APHC011039422017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 17fifi OF 9ni7 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed in S.C No.170 of 2014 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, (Before the Court of Sessions District and , Chittoor Division) Between: 1. Vali Mohan, S/o late V.Lakshmaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o. I, Chittoor District. Kishore, S/o M. Tiruvengadam, aged Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor Damineedu Village, Tiruchanur, Tirupathi Mandal 2. Mullapoodi Kishore Kumar alias about 35 years, R/o 18-1-560/A, District. 3. Kalaambaadi Rajesh alias Raja alias Rajanna aged about 35 years, R/o 18-1-722, District S/o K. Chengalarayulu, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor 4. Cherukula Yallappa, S/o late Kalasa Mandhadi aged about 36 years, R/o D.No. 20-5-12/6C, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Korlagunta, beside S K Fast Foods, Triupathi, Chittoor District. ...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 4 AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellant No.1: Sri Koneti Raja Reddy Counsel for Appellant Nos.2 & 3: Sri G Vijaya Saradhi Counsel for Appellant No.4: Sri B V Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: f APHC011039422017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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: 1756/2017 Between; MOHAN, R/0. DAMINEEDU VILLAGE, TRIUCHANUR, 1.VALI tirupathi mandal, chittor district KISHORE, S/0 M. 2.MULLAPOODI KISHORE KUMAR ALIAS TIRUVENGADAM, aged about 35 YEARS. R/0 181560/A BHAVANI NAGAR TIRUPATHI CHITTOR DISTRICT 3.KALAAMBAADI RAJESH ALIAS RAJA ALIAS RAJANNA, S/0 K. CHENGALARAYULU. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BHAVANI NAGAR TIRUPATHI CHITTOR DISTRICT 4.CHERUKULA YALLAPPA, S/0 LATE KALASA MANDHADI, AGED about 36 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 20-5-42/6C, SANJAY GANDHI COLONY. KORLAGUNTA BESIDE S K FAST FOODS, TRIUPATHI CHITTOR DIST R/0 18-1-722, ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY P P, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to - KSRJ & VS,J Crla_1756_2017 lA NO: 1 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 o suspend the sentence imposed in the judgment dated 11.12.2017 passe in learned III additional District and Sessions Judge, of Sessions'.chittoor Division) and release the S.C.No. 170 of 2014 by the Triupathi(Before the Court petitioners on bail pending disposal of teh Criminal Appeal lA 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 release the petitioner/Appellant/A4 on bail, pending Crl.Appeal No.1756/2017, in this Hon'ble Court and pass such other orders may deems fit and proper in the above circumstances of the case to the satisfaction of the II AJFCM Court, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, in the interest of justice. !A 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 suspend the execution of sentence passed in Sc 170/2014 on the file of lllrd Additional District and sessions judge, Tirupati, Chittoor district dated 11-12-2017 and release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal no 1756/2017 before this Honourable court lA 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 judgment in SC.No. 170/2014 on Tirupathi, Chittoor District Dt. 11.12.2017 and pending Crl. Appeal No. 1756/2017 in this Hin'ble Court and pass lA NO: 4 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 execution of sentence passed in S.C.No. 170 of 2014 release the Petitioner/Appellant/A.4 on bail and suspend the file of the III Additional District Judge, 3 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 on the file of Ilird Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dated 11-12-'2017 and release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 1756 of 2017 before this Honourable Court and to pass lA NO: 5 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 execution of sentence passed s in S.C.No. 170 of 2014 on the file of Ilird Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, dated 11-12-2017 and release the petitioner on bail during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal No. 1756 of 2017 before this Honourable Court and to pass such order Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI 2.BV KRISHNA REDDY 3.G VIJAYASARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 4 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 The Court made the following JUDGMENT; (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) All the four accused in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge”) are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 to A3, and the second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A4. Substance of the charge is that on 17.07.2013, at about 02.10 p.m., A.1 to A.3 stabbed one Kaatia Sarath @ K.Sarath Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) at Harischandra Graveyard situated near Devendra Theatre, Akkarampalle road, Tirupati, with knives on his chest, stomach, thighs and other parts of the body, causing his death while A4 was standing on the road watching the movements, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 2. 