APHC010997722017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1675/2017 Between: 1. SUNKARA PAWAN KUMAR @ CHINNA @ SUNKARA, - ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, - ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3278 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 suspend the judgment in SC.ST.SC.No.24/2017 dated 24.10.2017 on the file of the Special Jduge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District & SJ., W.G.District, Eluru and release the petitioner on bail 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 please to grant bail under the provisions of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and "findings recorded" in judgement dated 24 10-2017 in S.C.NO. 24 of 2017 passed by the VIII Dist & Sessions Judge, Eluru. West Godavari dist, the Petitioner herein (SUNKARA PAVAN KUMAR © Chinna @ Sunkara Saleem @ Shaik Saleem, S/o. Venkata Krishna Rao) and pass IA NO: 2 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 to the petitioner herein under the provisions of section 389(1) Cr.P.C.and suspend the operation of the sentence recorded in Judgement dated 24-10-2017 in S.C.No.24 of 2017 passed by the VIII District and Sessions judge, Eluru West Godavari District against the petitioner herein (SUNKARA PAVAN KUMAR) and pass IA NO: 3 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 suspend the operation of the sentence recorded in judgement dated 24-10-2017 in S.C.NO. 24 of 2017 passed by the VIII Dist& Sessions Judge, Eluru. West Godavari dist, against the Petitioner herein (SUNKARA PAVAN KUMAR) and to grant bail to the Petitioner herein under the provisions of Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. and pass such other order IA 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 on bail by suspending the sentence passed in SC ST S.C.NO.24 of 2017 Dated 24-10-2017 by the Court of the special judge for trail of cases under SCs and STS (POA) Act 1989 Cum VIII Addl, District and Sessions Judge West Godavari at Eluru, pending disposal of Crl. A No. 1675/2017 before this Hon'ble court 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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence passed in SC. ST. S.C.No. 24 of 2017, Date: 24-10- 2017 by the Court of the special judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act 1989 Cum VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, pending disposal of Crl.A.No. 1675/2017 before this Hon’ble court and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence passed in SC. ST. S.C.No. 24 of 2017, Date: 24-10- 2017 by the Court of the special judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act 1989 Cum VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, pending disposal of Crl.A.No. 1675/2017 before this Hon'ble court and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. 0 2. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1675 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti) Accused No.1 in SC. ST. Sessions Case No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is the appellant. The appellant, along with other accused, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, under the following charges: First charge was under Section 364 I.P.C. against A1 to A6. Second charge was under Section 342 I.P.C. against A1 to A6. Third charge was under Section 324 I.P.C. against A1 to A6. Fourth charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. against A1 to A6. Page 5 of 18 Fifth charge was under Section 201 I.P.C. against A1 to A6, and Sixth charge was under Section 3(2) (v) (va) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against A1 to A4 and A6. 2. Substance of the charges is that on 16.07.2016 at about 10:00 P.M., A1 to A6 kidnapped Potta Singa Raju @ Raju (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), a member of ST caste, from exhibition grounds near Ambika wines, J.P. Centre, Jangareddigudem. They wrongfully confined the deceased and took him from there in the auto belonging to A5, to compartment No.136 of Marlagudem Forest. A1 to A6 beat the deceased on his head and face indiscriminately with a wet branch, which caused death of the deceased. Thereafter, A1 decapitated the head of the deceased from the trunk, and A2 severed the legs at the knees. The accused buried the trunk in the pit dug by A3, A4 and A6 and kept the decapitated head in a carry bag and threw it into Chakali Cheruvu to screen away the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 364, 342, 324, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) (va) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant/A1 under Section 364 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses belong to Jangareddigudem village and mandal. The deceased, a member of Koya community, is a resident of Buttaigudem Mandal. The deceased earlier worked as a tailor in the shop of PW4, at Jangareddigudem and thereafter in the shop of M. Tirumala Rao, P.W.5, till the previous date of his death. The deceased was married to P.W.8, but discarded her and lived with G. Manga Tayaru @ Bujji, P.W.12 at Jangareddigudem. The deceased was a drinker. A1 to A6, close associates and rowdy sheeters, involved in several cases in and around Jangareddigudem, used to take alcohol at exhibition ground, Jangareddigudem. (ii) On 16.07.2016, at about 10:00 P.M., A1 to A6 purchased liquor at Ambika Wines, Jangareddygudem and went inside the exhibition grounds, where an altercation had taken place between them and the deceased. A1 to A6 abducted the deceased in an auto bearing No.AP 05 TC 0400, belonging to A5 and on the way, they manhandled and beat him indiscriminately on his head and face with a wet branch detached from a tree, due to which the deceased died. Suspecting the possibility of detecting the body of the deceased and their identity, A1, along with A4 and A5, brought a button knife and a crowbar from the house of A1. A1 decapitated head from the trunk, and A2 severed legs at the knees. The accused also damaged the cell phone of the deceased and buried the trunk along with cell phone and chappals in the pit dug by A3, A4 and A6. Thereafter, A1 to A6 threw the decapitated head into Chakali Cheruvu. (iii) On 17.07.2016, at about 11:00 A.M., M. Ramakrishna, P.W.2, was informed by the villagers of Marlagudem about bloodstains and a newly dug and covered pit, at Marlagudem forest area. P.W.2, in turn, informed P.W.1, M. Sri Satyanarayana Murthy, VRO, and P.W.3, M. Karunakar, Deputy Range Officer. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed D. Ravi Kumar, P.W.20, S.I. of Police, Buttaigudem and gave a report Ex P.1. P.W.20 registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and informed P.W.22, Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem. (iv) P.W.22 along with P.W.1, P.W.13, Peram Yedukondalu rushed to the spot. P.W.20, S.I. of Police and other staff noticed the pit. On the instructions of the Police, P.W.13, along with LW22, P. Satyanarayana dug the pit and unearthed the trunk of the deceased. (v) P.W.22, Inspector of Police, took up investigation, examined the first scene of offence in the presence of P.W.1 and LW24, Shaik Karimulla and got drafted scene observation report Ex.P2. He also gave a flash message to the clues team, seized M.Os.1 to 5, M.O.6 with battery, M.Os.7 and 8 and collected blood-stained earth as well as controlled earth from the scene of offence. He also photographed the scene of offence through P.W.18 under Exs.P20 to P25 and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P32. P.W.22 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Later, he sent the dead body to the area hospital, Jangareddigudem, under escort of PC 1240. (vi) Later, P.W.22 proceeded to Decent Tailors at Maszid Centre, Jangareddigudem i.e., shop of P.W.4 and Tirumala Tailors belonging to P.W.5 and recorded statements of P.Ws.4 and 5. Based on the information furnished by P.Ws.4 and 5, he gave intimation to the blood relatives of the deceased. (vii) On 18.07.2016, P.W.22, summoned the blood relatives of the deceased and conducted inquest over decapitated body of the deceased, at 7:00 A.M., in the presence of P.W.1 and others, at Area Hospital, Jangareddigudem. Inquest report is marked as Ex P.3. P.W.22 also recorded the statements of P.Ws. 6, 7, 8, and others. He forwarded decapitated body of the deceased for postmortem examination. (viii) P.W.14, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, area hospital, Jangareddigudem, conducted autopsy over headless dead body of the deceased on 18.07.2016. Ex.P9 is a postmortem certificate. (ix) On 18.07.2016 at about 10:00 A.M., on receipt of credible information, P.W.22, along with P.W.1, L.W.24 and other staff, proceeded to Ambica Wine Shop at JP Centre, Jangareddigudem and came to know about the altercation between A1 and the deceased. He examined and recorded statements of PWs 9, 10 and others. The Police apprehended A1 to A6 at Garudapapakshi Nagar, Jangareddigudem and recorded their confessional statements. M.Os.9 to 11 were seized from A1, A2 and A5, under mediators’ report Ex.P4. Page 10 of 18 (x) On the same day at about 01:00 P.M., P.W.22, along with the mediators, P.W.1 and LW24, Shaik Karimunnissa, led by A1, proceeded to Chakali Cheruvu and recovered the head of the deceased tied in M.O.12 and the same was identified with the help of blood relatives. P.W.22 prepared the second scene observation report, Ex.P5. He got the scene photographed through P.W.18 under Exs.P26 to P29 and prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P33. P.W.22 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.11, 12 and others and conducted inquest over the head of the deceased, in the presence of P.W.1 and other mediators. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. The decapitated head was sent to the area hospital, Jangareddigudem, for autopsy. (xi) Thereafter, P.W.14 conducted autopsy over the head of the deceased at 3:30 P.M. and issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P10. (xii) Thereafter P.W.22 proceeded to Subbammapeta and examined P.W.19, P.W.13 and P.W.18 and recorded their statements. A1 to A6 were arrested at the circle office, and the clothes worn by A1 to A3 were seized. M.O.13 is the shirt and pant of A1, M.O.14 is the shirt and pant of A2, and M.O.15 is the shirt and pant of A3. All the accused were sent to remand. As the deceased is a member of ST community, he added Section 3(2)(v) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and handed over the investigation to P.W.23, SDPO, Jangareddigudem, for further investigation. (xiii) P.W.23, Deputy Superintendent of Police, verified the investigation done by P.W.22, and he received caste certificate of the deceased, Ex.P11, issued by P.W.15, Tahsildar, Buttaigudem and the caste certificates of A1 to A6 issued by P.W.16, Tahsildar, Jangareddigudem, on 22.07.2016. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.15 and 16. (xiv) On 27.07.2016, P.W.23 received Exs.P18 and P19, fingerprint reports issued by P.W.17, Finger Prints Inspector, Eluru and his statement was recorded. (xv) On 27.08.2016, P.W.23 received Exs.P9 and P10, postmortem certificates from P.W.14 and recorded his statement. He forwarded the material objects preserved for DNA by P.W.14 and the mother of the deceased to FSL, Hyderabad, through a letter of advice, Ex.P34. He again secured the presence of P.W.1, P.Ws.4 to 7 and other witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. After completion of the investigation, he filed the final report/charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court, pending DNA report. After receiving DNA report, the same was submitted before the Court. Page 12 of 18 (xvi) In support of the prosecution’s case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, got marked Exs.P1 to P35 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 15. 5. When the accused were examined under Section. 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 6. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/A1 as aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the other accused i.e. A2 to A6. 