offence i that all the circumstances relied towards the Accused and to material on record, the conduct of Accused - i.e 27.05.2015 till 05.08.2014 indicates on by the prosecution are pointing out guilt none others. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances of case and on perusal of material on record, we have no hesitation to that it is the Accused, who caused death the sake of come to the conclusion of the deceased on the fateful day for sentence passed by the money. As such, the conviction and learned Sessions-Judge needs no interference. 21. In the result, the Criminal conviction and sentence S.C.No.21 of 2016, vide Judgment dated here that the period undergone by Cr.P.C. Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judge in 31.10.2017. It is needless to mention him shall be set off under Section recorded by the learned Sessions 428 of 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District. (With records if any) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 3. The Station House Officer, Pusapatirega Police Station District. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to Smt A.Gayatri Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P at Amaravati. 8. Three CD Copies BSV TAC Vizianagaram Vizianagaram \ high court DATED; 10/07/2025 I I j 1 i JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 1643 OF 2017 r 2 8 JUL 2025 , irentSec CO O' I : 1 ; I I dismissing the criminal appeal 2 I N