3. After completion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 to A.4 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each. KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 Case of the prosecution, briefly is as follows: 4. A.1 is a resident of (i) A.2 to A.4 are residents of Tirupati. Tiruchanur of Tirupati Rural Mandal. The material prosecution witnesses are residents of Tirupati Town. The deceased was also resident of same town. PW.2 is the father of the deceased. PW.1 and PWs 3 to 7 are friends of the accused as well as the deceased. A.1 to A.4 bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 17.07.2013, at about 01.30 p.m., A.1 to A.4 went to Harischandra Graveyard situated near Devendra Theatre, Akkarampalle road, Tirupati town and consumed liquor brought by PW.1. At about 02.10 p.m., the deceased also joined them and asked PW.1 to bring liquor. All of them were consuming liquor. PW.1, having handed over liquor to the deceased, left the place as the Head Constable Reddeppa, East Police Station, Tirupati telephoned him and asked him to come to Bus stand as a dead body was found there. He left the Graveyard and thereafter, he returned after sometime and found the dead body in the Graveyard. Having found the dead body, at about 03.00 p.m., PW.1 telephoned to PW.2, father of the deceased, who to the Graveyard and found the dead body. PW.4 having saw the dead body, dialed ‘100’. Having received the telephonic instructions, PW.11 Inspector of Police went to the scene of offence at about 04.00 p.m. In the meanwhile, on the report of PW.1, Women Sub-Inspector by name Sireesha registered a case in Cr.No.344/2013 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The said came KSRJ & VS,J Crla_1756 2017 F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P11, which was received by PW.11 at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.8 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P3. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P4 at the scene of offence. He prepared a rough sketch EX.P12 at the scene of offence. On the same day, PW.11 recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3 at the time of inquest. On 18.07.2013, PW.11 recorded statements of PWs 4 to 7 and others. He seized M.Os 9 to 11 in the presence of mediators under a Panchanama Ex.P13. On 23.07.2013 at about 08.30 a.m., PW.11 apprehended A.1 to A.4 near Grand World Hotel Karakambadi, Tirupati in the presence of PW.9. On the confession made A.1, he recovered M.0.1 in the presence of PW.9 and another under a Panchanama. On the confession made by the accused, PW.11 M.Os 2 to 5 near Market Yard, Tiruchanur. by recorded Later, he forwarded material objects i.e., M.Os. 6 to 11 to R.F.S.L, Tirupati, for chemical analysis. R.F.S.L. reports are marked as Exs.P.7, 9 & 16. Further investigation was taken over by PW.12. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of the investigation, PW.12 filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked exhibits P.1 to P.17 and exhibited M.Os. 1 to 11. 5. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. they 7 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs 4 to 7, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. Heard Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants; and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that PWs 4 to 7 did not witness the alleged incident and they were planted by the prosecution. So far as PW.3 is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved his 10. evidence, as the Investigating Officer PW.11 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that PW.3 is not an eye witness to the incident. It is further contended that if really PWs 4 to 7 witnessed the alleged incident, they ought to have given a report to the Police. They further contended that if really PWs 4 to 7 are present at the time of incident, their names ought to have been mentioned at least in the Inquest Report Ex.P3. Except the evidence of PWs 4 to 7, who were planted by the prosecution, there is no other evidence on record. As such, they requested this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. KSR,J & VS,J Crla_1756_2017 On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the appeal contending that the evidence of PWs 4 to 7 is crystal clear and they have specifically stated in their evidence about witnessing the incident. He further contends that the deceased went to the graveyard by taking two-wheeler of PW.4. At about 02.10 p.m., PW.4 telephoned to the deceased, who informed him stating that he is at Harischandra burial ground, Tirupati and he can go and take his bike. Accordingly, PW.4 along with PW.5 went to the burial ground for collecting his two-wheeler. As such the 11. presence of PWs 4 & 5 is natural and their presence cannot be disbelieved. He further contends that so far as the presence of PWs 6 & 7 is concerned, their presence also is natural, as PW.6 went to burial ground to perform death anniversary of his father on 17.07.2013 and at about 02.00 p.m. he went to the burial ground. He further contends that PW.6 took the assistance of PW.7 to visit the burial ground to light a lamp at the tomb of father of PW.6. such, the presence of PWs 6 & 7 at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time is also natural. As such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As 12. We have heard all the learned counsel and we have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. * > 9 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 13. PW.4 in his evidence stated that at about 11.00 a.m. on 17.07.2013, the deceased took his motorcycle and at about 01.00 p.m., he telephoned to the deceased requesting his bike, for which the deceased replied stating that he would call him soon after returning home. At about 02.10 p.m., again PW.4 telephoned to the deceased, who asked him to come to Harischandra burial ground and can take his bike. Having received said message, PW.4 along with PW.5 went to the burial ground. It is also stated by PWs.4 & 5 that at that juncture, they found all the accused stabbing the deceased. He also states that PW.3 raised cries at that juncture. PWs.4 & 5 in their evidence further stated that they kept quiet due to fear. Thereafter, all the accused ran away. Then, PWs.4 & 5 went and found the deceased dead. Then PW.4 made a call to ‘100’ Police. PWs 4 & 5 in