APHC010988632017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1594/2017 Between: 1. PARNAM PANDURANGA RAO, S/O. SAMBHASIVA RAO, AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHILAKAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment dated 11-7-2017 in SC.No. 318/2012 passed by the Hon'ble IX Addl.Sessions Judge, (FTC), Krishna at Machilipatnam and acquit the appellant/accused in SC.No. 318/2012. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3134 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 90 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 11-7-2017 in SC.No. 318 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna District at Machilipatnam. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3135 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 enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC.No. 318 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Krishna District at Machilipatnam. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 grant bail by suspending the operation of conviction and sentence passed in SC. 318/2012 on the file of IX Addl. Sessions judge, (FTC) krishna district at machilipatnam pending appeal and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant interim bail for a period of 3 months, pending appeal and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: APHC010112382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1594 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.318 of 2012 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge: (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam, filed the above criminal appeal. 2. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following three charges: the first charge was under Section 376 IPC; the second charge was under Section 302 IPC, and the third charge was under Section 201 IPC. 3. Substance of the charges is that on 12.04.2011, when one Kappiri Divya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), was grazing the goat at Casuarina Garden situated near the burial ground, Mekavanipalem Village of Bandar Mandal, Krishna District, the accused committed rape on her and thereafter, caused her death and in the same transaction, he concealed the dead body in the bushes, to screen the evidence, thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC. 4. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. The learned Additional Sessions judge further convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is: (i) The accused is a resident of Chilakalapudi village, and the deceased is a resident of Mekavanipalem village. All the material prosecution witnesses are also residents of the same village. (ii) PW1 is the mother, PWs2 and 3 are brothers of the deceased. PW4 is the wife of PW3. Page 5 of 14 (iii) The deceased used to graze the goat every day near Casuarina Garden situated near the burial ground. On 12.04.2011, as usual, the deceased left home at 9:00 A.M. along with the goat and went towards Casuarina Garden. The accused followed the deceased and spoke with her at the burial ground, which was witnessed by PWs 4 to 6. As the deceased did not return home, her father (LW1) and PWs 1 to 4 and other villagers searched for her. But, they could not trace out the deceased. On the same day, PWs 4 to 6 informed PW1 and her husband, stating that they saw the accused talking with the deceased between 1:30 and 2:45 P.M. near Casuarina Garden. On coming to know about the same, the parents of the deceased, at about 7:00 P.M. on the same day, asked the accused at the railway gate about the deceased. But the accused gave an evasive reply. The next day at about 7:30 A.M., PWs 1 to 3 started searching for the deceased and at about 9:00 A.M., they came across PW7, who was grazing sheep. When PWs 1 to 3 enquired PW7 about the deceased, the latter informed them that he was not aware of the deceased, but the accused had handed over a goat to him on the previous night, at about 8:00 P.M., asking him to sell the same. Immediately, PWs 1 to 3 and LW1 went to the house of PW7 and identified the goat belonging to them and brought it back to their residence. When all of them searched for the deceased, they found the dead body in the bushes of Casuarina Garden. They found that the hands and legs of the deceased were tied with a rope and noticed injuries on the body. Immediately, PW1 went to the Police Station and gave a report, which was drafted by PW10. The signature of PW10 was marked as Ex.P8. (iv) Pending trial, the father of the deceased (LW1) died. In the forenoon, on 13.04.2011, PW13, Head Constable, Bandar, Taluka Police Station, received a report from LW1 at about 13:30 hours and registered a case in crime No.64 of 2011 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He issued copies of the FIR to all the concerned. The report given by the father of the deceased was marked as Ex.P12, and the FIR was marked as Ex.P13. Further investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, PW16. v) PW16 proceeded to the scene of the offence situated at R.S.No.41/1 of Mekavanipalem village, Machilipatnam Rural. He prepared an observation report (Ex.P21) at the scene of the offence in the presence of PW11 and another. He took photographs under Ex.P22, and the corresponding CD was marked as Ex.P23. He also prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P24, at the scene of the offence. He seized MOs 2 to 6 at the scene of the offence under a Panchanama (Ex.P25). He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 7 and 10. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW11 and another. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P10. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. vi) PW14, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to strangulation. He also found injuries on the private parts of the deceased. He issued a postmortem certificate (Ex.P14). (vii) On 14.04.2011, PW16 recorded statements of PWs7 to 9 and another. On 15.04.2011, PW16 arrested the accused at Gokavaram crossroads, in the presence of PW11 and another under a panchanama (Ex.P11). Basing on the confession made by the accused, PW16 added Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. He sent the accused for medical examination. viii) PW15, Civil Assistant Surgeon, examined the accused and gave a potency certificate under Ex.P17. On 16.04.2011, he sent material objects to FSL, Hyderabad. FSL report is marked as Ex.P18. PW12, JFCM, Excise Court, Machilipatnam, recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the prosecution witnesses. ix) Further investigation was taken over by PW17 after transfer of PW16. On 02.10.2011, PW17 took up further investigation, and on the same day, he received FSL report. He forwarded the report to PW14. On the basis of the same, PW14 gave his final opinion. After receiving all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW17 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and exhibited MOs 1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 was marked. