1 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 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. 1976, 2208 AND 2368 OF 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Since all the three Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, i.e., S.C. No.97 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Accused No.2 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1976 of 2018, Accused No.3 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2208 of 2018, whereas Accused No.1 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2368 of 2018 in the above Sessions Case. Initially, following 2 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against all the three (3) accused. 1) First charge was under Section 120-B IPC against A3 2) Second charge was under Section 364 IPC against A1 and A2. 3) Third charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 and A2 4) Fourth charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1. 5) Fifth charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A2 6) Sixth charge was under Section 379 IPC against A1 and A2 7) Seventh charge was under Section 427 IPC against A1 8) Eighth charge was under Section 201 IPC against A1 and A2 and 9) Last charge was under Section 307 IPC against A1 and A2. 3. Subsequently, on 18.10.2011 considering the contentions of both sides, the learned Sessions Judge reframed the charges, as here under against all the three (3) accused. 3 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 1) First charge was under Sections 302, 364, 307, 427, 201 r/w 120-B r/w with 109 IPC against A1 to A3. 2) Second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3 3) Third charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3 4) Fourth charge was under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 5) Fifth charge was under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 6) Sixth charge was under Section 392 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 7) Seventh charge was under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 8) Eighth charge was under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3 and 9) Last charge was under Section 411 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 4. Substance of the charge is that on or about 06.01.2010, A1 to A3 entered into criminal conspiracy to cause death of one Palagani Naga Vaishnavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘D2’) and P.W.2 4 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 – Sai Tejesh Gowd, in view of A3’s strained relationship with the father of D2, namely Palagani Prabhakar Rao, who is his brother-in- law, and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, on 30.1.2010 while kidnapping D2 and attempting to kill P.W.2, A1 and A2 committed mischief by breaking the back side glass of a Tavera Car bearing No. AP 03 R 2223 at Shirdi Sai Baba Temple Road, Satyanarayanapuram Railway Colony, and in that process of kidnapping, A1 and A2 caused the death of driver-Yarabati Lakshmana Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘D1’) by stabbing him with knives, attempted to kill P.W.2, kidnapped D2 and caused her death, and thereafter burnt the corpus of D2 by putting her dead body in a furnace, to screen the evidence, thus the accused thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 307, 427, 201 r/w 120-B and r/w 109 IPC, 302, 364, 307, 392, 427, 201 and 411 r/w 34 IPC. 5. After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 to A3 under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC for causing the death of D1 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days. The learned Sessions Judge, also convicted A1 to A3 under Section 364 5 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 read with 120-B IPC for kidnapping D2 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days.The learned Sessions Judge, further convicted A1 to A3 under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days for causing the death of D2. The learned Sessions Judge, further convicted A1 to A3 under Section 427 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days.The learned Sessions Judge, further convicted A1 to A3 under Section 201 read with 120-B IPC for screening the dead body of D2 and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days.The learned Sessions Judge, finally convicted A1 and A2 under Section 392 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment 6 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 for fifteen (15) days. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows: A1 and A2 are residents of Guntur. A3 is resident of Vijayawada. A1 is cousin of A3, and he is owner of Sarada Industries, situated at Auto Nagar, Guntur. A2 was working under A1 and used to look after the financial affairs of A1’s business. A3 is running a bar and restaurant business and is a non-practicing advocate. (ii) One Palagani Prabhaskara Rao, P.W.2 and P.W.9 are father, brother and mother of Naga Vaishnavi (D2) respectively. P.Ws.10 and 21 are cousins. P.Ws.22 and 25 are paternal uncles of D2. Yarabati Lakshmana Rao (D1) worked as driver under Palagani Prabhakar Rao. D2 and P.W.2 are daughter and son of Palagani Prabhakar Rao through his second wife-P.W.9. P.W.2 and D2 were students of NSM School, Vijayawada. They used to reside with their parents at New Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada. One Palagani Venkateswaramma is elder sister of A3 and the said Venkateswaramma and A3 are children of sister of Palagani Prabhakara Rao. Venkateswaramma who is sister of A3 married to 7 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 Palagani Prabhakara Rao. As the children born to Venkateswaramma were meeting with unfortunate deaths within one year of their birth, Palagani Prabhakara Rao married P.W.9- Narmada Devi as his second wife on 14.12.1991. Thus, sister of A3 i.e. Venkateswaramma is first wife and P.W.9 is second wife of Palagani Prabakhara Rao. The said Palagani Prabhakara had various businesses besides Wine shops and Bar & Restaurants. D2 is daughter, P.W.2 is son of Palagalani Prabhakara Rao through his second wife-P.W.9. (iii) Since the birth of D2, the business ventures of Palagani Prabhakara Rao prospered, and he earned considerable name and fame. Consequently, he developed immense love and affection towards D2. As Palagani Prabhakara Rao was showing greater love and affection towards the children born through his second wife, P.W.9, the first wife of Palagani Prabhakara Rao and her family members, particularly A3, started altercating with P.W.9. Consequently, property and family disputes arose between Palagani Prabhakara Rao and A3. (iv) In the year 1992, A3 went to the house of P.W.9, threatened her, and warned her to leave the company of Palagani Prabhakara Rao. P.W.9 refused to comply with the said demand and 8 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 informed the matter to Palagani Prabhakara Rao. On coming to know of the same, A3 grew violent and forcibly poured rat poison into the mouth of P.W.9, and left the place. (v) In the year 1995, while P.W.9 was returning home from the exhibition grounds in a car, A3 intercepted the vehicle, threatened her at point of knife, and warned her that if she did not leave his brother-in-law, Palagani Prabhakara Rao, he would kill her and her children. P.W.33, the driver of the car, rescued P.W.9 from the clutches of A3. Subsequently, P.W.9 informed the said incident to her husband, Palagani Prabhakara Rao, who thereafter went to the office of A3’s advocate, called A3 out of the office, slapped him on his cheek, and warned him. Thus, A3 developed grouse against P.W.9 on the ground that, because of P.W.9 and D2, his brother-in- law, Palagani Prabhakara Rao, had neglected his sister, Venkateswaramma. Hence, A3 decided to do away the lives of D2 and P.W.2 so that the marital life of his sister would be happy. (vi) A3 explained the disputes to A1, who is his cousin, and requested him to kidnap and murder D2. For this purpose, A1 offered an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- on 06.01.2010. A1, in turn, engaged the services of A2. Thus, A1 and A2 decided to kidnap D2 in pursuance of their conspiracy. In furtherance thereof, A1 and A2 9 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 conducted recky about the movements of D2 from her house on 19.01.2010. (vii) On 13.01.2010, at about 6:00 p.m., A1 to A3 went to the tea stall of P.W.34, discussed something among themselves, and thereafter left the place. In pursuance of their conspiracy, A1 and A2 committed theft of a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 16 BC 9039 between 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on 13.01.2010, which had been parked at Charmas Cloth Shop, Labbipeta, Vijayawada. P.W.35 is the owner of the said motorcycle. They also committed theft of another motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 16 BG 4375, which had been parked at the RTC Bus Stand, Guntur. (viii) On 14.01.2010, A2 changed the number plate by affixing a fake registration number, i.e., AP 16 BG 4375, in place of the original number AP 16 BC 9039, and got the seat cover and tank cover stitched for the said motorcycle. P.W.37 is the person who changed the number plate, and P.W.38 is the person who stitched the seat cover and tank cover. (ix) On 19.1.2010, P.Ws.40 and 41 heard the conversation of A1 and A3 as to the plan of conspiracy to kidnap and murder D2. The said conversion is said to have taken place at Parapet wall of bathing gate, Seethammavaripadalu, Vijayawada. 10 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 (x) On 27.1.2010, A1 and A2 committed theft of another motor bike bearing registration No.AP16 AK 4764 belonging to P.W.45. On 27.1.2010, A2 went to the shop of P.W.46 to arrange number plate AP16 A 3937 for Tata Safari car, which was used for the commission of offence. The said car belonging to A1. (xi) On 28.01.2010, A2 got the number plate affixed with a fake number, AP 16 BC 4715, in place of the original number AP 16 AK 4764. P.W.67 stitched the tank cover for the said bike. A1 purchased two knives from P.W.49 and two plastic drums from P.W.50. A1 also procured five (5) SIM cards of Airtel. Thus, both A1 and A2 made arrangements to kidnap and murder D2 in accordance with the plan hatched by A3. (xii) While so, at about 8:05 a.m. on 30.01.2010, D2, along with her elder brother P.W.2, started from their house in a Tavera car bearing Registration No. AP03 R 2223, driven by D1, and was proceeding towards NSM School via BRTS Road. As per their earlier recky, A1 and A2 followed the car on two motorbikes bearing fake registration numbers. When the car reached near the first scene of offence, A1 and A2 hurled stones at the rear glass of the car. On hearing the sounds, D1 stopped the car, got down, and observed the rear glass broken. P.W.2 also alighted from the car. Immediately, A1 11 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 and A2 stabbed D1 with knives. Thereafter, A1 and A2 forced D2 into the car and kidnapped her. Meanwhile, P.W.2 ran away from the place, jumped over the wall, and entered the house of P.W.3. P.W.4 also witnessed the incident, and P.W.5 observed P.W.2 entering the house of P.W.3. (xiii) Having come to know about the incident, P.W.6 came out and found D1 in a pool of blood with injuries. He also noticed two motorcycles and a knife abandoned at the scene of offence. D1 was shifted in 108 ambulance by P.Ws.7 and another. P.W.58-Doctor arrived at the ambulance and found D1 had already died. (xiv) Having come to know about the incident, on 30.1.2010, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.1-the brother of P.W.9 went to the police station and lodged a report-Ex.P1. P.W.76, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, on receipt of report- Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2010 under Sections 302, 363 read with 34 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P125. P.W.76 also informed all his higher authorities about the incident. (xv) On the same day, at about 9:45 a.m., P.W.78, the then Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, who was on patrolling duty, having received information, rushed to the scene 12 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 of offence situated at BRTS Road, Railway Colony, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada. He found two (2) motorcycles, blood stains, a blood stained knife, one stone, broken glass pieces, and one blue-colour polythene bag. P.W.78 asked P.W.76 to bring a copy of the FIR to the scene of offence. P.W.78 informed the higher officials about the incident and requested services of the Clues Team and Dog Squad. P.W.76 handed over copy of the FIR to P.W.78 at the scene of offence. (xvi) P.W.78 prepared an observation report-Ex.P63 at the first scene of offence in the presence of P.W.54 and another. He seized MOs 2 and 3 (motorcycles) and MOs 7 to 10 at the scene of offence. P.W.78 also took photographs at the first scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch- Ex.P133 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W.78 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada, and held inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of P.W.54 and another. The inquest report pertaining to D1 was marked as Ex.P64. He then sent the dead body of D1 for postmortem examination. (xvii) P.W.59-Professor, HOD Forensic Medicine, conducted autopsy over the dead body of D1. He opined the cause of death 13 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 was due to shock as a result of multiple stab injuries. He issued postmortem certificate-Ex.P88. (xviii) On 30.1.2010, at about 3.30 p.m., P.W.78 received credible information to the effect that A1 and A2 had kidnapped D2 in Tavera car bearing registration No.AP 03 R 2223 and were proceeding towards Seethanagaram. (xix) P.W.12, having observed Tavera car parked in front of his shop between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. on 30.1.2010 at Seetanagaram, informed the same to P.W.78, who rushed to the place, prepared a rough sketch, and drafted an observation report between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. He also got the second scene photographed through P.W.53. P.W.12 informed P.W.78 that two unknown persons had shifted a girl from the Tavera car bearing Registration No. AP 03 R 2223 into Tata Safari car bearing Registration No. AP16 A 3937. P.W.12, along with his wife and their children, P.Ws.13 and 14, witnessed the shifting of D2 from Tavera car to the Tata Safari car. Later, A1 and A2 placed D2 in a plastic drum and proceeded to Sarada Industries, situated in Plot Nos.405 and 406, Indira Autonagar, Guntur. A1 is the owner of Sarada Industries. 