their evidence categorically stated that all the accused stabbed the deceased at the relevant point of time. But, the case of the prosecution is that A.1 to A.3 alone stabbed the deceased while A4 was watching on the road. This falsifies the version of PWs 4 & 5 contending that all the four accused stabbed the deceased. Further, if really PWs 4 & 5 witnessed the incident, their minimum conduct is informing the Police. Though they have witnessed the attack on the deceased, they kept quiet without informing the Police. PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that on 17.07.2013 he along with PW.4 went to the Finance company to pay amount due to it. During the course of investigation, PW.5 stated before the Police about he 10 KSRJ & VS,J Crla_1756 2017 A and PW.4 visiting Finance company. PWs 4 & 5 have admitted in their cross- examination that they did not give any report to the Police. If really they witnessed the incident, they ought to have given a report to the Police instead of coolly walking away to their respective homes. 14. Coming to the evidence of PWs 6 & 7, they have evidence that on 17.07.2013, PW.6 performed the death anniversary of his father by going to burial ground at about 02.00 juncture, they noticed all the accused along with deceased stated in their p.m., to light a lamp. At that consuming the liquor. After some time, they started quarreling with each other and the accused stabbed the deceased. They also, in their evidence, have stated that because of fear, as the accused were holding knives, they could not interfere. PW.6 in his cross-examination has categorically stated that they witnessed incident from a distance of 200 meters. According to PWs residing in the same lane where the deceased admitted in the evidence that they know the deceased for the last the 6 & 7, they are was residing. They also 10 years. 15. Curiously, PWs 6 & 7 also, having witnessed distance of 200 meters, they too did not choose to qi the incident from a give any report to the Police. Further, PWs 4 to 7 in their evidence stated that all the accused stabbed the deceased. As already pointed out, the version of the prosecution was watching by may not be possible for a person to identify IS A.1 to A.3 alone attacked the deceased, whereas A.4 standing on the road. Further, it 11 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1756 2017 as to who is attacking whom from a distance of 200 meters. As already pointed out, PW.3 was disbelieved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and PW.1, who supplied liquor to the accused as well as the deceased, did not support the prosecution. As such, except the evidence of PWs 4 to 7, there is no other material on record. 16. Having analyzed the evidence of PWs 4 to 7 carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that they were planted by the prosecution to suit its case. As already pointed out, though PWs 4 to 7 witnessed the incident, they did not choose to give any report to the Police. Further, their names were also not mentioned in the Inquest Report Ex.P3. Curiously, the Investigating Officer PW.11 examined PWs 4 to 7 on 18.07.2013. If really these four witnesses witnessed the incident on 17.07.2013, their statements ought to have been recorded by the Police on the same day. PW.1 gave a report Ex.P1 and set the criminal law into motion. As such, PWs 4 to 7 are not reliable witnesses and their evidence does not inspire confidence of this Court. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Sessions Case No.170 of 2014 vide judgment dt. 11.12.2017, is liable to be interfered with. 17. J.Z KSR,J & VS,J Crla_1756_2017 In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III A Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2014, vide judgment dated 11.12.2017. As the appellants were released on bail by order dated 23.01.2023 in terms of the order of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra surrender before the Superintendent of Central Prison and complete the formalities i order of Batchu Rangarao (supra). No order as to costs. the State of Andhra Pradesh in Pradesh ^ , they are directed to concerned in terms of the As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. T 2016 (3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, T The III Additional District District (with records) 2- The II Additional Judicial Magistrate District 3- The Superintendent, Central 4- The Station House District CC to Sri. B.V. Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One cc to Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC] One cc to Sri. Koneti Raja Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8- Two CCS to the Public Amaravathi[OUT] and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District Officer, East Police Station, Tirupathi Chittoor Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 9. Vali Mohan, S/o late V.Lakshmaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o. Damineedu Village, Tiruchanur, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District. 10. Mullapoodi Kishore Kumar alias Kishore, S/o M. Tiruvengadam, aged about 35 years, R/o 18-1-560/A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 11. Kalaambaadi Rajesh alias Chengalarayulu, aged about 35 years, R/o 18-1-722 Tirupathi, Chittoor District Cherukula Yallappa, S/o late Kalasa Mandhadi, aged about 36 years, R/o D.No. 20-5-42/6C, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Korlagunta, beside S K Fast Foods, Triupathi, Chittoor District. 13. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records), 14. Two CD Copies Raja alias Rajanna, S/o K. Bhavani Nagar, 12. Stu sree • ^ HIGH COURT DATED;17/07/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 1756 OF 2017 a 1 I AUG 2025 I€: ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL