APHC010420552018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1822/2018 Between: 1. KOTAGIRI PANDU RANGARAO @ RANGARAO, NALLURU VILLAGE, REPALLE MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP., ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to file the present criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 16-04-2018 in SC.No. 251 of 2017 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, for the following among other. 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 for a period of Ten days i.e., from 04-03-2023 to 14-03-2023, pending disposal of the Crl Appeal No. 1822/2018 before this Hon'ble Court preferred against the Judgment in S.C.No. 251/2017 on the file of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge: Tenali, In the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 2 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 grant bail by suspending the operation of conviction and sentence imposed by calendar and Judgment Dt: 16-04- 2018 passed in SC.No. 251/2017 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, pending appeal and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER 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: 1822 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.251 of 2017 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that, on 03.09.2015 at about 9:00 am at the house of Akula Lakshmi Vemula Durga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), situated at Nallurivaripalem village, Repalle Mandal, the accused caught hold the throat of the deceased, pushed her back and forcibly hit her to the navvar tape cot, due to which rear portion of her head and left ear portion hit to the cot, resulting in her death and thereby committed offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nallurivaripalem village, Repalle Mandal. The deceased is also a resident of the same village. P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter of the deceased, respectively. The husband of the deceased died about twenty years prior to the date of the incident, due to ill health. Later, the deceased developed acquaintance with the accused, and they were in an extra-marital relationship for the last ten years. While so, the deceased alienated agricultural land for Rs.5,00,000/- and kept the said amount for the marriage of P.W.2. The accused borrowed said money, stating that he would repay the amount at the time of marriage of P.W.2. However, as the accused did not repay the money, the deceased had to borrow the money from her relatives and performed the marriage of P.W.2. Consequently, disputes arose between the accused and the deceased. In that connection, the accused threatened the deceased and P.W.1. On 31.08.2015, P.W.1 and the deceased demanded the accused for return of the money and further warned the accused that they would inform the village elders if he failed to return the money. On the same day, P.W.1, along with P.W.2, left for Hyderabad to drop P.W.2. Page 5 of 13 (ii) On 03.09.2015, in the evening, when P.W.1 telephoned the deceased, she did not answer the call. Therefore, P.W.1 telephoned P.W.3 and asked him to inform the deceased to respond to his phone. Accordingly, P.W.3 went to the house of the deceased at 8:20 p.m. and found her lying dead on the cot. Immediately, P.W.3 informed P.W.1. P.W.1, along with P.W.2, came to the village in the early hours of 04.09.2015. On the same day at about 9:20 am, P.W.1 went to Police Station and presented a report, Ex.P1. (iii) P.W.10, S.I. of Police, Repalle received report and registered a case in crime No.150/2015 under Section 302 I.P.C. He sent copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P10 is the F.I.R. (iv) P.W.11, Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Circle, after receipt of information at 9:30 am on 04.09.2015, took up investigation. He secured the presence of mediators and staff and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P11. He also prepared scene observation report, Ex.P2, in the presence of mediators. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.7. Photographs were marked as Ex.P3. P.W.11 examined P.Ws.1 to 3, 8 and others and recorded their statements. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators, P.Ws.6 and 8. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. (v) P.W.9, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Repalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to pressure around the neck. He issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P9. (vi) On 05.09.2015, P.W.11 visited Nalluruvaripalem and secured the presence of P.Ws.4, 5 and another and recorded their statements. On 29.09.2015, at about 10:30 a.m., while P.W.11 was in Repalle Rural Circle office, P.W.10 came and informed him that V.R.O., P.W.8, came to Repalle Town Police station, along with the accused. The statement recorded by P.W.8, V.R.O., was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.11 went to Repalle Town Police Station, secured the presence of P.Ws.6 and 8 and recorded confessional statement of the accused in the presence of mediators. P.W.11 arrested the accused, who was remanded to judicial custody. He sent the Viscera to R.F.S.L. Guntur and Hyoid bone to Histopathology Department, Guntur Medical College, Guntur for chemical analysis. Expert opinion and RFSL reports are marked as Exs.P7 and P8, respectively. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed the charge sheet. Page 7 of 13 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 6. After considering the ocular and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Raman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there are no direct witnesses to the incident, and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. He would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the links in the chain. He would also submit that no reliance could be placed on the extra-judicial confession said to have been recorded by P.W.8 under Ex.P5, since P.W.8 is a stranger to the accused. He would further submit that the ocular version of the prosecution is not corroborated with the medical evidence. Thus, prayed to set aside the conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. Page 8 of 13 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal. He would contend that the prosecution was able to prove the motive for the accused by examining P.Ws.1 and 2. He would further contend that P.Ws.4 and 5 also saw the accused near the house of the deceased at the relevant point of time. He would also contend that the evidence of P.W.8 is natural, and there is nothing to disbelieve the so-called extra-judicial confession. As such, he requests, this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 11. P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the son and daughter of the deceased, respectively, and neither of them was in the village on the date of the incident. Both of them were in Hyderabad at that point in time. According to P.W.1, on 03.09.2015, he telephoned the deceased. Since the deceased did not respond, he requested P.W.3 to go to his house and inform the deceased to respond to the call. Accordingly, P.W.3 went to the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying dead on the cot, facing towards the sky. Immediately, he informed P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the village on 04.09.2015 early morning. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1 at 9:30 am. Page 9 of 13 12. Thus, as per the prosecution's version, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove that all the links in chain must be complete in all aspects, by ruling out any other hypothesis. The law regarding a case based on circumstantial evidence was crystallised by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra1 wherein the 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. 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 487 13. The prosecution attempted to establish the so-called motive by examining P.Ws.1 and 2. The witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, in their evidence, stated that the deceased sold agricultural land for Rs.5,00,000/- and kept the amount aside for the purpose of performing the marriage of P.W.2. They also further testified that the accused borrowed the said amount and promised that he would repay the same at the time of marriage of P.W.2. However, the accused failed to repay the amount and in that connection there were disputes between the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that on 31.08.2015, when the accused was demanded to repay the amount, he threatened P.W.1 and the deceased with dire consequences. Thereafter, P.W.1, along with P.W.2 left for Hyderabad to drop P.W.2 at her marital home. 14. The prosecution neither exhibited any document nor produced any other evidence in connection with the deceased selling the agricultural land for Rs.5,00,000/-. Also, no evidence was presented to demonstrate that the accused borrowed said amount from the deceased. There is no evidence let in by the prosecution to show that the deceased had Rs.5,00,000/-. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the motive attributed by the prosecution, in the case at hand, cannot be accepted. Page 11 of 13 15. Coming to the next evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, who saw the accused near the house of the deceased, P.W.4 is sister-in-law of the deceased, and P.W.5 is son-in-law of P.W.4. P.W.4 deposed that on 03.09.2015 at about 10.00 am, she went to the house of the deceased and saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other. She called the deceased by standing in front of the house, and the deceased came out weeping. When P.W.4 enquired the deceased as to why she was weeping, the deceased, in turn, informed that she would talk to her later and went inside the house. P.W.4 left the place. 16. According to P.W.5, on 03.09.2015 at about 2.00 pm while he sat along with other villagers in front of cement road near the house of Voleti Madhavarao, he saw the accused running hurriedly. Thereafter, at 8:30 pm, he came to know about the death of the deceased. According to P.W.11, the statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 were recorded on 05.09.2015. But curiously, their witnessing the accused near the house of the deceased was not found either in Ex.P1, report or in Ex.P4, inquest report. As such, the evidence of P.Ws 4 and 5 does not inspire confidence of the Court that the accused was found near the house of the deceased. 17. Coming to the last piece of circumstantial evidence regarding extrajudicial confession, the prosecution examined P.W.8, V.R.O., who was cited as one of the witnesses to the inquest report, Ex.P4. P.W.8 is a stranger, and he is not acquainted with the accused. There is no reason for the accused to approach P.W.8 and make a confession regarding the commission of the offence. Further, P.W.8 is a panch witness for all practical purposes i.e. inquest and other reports. 18. It is a settled principle of law that extrajudicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot form sole basis for conviction. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of an extrajudicial confession in Sunny Kapoor Vs. State (U.T. of Chandigarh)2, held thus: “16. It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make an extra- judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence.” 20. As such, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the extrajudicial confession made under Ex.P5 before P.W.8. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not hesitate to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove even a single circumstance to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. 2 AIR 2006 SC 2242 Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court are liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant / accused by the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Tenali, in S.C.No.251 of 2017 dated 16.04.2018, under Section 302 I.P.C. are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. As the appellant/accused herein was already enlarged on bail by order dated 08.05.2023 vide I.A.No.2 of 2023, in terms of the orders passed by the composite High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of A.P.3, he is directed to appear before the concerned authorities and complete the formalities in terms of Batchu Rangarao’s case. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 20.11.2025 IKN 3 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)