APHC010365502018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2360/2018 Between: 1. KARRI SIMAHACHALAM, K.VELAMA, HINDU, AJJADA VILLAGE, BALAJIPAETA, MANDAL, VIZNAGARAM DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF A P, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to The Appellant herein submits that the order in S.C No. 104 of 2014 dated 20.04.2016 on the file of the II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Paravathipuram, Vizianagaram District convicting the appellant herein to suffer Imprisonment for life and shall pay the fine of Rs. 2000/ default to suffer R.I for 6 months for the offence U/sec. 302 I.P.C IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 680 days in filing the Criminal Appeal and admit the same and pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2360/2018 KARRI SIMAHACHALAM, K.VELAMA, HINDU, AJJADA VILLAGE, BALAJIPAETA, MANDAL, VIZNAGARAM DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to The Appellant herein submits that the order in S.C No. 104 of 2014 dated 20.04.2016 on the file of the II nd Additional Sessions ge, Paravathipuram, Vizianagaram District convicting the appellant herein to suffer Imprisonment for life and shall pay the fine of Rs. 2000/ default to suffer R.I for 6 months for the offence U/sec. 302 I.P.C n 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 680 days in filing the Criminal Appeal and admit the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI KARRI SIMAHACHALAM, K.VELAMA, HINDU, AJJADA VILLAGE, ...APPELLANT THE STATE OF A P, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to The Appellant herein submits that the order in S.C No. 104 of 2014 dated 20.04.2016 on the file of the II nd Additional Sessions ge, Paravathipuram, Vizianagaram District convicting the appellant herein to suffer Imprisonment for life and shall pay the fine of Rs. 2000/- and in n 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 680 days in filing the Criminal Appeal and admit the 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 release the petitioner on bail by suspending the operation of the sentence passed in S.C.No. 104 of 2014 dated 20.04.2016 on the file of II additional Sessions judge, Parvatipuram, vizianagaram district, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2018 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 condone the delay of 62 days in representing the Crl.A.Sr.No. 8753 of 2018 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 the sentence dated 20th April, 2016 passed S.C.No.104 of 2014 on the file of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, at Parvathipuram, Vijayanagaram District and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Crl.A.No.2360 of 2018 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM 2. Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.104 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Parvatipuram (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: (i) 1stcharge was under Section 302 IPC (ii) 2nd charge was under Section 498-A IPC 2. Substance of the charge is that the accused subjected his wife by name Karri Lavanya (hereinafter referred to as “D.1”) to cruelty, as she gave birth to two female children (hereinafter referred to as “D.2 & D.3”) and on the night of 09.11.2012, he administered poison to D.1 to D.3, who died, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 302 IPC. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ without any remission and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present appeal. 4 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in nutshell, is as follows: (a) Accused is a resident of Ajjada Village, Balijipeta Mandal. PW.1 is father of the deceased. PWs 2 & 3 are brothers of PW.1. PW.6 is the paternal uncle of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 are residents of Dibbaguddivasala Village, Bobbili Mandal. The marriage between the accused and deceased was performed about six years prior to the date of incident. The couple was blessed with two daughters i.e., D.2 and D.3 aged about 4 years and 2 years respectively. It is alleged that as D.1 gave birth to two female children, the appellant used to harass her. The parents of D.1 convinced the accused stating that they will help financially for the purpose of education and marriage etc. of D.2 and D.3. Three months prior to the date of incident, the accused shifted his family to Chennai for eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. About 1 month 15 days prior to the date of incident, the family of accused returned to their village to attend a marriage of their relatives. Thereafter, the appellant alone left for Chennai leaving D.1 to D.3 at the deceased’s father house situated at Dibbaguddivalasa Village. On 09.11.2012 at about 3.30 P.M., the appellant visited the house of PW.1 and took D.1 to D.3 to his native village Ajjada. On the same night, PW.6 found D.1 died in the cattle shed. Immediately, PW.6 informed the M.P.T.C. member about the death of D.1, who informed the same to PW.1 through another M.P.T.C member. Having received information, PW.1 visited the house of accused in the early hours of 10.11.2012. They also found the dead bodies of D.2 & D.3 at the house of the 5 accused. On the same day at about 6.00 A.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. At about 06.00 A.M. on 10.11.2012, PW.17 Sub- Inspector of Police, Balijipeta Police Station received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.56/2012 under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P18. He sent a requisition to the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Balijipeta for conducing inquest over the dead bodies. (b) PW.14 Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Balijipeta held inquest over the dead body of D.1 in the presence of PWs 9 & 10. He also conducted inquest over the dead bodies of D.2 & D.3 in the presence of mediators PWs 9 & 10. Inquest reports pertaining to D.1 to D.3 were marked as Exs.P8 to P10. (c) While so, on 15.11.2012 at about 6.00 P.M., PW.9 submitted a written report Ex.P7 along with extra-judicial confession statement Ex.P6 to PW.17. PW.9 also produced the appellant before PW.17. Having received Exs.P6 & P7, he altered the section of law from 306 to 302 IPC. Ex.P19 is the Altered Memo. Further investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police, Bobbili Circle. (d) PW.18 Inspector of Police took up further investigation. Having received information on 10.11.2012, he collected copy of the F.I.R. from PW.17. He secured the presence of mediators PWs 9 & 12 and prepared an Observation report Ex.P5 at the scene of offence. He also prepared Rough sketch Ex.P20 at the scene of offence. He also prepared Rough sketch of the 6 specific scene of offence Ex.P21. He also got the scene photographed through PW.13. Photographs and C.D. were marked as Exs.P11 & P12. He seized MOs.1 to 5 at the scene of offence under Ex.P5 Observation report. He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 7. He sent all the dead bodies to the Government Hospital, Bobbili for Postmortem examination. (e) PW.15 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.1. He opined the cause of death of D.1 was due to cardio respiratory failure due to phorate an organo phosphate insecticide poisonous substance. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P15 pertaining to D.1. (f) PW.16 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.2. He opined the cause of death of D.2 was due to cardio respiratory failure due to consumption of phorate an organo phosphate insecticide poisonous substance. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P17 pertaining to D.2. (g) PW.19 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Bobbili conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.3. He opined the cause of death to D.3 was due to cardio respiratory failure due to consumption of phorate an organo phosphate insecticide poisonous substance. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P23 pertaining to D.3. (h) Further investigation was taken over by PW.20 Inspector of Police. On 15.11.2012, having received information about the alteration of crime, he went to Police Station for securing mediators PWs 12 & 10. He recorded the 7 confessional statement of the accused in the presence of PWs 12 & 10. On the same day, he recorded statements of PW.9 and another. On 16.11.2012, he arrested the accused, who was remanded to judicial custody on that day itself. He sent material objects to R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam. R.F.S.L. report was marked as Ex.P14. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, the successor of PW.20 by name S.Raghavulu filed charge sheet on 15.04.2013. PW.20 identified the signature of his successor as he was suffering from cancer. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 20, marked Exs.P1 to P23 and exhibited MOs. 1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D.2, portions of statements of PWs 6 and 8, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were marked. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PW.9, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri S.Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that absolutely there is no evidence to show that the appellant harassed D.1 as she gave 8 birth to two female children. He further contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 498-A IPC. So far as the offence of murder is concerned, the only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the so-called extra-judicial confession purportedly given by the appellant before PW.9 - V.R.O. of Ajjada Village. According to the evidence of PW.9, the accused approached him on 15.11.2012 at about 07.30 A.M. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that the accused approached him and confessed that he administered the poison to D.1 to D.3 forcibly. PW.9 in his evidence has also stated that he prepared statement Ex.P6 recorded from the accused and he produced the accused before PW.17 along with his report Ex.P7. PW.9 in his evidence has categorically admitted that he knows the accused, but he does not know whether the accused knows him. In Ex.P6 statement also, he has stated that he enquired the accused about his name and details. As such, it can safely be held that the accused does not know PW.9 and he has no acquaintance with him. As such, he contends that the so-called extra-judicial confession was planted by the prosecution after six days from the date of incident. Except the so-called extra-judicial confession, no other material has been placed by the prosecution. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending inter alia that apart from the extra-judicial confession, 9 no explanation is coming forward from the accused, as prescribed under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. PW.1 is none other than the father of the deceased. PWs 2 & 3 are the brothers of PW.1. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident in the present case. The prosecution rests its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the so-called extra-judicial confession Ex.P6 purportedly given by the appellant before PW.9. PW.9 in his statement Ex.P6 has categorically stated that he is not aware of the accused and he gathered information about the name and other details from the accused himself. In the cross-examination also, PW.9, at one stage, admitted that he knows the accused and at another stage he has stated that he does not know the accused. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know whether the accused knows him or not. 13. Having analysed the evidence of PW.9 carefully coupled with Exs.P6 & P7, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accused is not acquainted with PW.9 and there is no reason for him to make the so-called extra-judicial confession after six days from the date of incident. Further, PWs 1 to 3 in their evidence expressed only suspicion against the accused. Further, in the Inquest reports Exs.P8 to P10, the Panchayatdars have opined 10 that D.1 committed suicide after administering poison to D.2 & D.3. In Exs.P8 to P10, it was further opined by the mediators that the accused, after administering poison to D.2 & D.3, forcibly throttled D.1 to death. As such, the prosecution is not able to fix the liability on the appellant for cause of death of the deceased. 14. Further, as seen from the medial evidence adduced through PWs 15, 16 & 19 coupled with Postmortem reports Exs.P15, P17 & P23, there are no marks of violence on the dead bodies. Further, there are no marks of forcibly administering the poison to D.1. Further, as seen from the evidence, D.1 administered the poison to D.2 & D.3 at the house of accused and thereafter she went to cattle shed and committed suicide by consuming poison. According to the prosecution, the dead bodies of D.2 & D.3 were found in the house, whereas the dead body of D.1 was found in the cattle shed. As such, absolutely there is no material to connect the appellant with the murder of D.1 to D.3. Further, there is no evidence that D.1 to D.3 met with homicidal death. So far as the explanation, as required under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, is concerned, the same can be taken as an additional circumstance if the prosecution could able to prove the remaining circumstance connecting the appellant with the alleged offence. The prosecution is not able to place a single circumstance to connect the appellant with the alleged offence of murder. The non-explanation of accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not at all helpful to the prosecution, as it can be taken only as an additional circumstance. 11 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is no legal evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offence of murder of D.1 to D.3. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant / Accused by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram in Sessions Case No.104 of 2014, for the charge under Section 302 IPC, vide judgment dated 20.04.2016, is hereby set aside, and the Appellant / Accused is acquitted for the said charge. The Appellant / Accused is directed to set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime or cases. The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant / Accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC shall be refunded to the Appellant / Accused, There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI. 23.12.2025 MVA