7. Heard Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no direct witness to the incident, and the prosecution failed to prove the chain of links. The appellant was falsely implicated. He would also submit that P.W.11 deposed that the Inspector of Police, along with his staff, went to Chakali Cheruvu and brought the head of a dead person, tied in a saree. However, the same was not considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He would also submit that the prosecution failed to prove the fingerprints of A1 on M.Os.9 and 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the dead body, and the dead body does not belong to the deceased. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the confession of A1 led to recovery of the head. He would also submit that A1 purchased the beer bottle M.O.7 from the shop of P.W.9, and the said beer bottle was found at the scene of offence, which contains thumb impression of A1. P.W.17, the Fingerprint Inspector, who issued Exs.P18 and 19, stated that the thumb impression found on M.O.7 belongs to A1. He would thus, contend that the appeal lacks merit. 10. We have analysed the entire ocular and documentary evidence on record. 11. As per evidence of the prosecution, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness to the incident. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, time and again held that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the links of the chain and further held that falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused, cannot be made the basis for ignoring any serious infirmity or lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Page 14 of 18 13. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra1 the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down five golden principles to prove the guilt of the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence and held thus: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn (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, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, 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. 14. Since the case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the chain of links i.e. kidnapping and confinement of the deceased; identity of the dead body and the involvement of the appellant/A1 in the crime and also screening of evidence. 15. The prosecution, in the case at hand, proved the identity of the body by examining P.Ws.4 and 5, the owners of Decent Tailors and 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 Tirumala Tailors respectively, with whom the deceased worked as Tailor as well as P.Ws.6, 7, 8, mother, elder sister and wife, respectively, of the deceased and P.W.12, with whom the deceased was living in relationship before his death. 16. M.O.3, kaki colour pant confronted to P.W.4 contains the label of the shop. P.W.6, mother of the deceased, identified the trunk with the help of tattoo mark ‘Bujji’, on the hand of the body. She also deposed that the deceased had been living in a relationship with P.W.12. P.W.7, sister of the deceased, as also P.W.8, wife of the deceased, deposed on the same lines. P.W.12, with whom the deceased was living, identified the trunk with the help of a tattoo. 17. Thus, the prosecution proved identity of the deceased beyond a reasonable doubt. 18. The prosecution examined P.W.17, Fingerprint Inspector, who confirmed the fingerprints of A1 on M.O.7, as certified vide Exs.P18 and 19. The prosecution also examined P.W.24, Assistant Director, FSL, Hyderabad, who deposed that the long bone marked as item No.3 and teeth marked as item No.4 are parts of the body and head, respectively, and both the items belong to the same body as per DNA analysis. DNA report is marked as Ex.P35. Page 16 of 18 19. Thus, the prosecution could establish through Ex.P35 that the headless trunk found at the first scene of offence and the head recovered at Chakali Cheruvu at the second scene of offence belong to one person. 20. The evidence of P.W.14, Civil Assistant surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the trunk and the head of the deceased, issued Exs.P9 and P10 postmortem certificates and opined the cause of death is due to decapitation, which led to haemorrhage and death. 21. To confirm the links in the chain regarding the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution established the kidnapping of the deceased by the appellant along with the other accused from Exhibition Ground. By examining P.Ws.9 and 10, the prosecution established purchase of a beer bottle by the appellant, and galata occurred between the deceased and the accused, in the exhibition ground. The prosecution, by examining P.W.17, Fingerprint Inspector, established that the fingerprints on M.O.7 belong to the appellant. 22. The head was recovered from Chakali Cheruvu, second scene of offence vide Ex.P5, at the instance of A1. In fact, A1 led the team to Chakali Cheruvu, and he himself retrieved the head from the tank. A perusal of Exs.P26 to P29, photographs would reveal the presence of A1 and his bringing the head of the deceased, tied in a saree, from the second scene of offence. The recovery made at the instance of A1, in pursuance of his confession statement, would be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the law declared in Pulukuri Kotayya and Others vs. King Emperor2. 23. Thus, the prosecution established the chain of links i.e., kidnapping the deceased from the exhibition ground, JP Centre, Jangareddigudem, taking him to Marlagudem forest area, confining and killing the deceased intentionally with a button knife, M.O.1, burying headless trunk in a pit dug by accused and throwing the decapitated head tied in M.O.12 into Chakali Cheruvu, to screen away the evidence. 24. Having analysed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge need no interference. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in SC. ST. Sessions Case 2 AIR 1947 P.C. 67 No.24 of 2017 dated 24.10.2017. 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 : 17.09.2025 IKN