APHC010966082017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND 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: 1458/2017 Between: Konduru Lakshmi Narayana ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 17-10-2017 in Sessions Case Nos. 81 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole (for short, 'the trial Court’), the accused therein filed the present criminal appeal before this Court. 2 2. The accused was tried by the trial Court under the following charges: I charge was under Section 364 IPC; II charge was under Section 302 IPC; and III charge was under Section 201 IPC; 3. Substance of the charges is that on 25-11-2014 at about 12.15 p.m., the accused kidnapped one baby girl namely Kunda Aradhya (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), being her junior paternal uncle, from the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 situated at Rajapanagal Road, 7th Cross-Road, Ongole, and took her to the Subabul Garden of P.W.9 situated in Survireddypalem Village on his motorcycle and killed her by throttling her throat and in the same process to screen away the evidence, he poured petrol on the dead body and set fire to her, as a result of which the body was partially burnt and thereafter returned home pretending innocence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC. 4. 4. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant- accused and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 364 IPC; to suffer 3 imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, for the offence under Section 201 IPC. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: P.Ws.1 and 3 are husband and wife and they were blessed with two daughters and one son. P.W.2 is elder daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.4 is husband of P.W.2. The accused is none other than husband of second daughter of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.14 is son of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.Ws.1 and 3 are residing at Rajapanagal Road, Ongole. The accused and his wife Kunduru Viswa Sindhuja-L.W.3 were also residing in the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. The marriage of P.W.2 was performed about four years prior to the date of incident with P.W.4 and they are residing in the same lane nearby the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 was working as Security Supervisor in I.T.C., Throvagunta. P.W.3 is a homemaker. P.W.2 was working in Lakshmi Textiles, Ongole, and her office timings were from 9.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. P.W.4 was working as Security Guard in Federal Bank ATM Centre, Ongole, and he used to attend duty from 7 a.m. onwards. P.W.2 every day used 4 to go to office by dropping the deceased at the house of P.Ws.1 and 3, where the accused and his wife-L.W.3 also used to reside. As the wife of the accused was spending more time with the deceased, conjugal life of the accused was affected. As such, the accused decided to eliminate the deceased and he was waiting for an opportunity. Every day, P.W.2 used to drop the deceased at the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and during lunch time at about 1 p.m., P.W.2 used to come back to feed the deceased and again used to go to her office and used to return in the evening. While so, on 25-11-2014 at about 9 a.m., P.W.2 dropped the deceased in the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and went to her office and P.W.4 also left to his office. At about 12.15 noon, the accused took the deceased on his motorcycle and went out on the pretext of buying biscuits for the deceased. At the relevant point of time, P.W.3 found the deceased missing. At about 1 p.m., P.W.2 returned to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and found the deceased missing. When P.W.2 questioned L.W.3, wife of the accused, the latter informed that the accused took the deceased on his motorcycle to buy biscuits as the deceased was crying. P.W.2 waited for 15 minutes and later, she informed the same to P.W.1 over phone. Immediately, P.W.1 returned home and asked L.W.3 who informed that the accused took the 5 deceased at about 12 noon and went out. When they questioned the accused, he replied that he dropped the deceased at about 12.30 noon in the house. Immediately, P.W.2 informed P.W.4 about missing of the deceased. P.W.4 also returned home and all of them started searching for the deceased. On the same day evening, P.W.1 and the accused went to police station and gave a report-Ex.P1 to police. The accused drafted Ex.P1 and the same was signed by P.W.1. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.17-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole I Town Police Station, registered a case in crime No. 266 of 2014 under the head 'Girl Missing'. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P8 is FIR. Immediately, he went to the house of P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 4. He prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P9 at the house of P.W.1. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.18-the then Inspector of Police, Ongole I Town Police Station. On the same day at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.18 verified the investigation done by P.W.17 and found it on correct lines. On 26-11-2014 at about 5.30 a.m., he along with P.W.17 went to the house of P.W.1 and found P.Ws.1 to 4 present. At that time, the accused along with his wife came to the house of P.W.1. He summoned P.W.10- the then Village Revenue Officer-2, Ongole Town. He interrogated the accused at about 6 a.m. in the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.10. 6 The accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. The accused led P.Ws.17 and 18 to the Subabul Garden of P.W.9 and showed the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 4 also went to the scene of offence along with P.Ws.10, 17 and 18. Immediately, P.W.18 got photographed the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P10. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he arrested the accused at about 9 a.m. and remanded him to judicial custody. Immediately, he returned to police station and altered the Section of law from the head 'Girl Missing' to Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex.P12 is altered FIR. He issued copies of altered FIR to all the concerned. At about 10.30 a.m. on 26-11-2014, he visited the scene of offence along with P.W.12 and others. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P6 at the scene of offence. He also seized M.Os.1 to 10 at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.12 and another. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.12 and another. Ex.P7 is inquest report. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination through P.W.16-Corpse Constable. P.W.11-Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ongole, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. 7 He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. He accordingly issued Ex.P5-post mortem certificate. On 27-11-2014 at about 9 a.m., P.W.18 recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 7 and 13 to 15. As P.W.18 got transferred, his successor- P.W.19-the then Inspector of Police, Ongole I Town Police Station, took up further investigation. P.W.19 verified the investigation conducted by P.W.18 and found it on correct lines. On 08-12-2014, he examined L.W.3 and recorded her statement. He collected two vaginal swabs slides, two anal swabs slides and skin bit from left flank of the deceased and forwarded the same to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, under Ex.P14-letter of advice. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P4. After receipt of all documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 12. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no oral evidence, however got marked Exs.D1 and D2 on his behalf. 8 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused as afore-stated. 9. Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. In the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is categorically stated that on 25-11-2014, P.W.2 dropped the deceased at the house of P.Ws.1 and 3, where the accused and his wife-L.W.3 were also residing. It is also crystal clear that at about 1 p.m., P.W.2 returned to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 to feed the deceased and that she found the deceased missing. It is also stated in their evidence that when P.Ws.2 and 3 questioned L.W.3-wife of the accused, she replied that at about 12 noon, the accused took the deceased on his motorcycle on the pretext of buying biscuits as the deceased was crying. Having received information over phone, P.Ws.1 and 4 returned home. When P.Ws.1 to 4 questioned the accused, the latter replied that shortly thereafter he dropped the deceased at home and went away. Initially, P.Ws.1 to 4 did not 9 express any suspicion as the accused is none other than junior paternal uncle of the deceased. As the deceased was found missing, P.W.1 along with the accused went to police station and gave Ex.P1-report to police. Ex.P1 was drafted by the accused. In Ex.P1, it was only stated that the deceased was found missing from the afternoon on the fateful day. Thereafter, when P.Ws.1 to 4 were in search of the deceased, they came to know through P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15 that they saw the accused taking away the deceased on his motorcycle at 12.15 noon. Having come to know the same through P.Ws.5 to 8, P.Ws.1 to 4 telephoned the accused at about 8 p.m. and the accused replied that he went to his sister's house situated in Mangamuru Village and he would return on the next day morning. On 26-11-2014 at about 5.30 a.m., P.Ws.17 and 18 along with P.W.10-mediator reached the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. At that juncture, the accused along with his wife-L.W.3 came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. When the police enquired the accused, the latter confessed about the commission of offence. The accused also informed the police that he would show the dead body of the deceased, where he killed the deceased. The accused led P.Ws.1 to 4, 10, 17 and 18 to the 10 Subabul Garden of P.W.9. When they arrived at the scene of offence, P.W.9 had already seen the dead body and while P.W.9 was trying to proceed to police station to inform the same to police, P.Ws.17 and 18 found P.W.9. All of them went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. As such, on the basis of confession made by the accused, the dead body was recovered from the fields of P.W.9. 12. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15 would clinchingly establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at 12.30 noon on 25-11-2014 and that on the next day morning at about 6 a.m., the dead body of the deceased was traced out at the instance of the accused. The time gap between last seen and tracing of the dead body is also small. Further, on the night of 25-11-2014, the accused did not return home though P.W.1 telephoned him. The explanation offered by the accused was that he went to his sister's house situated in Mangamuru Village. On the early morning of 26-11-2014, the accused returned to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 and in the presence of P.Ws.10, 17 and 18, he confessed about the commission of offence. Immediately, at the instance of the accused, the dead body was 11 traced out. As such, the time gap between last seen and tracing of the dead body of the deceased is too short and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. 13. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15 is also crystal clear that they saw the accused taking the deceased on his motorcycle at about 12 noon on the fateful day. Though P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15 were cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. As the prosecution is able to prove the last seen theory, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. There was no explanation coming forward from the accused initially. When P.Ws.1 to 4 questioned the accused initially, he gave false explanation that he dropped the deceased at the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 shortly after taking her on his motorcycle for the purpose of buying biscuits. Further, the accused pleaded ignorance at the initial stage. The accused also drafted Ex.P1 and went to police station along with P.W.1 and presented the same before police pretending innocence. Thereafter, the accused left the house of P.Ws.1 and 3 for his sister's house situated in Mangamuru Village. If the accused had returned on 25-11-2014, 12 the dead body of the deceased would have been found the same day itself. Further, the dead body was traced on 26-11-2014 immediately after arrival of the accused to the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15. As such, the prosecution is able to prove last seen theory and also recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused. 14. Ex.P1 was lodged at about 7.30 p.m. on 25-11-2014 and the dead body was traced out on the morning of 26-11-2014. P.W.18 started his investigation from the morning of 26-11-2014, on which date he prepared observation report, inquest report, sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination and also conducted other part of investigation. Immediately, on the next day i.e. on 27-11-2014, P.W.18 recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15. As such, there is no delay on the part of P.W.18 in recording statements of these witnesses. According to P.Ws.1 to 4, immediately after lodging report, they came to know through P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15 about the accused taking away the deceased on his motorcycle. Having come to know the same through these witnesses, P.W.1 telephoned the accused who 13 informed that he went to his sister's house situated in Mangamuru Village. As such, there is no delay in recording statements of P.Ws.5 to 8 and 13 to 15. As already pointed out, if only the accused was available on 25-11-2014, the dead body of the deceased would have been traced out on the same day itself. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and 13 to 15 and therefore the judgment under appeal needs no interference. 16. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 17-10-2017 in Sessions Case Nos. 81 of 2016 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant-accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 14 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J. ______________ Date: 02-07-2025, V.SUJATHA, J. JSK 15 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1458 OF 2017 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) DATE: 02ND JULY, 2025 JSK