V V, APHC010922842017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1523 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment dated 13- 12-2016 passed in SC.No.8 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum- V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, Nellore District. Between; Kommireddy Anjaiah, S/o. Ramanjaneyulu @ Kondaiah, Caste: Dommara, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o. Raghavareddy Colony, Near Fish Market, Buchireddypalem Village and Mandal, Nellore District. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor : Sri Raja Reddy Koneti The Court made the following order: APHC010922842017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] THURSDAY,THE THIRD 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: 1523/2017 Between: 1.KOMMIREDDY ANJAIAH, S/0. RAMANJANEYULU @ KONDAIAH, TRACTOR DRIVER, R/0. RAGHAVAREDDY COLONY, NEAR FISH MARKET, BUCHIREDDYPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to lA NO: 1 OF 2017fCRLAMP‘ 2991 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 condone the delay of 17 days in reprsenting the criminal appeal Sr.No. 40159 of 2017. lA NO: 2 OF 2017fCRLAMP 2992 OF 2017 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1523_2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to condone the delay of 262 days in filing the criminal appeal against the iudgment dated 13-12-2016 in SC.No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Honble Spl.Judge for Trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum- V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. lA NO: 3 OF 2017fCRLAMP 2993 OF 2011 that in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be to bail by suspending the judgment datd 13-12-2016 the file of the court of the Spl.Judge for trial of V Additional Sessions Judge, enlarge the petitioner on passed in SC.No. 8 of 2010 on offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act -cum- pending disposal of the above criminal appeal. Nellore lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to release the petitioner/appellant on bail pending the above Criminal Appeal No, 1523 of 2017 in this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant; 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI 2.- Counsel for the Respondent; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following; 3 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1523 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’bleSri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.8 of 2010 on the file of Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Special Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 IPC. The second charge was under Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. 1989. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 24.03.2008, at about 02.00 p.m., the accused cut the throat of one Bojja Sakkubayi (gNavaneethamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), in the house situated at Arundhatiyawada colony, Inamadugu village, Kovur mandal, Nellore district, who belongs to SC community, causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. 1989. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused under both charges and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months under two counts. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. KSRJ& VSJ Crla_1523_2017 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows: The accused is a resident of Buchireddypalem and eking out his livelihood by driving tractor. P.W.1 is none other than younger brother of the deceased and both of them were residents of Inamadugu village. P.W.1 and the deceased belong to Scheduled Caste. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Bojja Nagaraju about 12 years ago and they were blessed who was examined as P.W.5. The deceased quarreled with her husband and left the matrimonial home and started living in the house of P.W.1 along with her son. Subsequently, the husband of the deceased by due to ill-health. The deceased used to visit frequently and got acquaintance with the accused, the accused also started living with the deceased in the house of (i) with a son. name Nagaraju died Buchireddypalem Thereafter, Inamadugu village. The accused, deceased, son of the deceased and wife of P.W.1 (L.W.2) are residing in the said house. P.W.1 at (P.W.5), P.W.1 P.W.1 used to attend for agricultural coolie works. After sometime, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and threatened her to While so, on 24.03.2008, after taking lunch, P.W.1 left the house. (ii) wife of P.W.1 remained at house. On the same day, at about < P.W.4 — neighbor of P.W.1, received a call from the whereas the 05.00 or 05.30 p.m. 5 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1523 2017 accused and asked him to hand over the phone to the wife of P.W.1 (L.W.2). Then, P.W.4 gave his mobile to L.W.2. The accused said to have informed her that he has done some great thing and asked her to go inside the house along with four or five persons. Immediately, she along with P.W.4 entered the house and found the deceased lying dead on the ground with an injury to throat. At the same time, P.W.1 also said to have entered the house and found the dead body. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police station and gave a report (Ex.P.1). P.W.9 - S.l. of Police, Kovur Police station received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 at about 10.00 p.m., and registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P.9 is the FIR. (iii) At about 02.30 a.m., on 25.03.2008, P.W.12 - C.l. of Police, Kovur circle received information along with copy of FIR. Immediately, P.W.12 went to the village. At about 03.30 a.m., he went to the scene of offence and took up investigation. Immediately, he informed the SDPO who was in charge of Nellore Rural Sub-Division about the commission of the offence and requested him to visit the scene of offence, but, P.W.12 was instructed to take up the investigation as SDPO was engaged in another case. Then, P.W.12 took up investigation. He prepared an observation report (Ex.P.4) in the presence of P.W.7 and another, with the assistance of P.W.1. P.W.12 seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of offence. He also prepared a rough sketch 6 KSR,J&VS,J Crla_1523_2017 ' ^ (Ex.P.12) at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.7 and another. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and others during inquest. He also got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.7. Photographs were marked as Ex.P.14. Vie sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.10 - Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock associated with respiratory arrest caused by cut injury to neck. He issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.10). (iv) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.11 - SDPO. On 26.03.2008, he received proceedings (Ex.P.11) authorizing him to conduct investigation in the present case. He visited the village on 26.03.2008 at about 08.00 a.m., and collected C.D. file from P.W.12. He secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He found the accused absconding. On 29.03.2008, at about 03.30 p.m., he visited the scene of offence and (V) recorded the statements of P.Ws.5, 6 and others. On 06.05.2008, he received postmortem certificate (Ex.P.10). Further investigation was taken over by his successor P.W.13 - SDPO. On 19.05.2009, P.W.13 filed charge sheet which was returned on the ground that the accused was not apprehended. On 18.08.2009, upon receiving credible information, P.W.13 apprehended the accused in the presence of P.W.7 and another. On the confession made by KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1523_2017 .V Z the accused, P.W.13 recovered M.0.4 - knife, hidden in the Earth by the side of coconut tree. The said knife was seized under panchanama (Ex.P.7). The accused was remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, marked exhibits PI to PI4 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, Exs.DI to D3 - portion of*Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5 were marked. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. K. Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. There are no eyewitnfesses to the alleged incident and case rests on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused telephoned to P.W.4 and asked him to hand over phone to L.W.2 and informed her that he has done a great job and asked her to go inside the house along with four or five persons to see what happened. This circumstance is to be treated as extra judicial confession. The next 5. Marri Venkata Ramana, KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1523_2017 circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that recovery of M.0.4 - knife, at the instance of the accused. So far as first circumstance i.e. the so called extra judicial confession is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.4. If really the accused telephoned to P.W.4, the investigating agency ought to have investigated into the case by seizing the phone of P.W.4 and by obtaining call data details of the said phone. But, no such investigation done in this case. The prosecution could not able to furnish atleast the number of the mobile phone of P.W.4. Absolutely, no material is placed before the Court with regard to the said phone call made by the accused to P.W.4 at about 05.00 or 05.30 p.m., on 24.03.2008. Curiously, P.W.4, in his cross examination has specifically admitted that he is not acquainted with accused and he never spoke to him. He further admitted in the cross examination stating that the accused never telephoned to him either before or after the incident. The investigation is also silent as to how the accused came to know the mobile number of P.W.4. Absolutely, prosecution has not taken any steps to prove that the accused made a phone call to P.W.4 at the relevant point of time. was 8. Further, wife of P.W.1, who was cited as L.W.2 was having mobile phone. In the charge sheet, it is specifically stated that L.W.2 was having mobile phone. It is not acceptable that the accused, instead of telephoning to L.W.2 or P.W.1, made a call to P.W.4, who is a stranger. Further, the 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1523_2017 evidence adduced by the prosecution is clear that the accused, deceased and (P.W.5), P.W.1 and L.W.2 are residing in the house. Admittedly, the the house at the relevant point of time and it is her son accused was not present in L.W.2, who was present in their house at the relevant point of time. Curiously, evidence, though she was cited as As such, when there are four persons residing in the prosecution withheld L.W.2 from giving L.W.2 in the charge sheet, the house, the liability cannot be fixed on the appellant alone that it is the appellant who caused the death of the deceased. observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in catena of judgmenfs sfating that the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of reliance can be placed on the 9. Further, as evidence and unless corroboration is there, no . So far as recovery of M.0.4 - knife, is concerned, no importance can the house belonging to P.W.1. Further, P.W.10 blood strains were found on M.0.4. Further, the said FSL for chemical analysis. In view of the above facts have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the same be given as it was seized from did not say whether any M.0.4 was not sent to and circumstances, we passed by the learned Special Judge cannot be called extra judicial confession, said to not examined, for the best reasons known conviction and sentence sustained only on the basis of the so have been made to L.W.2 who was to the prosecution. < - 10 l<SRJ& VS,J Crla_1523_2017 same, this criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.Cs and S,Ts (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judg S.C.No.8 of 2010 dated 13.12.2016 As the appellant 10. In view of the e, Nellore in is hereby set-aside. 11. was granted bail by this Court vide 20.02.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in terms of the orders of the combined Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao & others order dated High V. State of A.P.\ the Superintendent, Central Prison, as envisaged in the order of the appellant is directed to surrender before the Nellore and complete all the formalities combined High Court stated for the offence punishable under Section SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 shall be refunded supra. Further, the fine amount, if any, paid by A2 302 iPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the to him. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ^ 2016(3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act - cum- V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, Nellore District. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, Nellore District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, Nellore District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kovur Police Station, Nellore District. 5. Kommireddy Anjaiah, S/o. Ramanjaneyulu Kondaiah, Caste: Dommara, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o. Raghavareddy Colony, Near Fish Market, Buchireddypalem Village and Mandal, Nellore District. 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Two CD Copies 7. 8. 9. TK vna HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 JUDGMENT CRLANo.1523of 2017 ^3 0JUL2tl25 Vgj S-*sCutTmt ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL