1 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 APHC010998622017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH 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: 1708/2017 Between: Polepalli Somaiah ...APELLANT AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A GAYATRI REDDY 2. . 2 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1708 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the Judgment of acquittal passed by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur, in Sessions Case No.143 of 2015, dated 16.8.2017, P.W.2, brother of one Polepalli Balaji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed the present Criminal Appeal. 3 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 2. Respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following three (3) charges. (1) The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 to A4. (ii) Second charge was under Section 404 IPC against A1 to A4 and (iii) Third charge was under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. 3. substance of the charges is that on 07.09.2011, after 5.00 P.M., A1 to A4, at SMR Hostel belonging to A1, committed the murder of the deceased by strangulation and, having confirmed his death, removed his clothes and chappals, placed the same in a black cover, misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,500/- from his pocket, and thereafter, placed the dead body in a drum and took it in an auto rikshaw and threw it into a dilapidated well situated in the fields of Shaik Abdul Nabi (L.W.22), and in order to cause disappearance of evidence, sprinkled petrol on the drum, set fire to it and partially burnt the dead body, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. 4 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses, acquitted respondents No.2 to 5 of the aforesaid charges by Judgment dated 16.8.2017 in S.C.No.143 of 2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 5. Case of the prosecution, as per the allegations made in the charge sheet, is as follows: A1 is a resident of Giddalur and has been working as Campus Supervisor in PRR Polytechnic College, Giddalur, for the past 20 years. In addition, he has been running a hostel situated at Kongalaveedu road, Giddalur. He was also running another hostel for students and operating a mess opposite to PRR Polytechnic College. A2 worked as a cook-cum-auto driver at A1’s hostel. A3 and A4 were students of Polytechnic College and close associates of A1. (ii) The deceased was also resident of Giddalur. He was engaged in the rice business and used to supply rice to the mess and hostel of A1. P.Ws.2 and 3 are brothers of the deceased. P.W.4 is wife of P.W.2 and P.W.5 is cousin of the deceased. In the course of business, A1 became indebted to the deceased to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards supply of the rice. The deceased demanded A1 for the payment on several occasions and had also abused him 5 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 in the presence of students and workers. Despite the same, A1 did not pay the amount. About ten days prior to the date of offence, the deceased, along with P.W.7 and another, went to the hostel of A1 to demand the due amount from him. Since A1 was not available in the hostel, the deceased contacted him over mobile phone and demanded payment, whereupon A1 threatened the deceased with dire consequences. (iii) While so, on the morning of 05.09.2011, the deceased once again went to the hostel of A1 and abused him in filthy language, in the presence of others, as a result of which A1 felt ashamed and decided to kill the deceased. On 07.09.2011, the deceased again went to SMR Hostel and demanded payment of money. A1, in pursuance of the plan earlier devised with A2 to A4, asked the deceased to come to his second hostel in the evening. At about 5.00 P.M. on the same day, A1 telephoned the deceased and asked him to come to the second hostel with A4. The deceased along with A4 went to SMR Hostel to receive the money. On seeing the deceased, A2 to A4 also went into the second room of the hostel. When the deceased entered the said room, A1, who was proceeding behind with a coconut rope, suddenly pushed him forward, causing him to lose balance and hit his head against the wall. Then without 6 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 giving any chance, A1 and A2 tied the coconut rope around the neck of the deceased and A3 and A4 tied nawar tapes around his neck and strangulated him to death. After confirming his death, A1 to A4, with the object of screening the offence, removed the clothes of the deceased, placed them along with his cell phone, the coconut rope, and the nawar tapes in a black colour cover, and packed his chappals in a separate cover. A1 took out an amount of Rs.1,500/- from the pocket of the deceased and handed it over to A4. Thereafter, while searching for a suitable place to dispose of the body, they found a dilapidated well situated in the field of Shaik Abdul Nabi (L.W.22), and accordingly, A1, A3 and A4 placed the dead body in a drum, covered it with plastic bags, transported it in auto rickshaw to the said well, and threw it into it. Then they sprinkled petrol on the drum, set fire to it, and thereby partially burnt the body. Thereafter they returned to SMR Hostel. (iv) While so, on the afternoon of 09.9.2011, some of the shepherds went to the office of the Village Revenue Officer (P.W.1), Kongalaveedu village and informed him that some smoke was emanating from dilapidated well situated in the fields within the limits of Kongalaveedu. On observing the same, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report-Ex.P1. 7 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 (v) P.W.32- the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2011 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P43 is the FIR. Immediately, he along with P.W.1, went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of an unknown person in a charred condition. As it was late in the night, P.W.32 posted a guard at the scene of offence and informed the Clues team and also Dog squad. (vi) On 10.9.2011, P.W.32 took up further investigation and secured the presence of mediators-P.Ws. 1 and 24. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.18 and the photographs along with CD are marked as Ex.P45. He seized MOs.1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11 to 17 at the scene of offence under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P44. He also prepared Rough Sketch-Ex.P46. With the assistance of P.Ws.17 and 18, he got the dead body removed from the well. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 24. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P47. During the inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.16, 17 and another. Then he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (vii) P.W.27-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, CHC, Giddalur, conducted autopsy over the dead body, but could not give any 8 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 definite opinion as to the cause of death on account of extensive burns. (viii) On the evening of 10.9.2011, P.Ws. 2 to 4 went to the police station and informed P.W.32 about missing of the deceased. Basing on the said information, P.W.32 registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2011 under the head ‘Man Missing’. P.W.32 recorded statements of P.Ws. 2 to 4. Subsequently, P.Ws.2 to 4 identified the dead body with the help of M.O.1-black colour slippers. Thereafter, on 16.9.2011, he altered the Section of Law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and issued the altered memo, which is marked as Ex.P48. Further investigation was taken over by the then Inspector of Police, Giddalur Circle. (ix) On 16.9.2011, P.W.23 produced A1 before P.W.34 stating that he had confessed the commission of offence. Confessional statement of A1 was marked as Ex.P23 along with covering letter- Ex.P24. Pursuant to the confession made by A1, P.W.34 visited the hostel and prepared observation report-Ex.P50 and rough sketch- Ex.P51. In furtherance of the said confession, he seized MO9-cell phone from thorny bushes situated opposite to Eswaramma temple, along with coconut rope, nawar tapes and shirt and pant of the deceased. On 17.9.2011, A1 was remanded to judicial custody. 9 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 (x) On 24.9.2011, P.W.34 apprehended A2 at Thaticherla Motu Junction, who is said to have confessed about the commission of offence. Thereafter, A3 and A4 were also arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.9.2011. After collecting all the documents and after completing investigation, P.W.34 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 34, marked Exs.P1 to P62, and exhibited M.Os.1 and 21. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. 8. Disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused vide Judgment dated 16.8.2017, which is impugned in the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1. 10. Admittedly, the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. It was P.W.1, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging report-Ex.P1 10 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 with the police on the information furnished by shepherds. Thereafter, P.W.32 along with P.W.1, visited the scene of offence and found the dead body. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 6 discloses that A1 was due an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the deceased as the latter supplied rice to the hostel of A1. Except to that extent, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 is not at all helpful to the prosecution in any way. 11. P.W.5, in his evidence, stated that on 10.9.2011 he, along with P.Ws. 2 and 3, went to the hostel of A1 and enquired about the deceased, and the students informed them that the deceased had visited the hostel twice on 07.9.2011, once in the morning and again in the evening. However, the so-called students were not examined by the prosecution. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.7 to 22 to establish that the deceased visited the hostel of A1 on 07.9.2011, all those witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. 12. P.Ws. 23 to 25, who are mediators for seizure, also did not support the prosecution. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish even the ‘last seen theory’ in the present case. Insofar as P.Ws.30, 32 and 34 are concerned, they are the Investigating Officers. 11 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 13. As seen from the material on record, absolutely there is no evidence either in support of the ‘last seen theory’ or with regard to recovery, as all the witnesses i.e. P.Ws.7 to 25, did not support the prosecution. As such, there is no material to show that A1 to A4 caused the death of the deceased. Further, the doctor-P.W.7, in his evidence stated that no opinion can be given as to the cause of death. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove even a single circumstance connecting the respondents No.2 to 5 with the alleged offences. 14. Further, this is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal. Because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal, unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the 12 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 15. It is well settled that the scope of interference with an order of acquittal in an appeal is limited. In ‘Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh & anr. 1’, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “…..Coming to the ambit of power of High Court under Section 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue have been over looked. These are the instances where the High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal.” 1 1998 (8) Supreme l 13 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 16. In ‘C.Antony V. K.G.Raghavan Nair2’ while dealing with an order of acquittal, the power of High Court to interfere with the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “Unless the findings of trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record.” 17. In ‘State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran3’, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “While exercising the powers in an appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality land the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decisions is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view, which would upset the judgment, delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law land ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the 2 2003(1) SCC 1 3 (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.)162 14 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to fine out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” 18. In ‘Rupesh Manger (Thapa) Vs. The State of Sikkim45’, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “It is settled that the judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on re- appreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused.” 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the trial Court and the settled legal position laid down in a catena of decisions, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the present Appeal is devoid of merits. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, and as such no interference is required. 4 2023 (3) ALT (Crl.) 129 (SC) 5 (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.)162 15 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 16.8.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.143 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI Date: 06.08.2025 GR 16 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1708 OF 2017 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Criminal Appeal No.1708 of 2017 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date:06.8.2025 GR