1 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 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 Nos.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 27.07.2017, in S.C.No. 29 of 2014 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur, the appellant-accused No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.1361 of 2017. Aggrieved by the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 5, de facto complainant- P.W.2, wife of Kanala Kasi Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed Criminal Appeal No.1465 of 2018. 2 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 2. Since both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellant-accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 5 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: First charge was under Section 120-B IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 5; Second charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 5; Third charge was under Sections 26 and 27 of the Arms Act against accused No.1; 4. Substance of the charge is that A1 to A5 suspected the deceased to be responsible for the death of one Kasireddy Ramana Reddy by practising witchcraft, conspired together on 20.10.2011 to eliminate the deceased, and in the said process, A1 fired at the deceased at about 10.00 p.m. on 20.10.2011 while the latter was attending to tractor repairs, causing his death and committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 IPC and under Sections 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. 5. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 5 of all the charges, convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 3 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 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 one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days. Both the sentences imposed under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were directed to run concurrently. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: A1, A2 and A4 are residents of Ankanampalli village, whereas A3 is a resident of Surapalli village and relative of one Kasireddy Ramana Reddy. A5 is a resident of Uyyalavada Village. Subsequently, A1 shifted his residence to Parameshwar Nagar. A1 is a ‘hunter’ by profession and owns Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural land. The deceased worked for Telugudesam party and had political rivalry with late Kasireddy Ramana Reddy, who worked as the Sarpanch of Uyyalavada group of villages. Kasireddy Ramana Reddy died in the year 2006 due to ill-health. A2 to A5 suspected that the death of Ramana Reddy was caused by practising witchcraft by the deceased, hence, they along with one Obula Reddy, father of Kasireddy Ramana Reddy, conspired in the year 2006 and engaged 4 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 A1 to kill the deceased, promising to pay him Rs.60,000/-. Obula Reddy paid an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- to A1. However, Obula Reddy died in the year 2008 and the deceased gained the upper hand in politics. (ii) On 19.10.2011, A2 to A4, again met A1 at his house in Parameswar Nagar and expressed their dissatisfaction in not completing the task. On 20.10.2011, A1 loaded his country made gun, which was observed by P.Ws.15 and 16. Thereafter, A1 went to Ankanampalli village at about 4.00 p.m. and consumed arrack in the house of his relative. A2 to A4 met A1 and insisted him to kill the deceased. At about 8.00 p.m., A1 met the deceased while latter was attending to repairs of his tractor. P.W.3 was also there. After dinner, at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased and P.W.3 again resumed the tractor repairs. At that time, A1 said to have come near a Tamarind tree from where he fired at the deceased with MO5-country made gun and fled away from the scene. On hearing the gunshot, P.W.4 and the family members of the deceased rushed out and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. On the same night, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report. (iii) On receipt of Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 at about 00.30 hours on 21.10.2011, P.W.23 – the then ASI of Giddalur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.192 of 2011 for the offence 5 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 punishable under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P12. (iv) Having received information, P.W.28-the then Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Circle, took up investigation. He went to Ankanampalli village at about 3.00 a.m. and posted a guard at the scene of offence situated in front of the house of the deceased. At about 6.00 a.m. he secured the presence of P.Ws.19 and 20 and seized MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P19 and rough sketch-Ex.P20. He also took the photographs, which are marked as Ex.P21. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.19 and 20. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P22. At the inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 10. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (v) P.W.22-the then Medical Officer, CHC, Giddalur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to ‘Neurogenic and Haemorrhagic shock’. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P11. (vi) On 23.10.2011, P.W.28 visited Ankanampalli village and re-examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and 10 and recorded their statements. He also recorded statement of P.W.4. On 25.10.2011 he went to Ankanampalli Village again and recorded statements of P.Ws. 5 and 6. 6 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 (vii) On 04.11.2011, at about 3.00 p.m, P.W.28 apprehended A1 near Dantherapalli village in the presence of mediators. A1 is said to have confessed about the commission of offence. He arrested A1 in the presence of mediators at about 5.00 p.m. On the confession made by A1, he recovered MO5-country made gun from his fields situated at Parameshwar Nagar. On the same day, P.W.28 arrested A2 to A5 at about 10.30 p.m. at Bus stand, Giddalur. All the accused were remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2011. (viii) On 07.11.2011, P.W.28 recorded statements P.Ws. 11 to 14. On 08.11.2011 he recorded statements of P.Ws.15 to 17. On 18.11.2011 P.W.28 forwarded MOs.1,2,4 and 5 to RFSL, Hyderabad under letters of advice-Exs.P24 and 25. RFSL reports were marked as Exs.P26 and 27. (ix) On 12.9.2012, P.W.28 obtained Sanction orders-Ex.P28 from the District Collector. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation-P.W.28 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 28 and got marked Exs.P1 to P28 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 5. 8. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them and reported no defence evidence. 7 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 as stated supra. 10. Heard Sri Rajareddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Since the learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1465 of 2018 was appointed as Government Pleader and as the wife of the deceased could not make any alternate arrangement, this Court requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to advance submissions in Criminal Appeal No.1465 of 2018. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his submissions in the said Appeal. 11. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 strenuously contends that there is no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. He further contends that the so-called conspiracy took place in the year 2006 along with one Obula Reddy. The said Obula Reddy, along with A2 to A5, entrusted the task of eliminating the deceased to A1, promising to pay him an amount of Rs.60,000/- and that an advance of Rs.15,000/- was paid by Obula Reddy to A1. The said conspiracy took place on 25.12.2006. However, the said Obula Reddy died in 8 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 the year 2008. As such, he contends that no credence can be given to the so-called conspiracy that allegedly took place in the year 2006. 12. He further contends that after five years i.e. on 19.10.2011, A2 to A5 met A1 at the house of latter and expressed their dissatisfaction in not completing the task. On the next day i.e. on 20.10.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., the attack took place. 13. He also contends that admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the said incident and that the prosecution rests its case entirely on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the arrest of A1 and recovery of MO5-country made gun from the field of A1. 14. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to establish the so-called conspiracy, and in fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A2 to A5 of all the charges. Once the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy, it is contended, A1 alone cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of MO5-country made gun. He also contends that the mediator-P.W.21 for the recovery of MO.5-country made gun also did not support the prosecution. 15. He also contends that P.Ws. 1 to 7, 9 and 10, who are closely related to the deceased, have not witnessed the incident, and their evidence is also not at all helpful to the prosecution in establishing 9 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 the attack said to be made by the appellant-A1. Likewise, the other villagers i.e. P.Ws.11 to 15, did not support the prosecution. Even the so-called witnesses who were examined to speak about the accused loading the gun and regarding the alleged conspiracy, namely P.Ws. 16 to 20, also did not support the prosecution. 16. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan 1. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 contends that absolutely there is no material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence and requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 17. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that, though P.Ws. 11 to 21 did not support the prosecution, the fact remains that MO5-country made gun was recovered at the instance of appellant-A1 from his fields. He further contends that RFSL report-Ex.P27 confirms that gun shot was fired from MO5-country made gun. 18. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 724 10 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 A.S. Krishnan and others Vs. State of Kerala 2, wherein it was held as follows; “Acquittal of some of the co-accused from the charge of conspiracy cannot really affect the accusations under Section 471 IPC. In Madan Lal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1590 : 1967 Cri LJ 1401] two persons were tried for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 477-A and 120-B IPC. Though the accusations under Section 120-B were set aside, the High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 409 simpliciter. A contention was raised before this Court that if the charge relating to criminal breach of trust was along with the charge of conspiracy, conviction simpliciter for criminal breach of trust would not be valid. This Court held that if the charge of conspiracy is followed by substantive charge of another offence there is nothing to prevent the court convicting an accused for the substantive charge even if the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.” 19. The other judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the prosecution is State Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Another 3, wherein it was held as follows, 2 (2004) 11 Supreme Court Cases 576 3 (2001) 1 Supreme Court Cases 652 11 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 “Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.” 20. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the finding that the appellant/A1 killed the deceased with MO5- country made gun is sustainable. 21. But, in the case on hand, the mediator for the arrest, who was examined as P.W.21, did not support the prosecution. Further, the evidence of P.Ws. 26 to 28 is mutually contradictory. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.26 to 28 does not inspire confidence of this Court to the so-called recovery of MO5 at the instance of the appellant. 22. We have carefully analysed the entire evidence on record. 12 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 23. According to the prosecution, the so-called conspiracy took place on 25.12.2006 between Obula Reddy and A2 to A5 with A1. It is further case of the prosecution that A2 to A5 and Obula Reddy agreed to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- to A1 for killing the deceased, and that an advance amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid by Obula Reddy to the appellant/A1 on 25.12.2005. But, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution with regard to the so-called conspiracy that took place between A1 to A5 on 25.12.2006. 24. Curiously, on 19.10.2011, A2 to A5 met A1 at his residence and expressed their dissatisfaction in not eliminating the deceased and on the very next day i.e. on 20.10.2011 at about 10.00 p.m., the incident took place. As such, from 25.12.2006 till 20.10.2011, nothing had happened. In the meantime, Obula Reddy, who was having animosity against the deceased, died in the year 2008. So far as the relatives of the deceased are concerned i.e. P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 and 10, their evidence is not at all helpful in any manner except narrating the activities of the deceased. 25. Having analysed the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of MO5-country made gun from the fields of the appellant/A1. P.W.28, in his evidence, has stated that on 04.11.2011, at about 5.00 p.m., 13 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 he arrested the appellant at Dantherapalli village in the presence of P.W.21 and others. 26. P.W.28, in his evidence, stated that the appellant/A1 voluntarily led them to his fields and produced MO5. In his cross- examination he stated as follows; “It is vacant land when MO5 was seized and it is a dry land and there was no standing crop in surrounding fields.” 27. According to P.W.28, he has categorically admitted in his evidence that the land from which MO5 was recovered is a dry land and that there was no standing crop. 28. Curiously, P.W.27, the then Constable, Giddalur Police Station, stated in his cross-examination as follows; “The fields where the weapon was seized is facing towards southern side. It is true that there was standing crop by that time and it is wet land.” 29. P.W.27 has stated contrary to the evidence of P.W.28. As the Mediator,P.W.21, did not support the prosecution, this Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws. 27 and 28. 30. Having scrutinised the evidence of P.Ws. 27 and 28, it is doubtful whether MO5 was recovered at the instance of the appellant/A1 from his fields. P.Ws. 27 and 28 have given divergent versions regarding the nature of the fields. 14 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 31. P.W.26-the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Station, who accompanied P.W.28 and participated in the recovery proceedings, has admitted in his cross-examination as follows; “It is true that by the time of arresting A1 we know about the place where MO5 was kept, but we don‟t know the exact place where it is”. 32. Having perused the evidence of P.Ws.27 and 28, the Investigating Officers, it is apparent that their evidence is contradictory to each other with regard to recovery of MO5-weapon. 33. As already pointed out, the mediator, P.W.21, did not support the prosecution. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment referred to supra (1) has held as follows, “25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 26. If the recovery memos were prepared at the police station itself then the same would lose their sanctity as held by this Court in Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan [(2011) 12 SCC 545 : AIR 2011 SC 72] . 15 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 27. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor [(1946-47) 74 IA 65 : AIR 1947 PC 67] reproduced herein below: (IA p. 77) “… it is fallacious to treat the „fact discovered‟ within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that „I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house‟ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added „with which I stabbed A‟, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” The same were thereafter restated in another judgment of this Court in Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 597] 28. The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was once again discussed and summarised in Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 3 SCC 210 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 733] in the following terms: (SCC pp. 214-15, para 10) “10. … It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible 16 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.” 34. Having analysed the evidence of P.Ws. 26 to 28 with close scrutiny, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the so-called recovery of MO5 at the instance of the appellant/A1. 35. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant/A1 is liable to be set aside. 36. As all the prosecution witnesses, who were examined to speak the so-called conspiracy, did not support the case of the prosecution and as there is no other evidence connecting the respondents No.2 to 5/A2 to A5 in Criminal Appeal No.1465 of 2018, we do not find any illegality in the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it needs no interference. 37. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.1361 of 2017 is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused No.1 by judgment dated 27.7.2017 in S.C.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur and Criminal 17 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 Appeal No. 1465 of 2018, filed by the appellant-de facto complainant, is dismissed as devoid of any merit. The appellant- accused No. 1 is acquitted of all the charges. As the appellant- accused No.1 was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in terms of the order passed by Division Bench of the composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs. State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, he is directed to surrender himself before the concerned jail authorities and complete the formalities for his release. Fine amount paid by the appellant-accused No.1, if any, shall be refunded to him. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI Date: 18.09.2025 GR 18 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 19 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal Nos.1361 of 2017 and 1465 of 2018 (Per Hon‟ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 18.9.2025 GR