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PWs 4 to 7, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. He would submit that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The accused was falsely implicated in the crime, and there is no eyewitness to the incident. 11. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment. 12. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. Page 9 of 14 13. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3, mother and brothers of the deceased. They spoke about the deceased, who used to graze goat, went missing; the search for the girl, inquired with the accused about the girl; found the goat with P.W.7 and later found the dead body. 14. PW4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased, and the wife of PW3 was examined to establish the last seen theory. PWs 5 and 6, independent witnesses, are also examined to establish the last seen theory. PWs 4 to 6 consistently deposed that they saw the accused talking with the deceased at the scene of the offence between 1:30 P.M. and 2:45 PM. PWs 1 to 3, in their evidence, categorically stated that on the evening of 12.04.2011, they came to know through PWs 4 to 6 that the accused was talking with the deceased near Casuarina Garden. It is their further evidence that having come to know through PWs 4 to 6 about the same, PWs 1 to 3 and L.W.1 went and questioned the accused about the deceased, but he gave an evasive reply. 15. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 further discloses that on 13.04.2011, in the morning, when they were searching for the deceased, they came across PW7. PWs 1 to 3 inquired PW7 about the deceased. PW7 told them that he was not aware of the deceased, but informed them that on the previous night at about 8:00 P.M., the accused handed over a goat to him, and requested him to sell it. It is further evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that immediately they went to the house of PW7, identified their goat and brought the same back to their house. When they were searching for the deceased, they found her dead body in the bushes at Casuarina Garden. Immediately, the father of the deceased (LW1) lodged a report under Ex.P8, drafted by PW10, based on which the criminal law is set into motion. 16. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of a goat from the house of PW7, and the last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is tracing the dead body of the deceased near the scene of the offence. 17. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 4 to 6. PWs 4 to 6 consistently deposed that they saw the accused following and talking with the deceased between 1:30 to 2:45 P.M. near the scene of the offence at Casuarina Garden. Though these three witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been established. As such, the prosecution proved the last seen theory beyond a reasonable doubt. Page 11 of 14 18. Coming to the second circumstance i.e. recovery of the goat from the house of PW7, PWs 1 to 3, in their evidence specifically stated that on 13.04.2011 from 7:30 A.M. while all of them were searching for the deceased, they came across PW7, a shepherd, who is also resident of the same village and when PWs1 to 3 inquired with PW7, he informed them that in the last night at about 8:00 P.M., the accused approached him and handed over the goat asking him to sell the same. Immediately, PWs 1 to 3 went to the house of PW7 and identified their goat and brought the same back to their house. Though PW7 was cross- examined, nothing adverse has been elicited from his evidence. Of course, PW7 is an independent witness who is not related to the family of the deceased. As such, the prosecution proved the recovery of the goat from PW7, which was handed over by the accused. 19. The third circumstance i.e. recovery of the dead body, is concerned, the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 is consistent, and when they were searching for the deceased, the dead body was found in the bushes with injuries. As such, the prosecution could able to prove the recovery of the dead body at the scene of the offence. 20. Apart from establishing three circumstances, the accused has not given any explanation as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the prosecution was able to prove that the deceased was in the company of the accused at the relevant point of time, it is for the accused to explain how the deceased met with homicidal death. However, even as per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, instead of giving an explanation, the accused gave an evasive reply when he was questioned, the previous night. As such, the cumulative effect of the circumstances lead to the conclusion that it is the accused, who alone, is responsible for the death of the deceased. All the circumstances relied on by the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused alone and to none others. 21. In this connection, it is trite that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra1, has laid down five (5) golden principles, which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence: "(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 1 (1981) 4 SCC 116 (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be followed, AND (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 22. In the case on hand also, the prosecution is able to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and to none others. 23. Further the substantive version spoken by PWs1 to 6 was corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW14 coupled with Ex.P14. 24. PW14, in his postmortem examination report (Ex.P14) found the following injuries: 1) multiple injuries extending from left parital bone extending to right parital up to 12 CM length; 2) tears seen over vaginal walls; 3) the hymen was irregularly torn and a posterior tear deep 3 CM; 4) laceration extending from left parital area to right parital area is in ‘∩’ shape and irregular. Page 14 of 14 25. The evidence of the Doctor also suggests that the deceased was subjected to sexual intercourse. As such, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 26. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits in the present appeal on the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and does not need any interference. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge: (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam in Sessions Case No.318 of 2012 dated 11.07.2017. It is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 21.08.2025 IKN