14 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 (xx) On 30.01.2010, between 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., P.W.17, an employee of Sarada Industries, noticed A1 and A2 at the premises. P.W.16, another employee of the said industries, observed that the cap of the electrical furnace had been removed and kept aside at about 3:30 p.m., on the same day. On 30.01.2010, between 12:30 p.m. and 1:00 p.m., P.W.61 handed over the Tata Safari car to A1 at the request of A2. P.W.63 observed that A1 and A2 brought a plastic drum at about 10:30 p.m., placed it in the electrical furnace, switched it on, and after some time, switched it off and replaced the cap, thereby burnt the plastic drum along with D2 to screen the evidence of murder. On coming to know about the death of D2, her father, Palagani Prabhakara Rao, suffered a cardiac arrest and died on 02.02.2010. (xxi) P.W.78 issued a requisition to trace the details of calls made and received through towers covering the areas from Madhuranagar and Durgapuram to Seetanagaram. He collected the call details of phone numbers pertaining to Airtel towers adjacent to the first scene of offence from P.W.20. P.W.78 confirmed the phone numbers through P.W.55, the paternal uncle of P.W.2, who stated that the said phone numbers belonging to A1. On enquiry, he came 15 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 to know that conversation took place from 7:27 a.m. and ended at 8:04 a.m. at the Rokallapalem tower location. (xxii) On 01.02.2010, P.W.78 instructed P.W.72, Sub- Inspector of Police, Pedakakani Police Station, to visit Sarada Industries and verify the premises. P.W.72 visited Sarada Industries, observed the electrical furnace, and found burnt remnants of a small child’s body, and informed P.W.78 accordingly. Immediately, P.W.78 visited Sarada Industries, examined the electrical furnace, and observed the burnt remnants. He prepared an observation report- Ex.P67 in the presence of P.W.66 at the third scene of offence. (xxiii) On 02.02.2010, at about 6:00 a.m., P.W.78 held inquest over the dead body of D2 in the presence of P.W.60 and another. Inquest report pertaining to D2 is marked as Ex.P66. He sent the skeletal remnants for postmortem examination. The skeletal remnants were preserved for chemical analysis and DNA examination. (xxiv) P.W.77, the then Associate Professor of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, visited the third scene of offence, i.e., Sarada Industries, and found the burnt skeletal remains in an iron electrical furnace. He observed that the scalp, including hair, and the soft tissues of the body were 16 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 completely burnt, and that the bony tissues were mostly burnt. He also found two ear studs with glittering stones embedded in the burnt tissue of the head portion. He could not give any opinion regarding the cause of death as the body was completely burnt. (xxv) During the course of investigation, P.W.78 arrested A1 and A2 at about 6:00 a.m. on 04.02.2010 at Prakasam Barrage, Vijayawada. They said to have confessed about the commission of murder of D1 and D2 in the presence of P.W.57 and another. P.W.78 seized two mobile phones from A1 and A2. He also seized a gold chain-M.O.4 from the possession of A1, which belonged to D2. A1 and A2 were produced before the concerned Magistrate and were remanded to judicial custody. (xxvi) On 05.02.2010, P.W.78 conducted Test Identification Parade, in which P.Ws.2, 9, and 10 identified M.O.s 4 and 5 as belonging to D2, in the presence of P.W.57 and another. P.W.56, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada, also conducted Test Identification Parade, in which P.W.2 identified A1 and A2. (xxvii) On 07.02.2010, at about 3:00 p.m., P.W.78 arrested A3 near Kanakadurgamma Temple. A3 also confessed the commission of offence in the presence of P.W.37 and another. Thereafter, A3 was remanded to judicial custody. A1 and A2 were produced from 17 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 judicial custody to police custody from 10.02.2010 to 16.02.2010, and A3 was produced from judicial custody to police custody from 12.02.2010 to 17.02.2010 for ascertaining further information. Pursuant to the confession made by A1, P.W.78 seized cash from P.Ws.28 to 32 in the presence of mediators, P.W.57 and another. The burnt remnants of D2 were sent to FSL. (xxviii) P.W.67-the then Deputy Electrical Inspector, Guntur examined the electrical furnace situated at Sarada industries and gave certificate stating that it is in working condition. (xxix) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.79 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 80 and marked Exs.P1 to P168 and exhibited M.O.s1 to 69. C.W.1 was also examined and Exs.C1 to C13 were marked. Out of the witnesses, P.Ws.11, 15, 18, 30, and 32 to 34 did not support the prosecution and they were cross-examined by the prosecution. 8. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 30 were examined, and Exs.D1 to 135 and Exs.X2 to X147 were marked. 18 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 9. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3/ appellants as aforesaid. 10. Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2, Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A3 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Sri Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record 12. P.Ws.1, 2, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 55 are the family members of D2. All these witnesses deposed that, due to disputes between the first wife and the second wife of Palagani Prabhakara Rao, A3, who is the brother of the first wife, conspired with A1 and, with his assistance, executed the commission of the offence. 13. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/A1, stating that there was no motive on the part of A1 to kill D2. He further contends that even if he kills D2, he will not get any monetary benefit or any other benefits. Even the family members of D2 did not speak anything against A1, stating that he was having grudge against Palagani Prabhakara Rao and his family members. 19 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 14. He further contends that A2 is an employee of A1 and he need not cooperate with A1 to participate in the commission of the offence. The prosecution has implicated A2 without any basis. As such, he contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive for A1 and A2 to kill D1 and D2. 15. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that A3 offered an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to A1 for executing the work of elimination of D2 and P.W.2. He further contends that A3 had already paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to A1, which was recovered from P.Ws.27 to 32. He further contends that A1 was also having an independent motive against Palagani Prabhakara Rao, the father of D2, and the said motive was elicited through the evidence of P.Ws.10, 22, and 55. He contends that A1 is none other than the cousin of A3. A1 is the son of senior maternal aunt of the first wife of Palagani Prabhakara Rao. Sister of A1 got married to the brother of the said Palagani Prabhakara Rao. A1 and the brother of Palagani Prabhakara Rao used to do joint business, which did not develop to their expectations, and they sustained losses in the said business. A1 requested Palagani Prabhakara Rao to invest some amount in their business, and as Palagani Prabhakara Rao did not deposit any 20 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 capital, A1 bore grudge against Palagani Prabhakara Rao and his brother. On one occasion, A1 put flaming tyres in a room of the apartment of Palagani Mohan Rao, and all that indicates he also had a strong motive against Palagani Prabhakara Rao. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.10, 22, and 55 also establishes that A1 had an independent motive against the family of Palagani Prabhakara Rao. As such, he contends that A1 too had a motive against Palagani Prabhakara Rao and that he sought the assistance of A2. 16. Having analysed the evidence of P.Ws.10, 22, and 55, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 9, and 21, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the independent motive for A1 to take revenge against the family of Palagani Prabhakara Rao. 17. Coming to the first scene of offence and the attack on D1, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4. P.W.2, who is none other than the elder brother of D2, deposed that on 30.01.2010 at about 8:05 a.m., he, along with D2, was proceeding to NSM School, Vijayawada, through BRTS Road in a Tavera car bearing No. AP 03 R 2223, driven by D1. When the car reached near the first scene of offence, i.e., Railway Colony, 21 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 Satyanarayanapuram, someone pelted stones on the rear glass of the car. Immediately, P.W.2 and D1 got down from the car and noticed that the rear glass was broken. At that juncture, A1 and A2, who came on two motorbikes, attacked and stabbed D1, who fell down with bleeding injuries. Immediately, P.W.2 jumped over the wall and entered into the house of P.W.3. 18. P.W.4, in his evidence, has also categorically stated that while D1 was observing the broken glass, A1 and A2 caught hold of D1 and stabbed him with a knife on several parts of his body. He further stated that he noticed P.W.2 escaping from the first scene of offence. 19. P.W.3, in his evidence, has stated that P.W.2 entered his house and requested for his mobile phone. P.W.3 further deposed that P.W.2 took his mobile phone and informed his family members about the attack made by A1 and A2 at the first scene of offence. Though P.Ws.2 and 4 were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited to disbelieve their evidence. 20. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the medical evidence adduced through P.W.59, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of D1, also corroborates the ocular version of P.Ws.2 and 4 that D1 died due to stab injuries. As such, there is 22 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 insofar as the attack on D1 at the first scene of offence is concerned. 21. P.Ws.2 and 4, in their evidence, further stated that after attacking D1 at the first scene of offence, A1 and A2 kidnapped D2 in the same car. Further, according to P.W.78, he seized M.Os.2 and 3-the abandoned motorbikes and also the knife, M.O.6, from the first scene of offence. As such, the prosecution has been able to establish the commission of the murder of D1 and kidnapping D2 in Tavera car bearing Registration No. AP 03 R 2223. 22. So far as the second scene of offence, i.e., the place to where A1 and A2 shifted D2 from Tavera car bearing Registration No. AP 03 R 2223 to Tata Safari car bearing Registration No. AP16 A 3937, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.12 to 14. 23. P.Ws.12 and 14, in their evidence, have categorically stated that they are residents of Seetanagaram, Tadepalli. They deposed that on 30.01.2010, P.W.12, along with his family members, visited Kanaka Durgamma Temple at about 8:00 a.m. When they reached the Railway Bridge at Seetanagaram Boat Yard, they found a black-colour car and a white-colour car, stopped at that place. They observed that the rear glass of the black-colour car was broken. They further noticed that a female child was being shifted 23 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 from the black-colour car to the white-colour car. P.Ws.12 and 14 stated that after the female child was shifted into the white-coloured car, the black-colour car was abandoned at the second scene of offence, and the white-colour car proceeded towards Undavalli side. 24. Having come to know about the abandoned Tavera car at the second scene of offence, P.W.78, along with mediators, seized the car from the said location. Though P.Ws.12 to 14 were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited from their evidence. As such, the prosecution has been able to establish that A1 and A2 shifted D2 into Tata Safari car at the second scene of offence and proceeded towards Undavalli. 25. Coming to the third scene of offence, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.78, the Investigating Officer, and P.W.72, Sub-Inspector of Police, who visited Sarada Industries and found skeletal remnants in the furnace. The prosecution also relies on the evidence of P.W.10, who identified diamond ear studs belonging to D2 found in the electrical furnace, and the evidence of P.W.16, the night watchman at the said industries. 26. P.Ws.16, 17, and 63, in their evidence, have categorically stated that A1 and A2 visited Sarada Industries on 30.01.2010. P.Ws.16 and 17 further stated that the cap of the electrical furnace 24 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 was opened and kept aside. They also deposed that on the next day they observed that the furnace had been meddled with or operated. P.Ws.16 and 17 are employees of Sarada Industries, which belongs to A1. 27. P.W.63, who was working as night watchman, categorically stated in his evidence that at about 10:00 p.m. on 30.01.2010, A1 and A2 visited Sarada Industries carrying a three- feet plastic box and kept it in the electrical furnace and went away. 28. P.Ws.23 to 26 were examined to establish that A1 is the owner of Sarada Industries, which is not in dispute. 29. P.W.56, Panch witness at the third scene of offence, also deposed that diamond ear studs were found in the electrical furnace. 30. P.W.67- Deputy Electrical Inspector, Guntur has categorically stated that the electrical furnace is in working condition. 31. P.Ws.60 and 77, the Medical Officers who visited the third scene of offence to conduct post-mortem examination, categorically stated in their evidence that they found the skeletal remnants of a child in the electrical furnace. They also stated in their evidence that they found two diamond ear studs on the burnt skull portion in the electrical furnace. 25 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 32. P.W.10, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he identified the ear studs belonging to D2, which were found in the electrical furnace. It was only with the help of P.W.10, the investigating officer-P.W.78 could identify the ear studs belonging to D2. As such, the prosecution has been able to prove that the skeletal remnants found in the electrical furnace at Sarada Industries, owned by A1, belonged to D2. Apart from this, the prosecution has also been able to prove, through the evidence of P.Ws.16, 17, and 63, that A1 and A2 visited the said industry on 30.01.2010, and that they threw a plastic drum into the electrical furnace at about 10:30 p.m. on the same day. Though P.Ws.17 and 63 were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited from their evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to establish the third scene of offence, including the act of A1 and A2 throwing the plastic drum into the furnace at about 10:30 p.m. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of A1 and A2 in causing the deaths of D1 and D2, as well as the kidnapping of D2. 33. Coming to role of A3, the prosecution alleged that A3 conspired with A1 to eliminate D2 and P.W.2 due to his disputes with Palagani Prabhakara Rao, the father of D2. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/A3, contends that the prosecution 26 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 is relying on the evidence of P.Ws.40 and 41, as well as P.Ws.27 to 30, with regard to the so-called conspiracy. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.40 and 41 cannot be relied upon to establish the alleged conspiracy between A3 and A1. 34. We have also analysed the evidence of P.Ws.40 and 41 carefully. 35. P.Ws.40 and 41, in their evidence, stated that on 19.01.2010 at about 8:30 a.m., they went to Seetamma Padalu Ghat at the Krishna River, Vijayawada, on a motorcycle for some work. They stopped their bike on the right side of the road and went to a tea stall on the left side to have tea and talking with each other. At that time, A3 and another person, who was dark in complexion, came on a motorcycle, stopped at the tea stall, and sat behind the wall. They also observed A1 talking with the other person about Palagani Prabhakara Rao and heard a conversation regarding conspiracy to kidnap D2 and PW.2, and also suggesting that D1 should be killed while kidnapping D2. According to P.Ws.40 and 41, they heard this conversation about 12 days prior to the date of incident. However, they disclosed this information to the police 25 days after the incident, i.e., a total of 37 days later. 27 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 36. P.Ws.40 and 41 are none other than the partners of P.W.55, who is the paternal uncle of D2. P.W.41, in his cross- examination, admitted that he deposed in this case at the instance of P.W.55. Though P.Ws.40 and 41 allegedly came to know about the conspiracy on 19.01.2010, they did not inform either to Prabhakara Rao or to the police for about 37 days. As such, except the evidence of P.Ws.40 and 41, there is no other material available to establish the alleged conspiracy between A3 and A1. 37. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the only evidence available on record to establish the conspiracy between A3 and A1 is the testimony of P.Ws.40 and 41 and also the recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- from P.Ws.27 to 32. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant/A3 contends that the said amount was recovered from P.Ws.27 to 32 at the instance of A1. He further contends that the prosecution has not placed any material to show that A3 paid Rs.1,00,000/- to A1 as an advance amount. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not able to show any other material to show the so-called conspiracy between A3 and A1. 28 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 39. Having carefully analysed the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged conspiracy between A3 and A1, as the evidence of P.Ws.40 and 41 does not inspire confidence of this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/A3 cannot be sustained. Hence, A3 is entitled to be acquitted. 40. Having analysed the evidence carefully, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court require no interference so far as the appellants/A1 and A2 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1976 and 2368 of 2018 are concerned. 41. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.1976 and 2368 of 2018 are hereby dismissed, confirming the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants/A1 and A2 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Sessions Case No.97 of 2010, dated 14.06.2018. Needless to state that the period already 29 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 undergone by the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 42. Criminal Appeal No.2208 of 2018 is allowed by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellant/Accused No.3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, in Sessions Case No.97 of 2010, dated 14.06.2018, for the offences under Sections under Sections 302 r/w 120-B IPC, 364 r/w 120-B IPC, 302 r/w 120-B IPC, 427 r/w 120-B IPC and 201 r/w 120B IPC. Accordingly, the appellant/Accused No.3 is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him. Consequently, the appellant/Accused No.3 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI Date:03.11.2025 GR 30 KSR, J &SRS,J CRL.A.NOS.1976, 2208 and 2368 of 2018 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1976, 2208 AND 2368 OF 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 03.11.2025 GR