A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY .THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 567 and 615 of 2017 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 567 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment made in SC.No. 130/201 &, dated 29.05.2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. Between: Dasireddy Anjaneya Raju (A-2), S/o. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Post Office Street, Relangi Village, Iragavaram Mandal. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of AR., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P at Amaravathi ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 615 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Tanuku in S.C. No.130 of 2015 dated 29-5-2017. Between: Pasupuleti Satyavathi, W/o. Krishna @ Kishtayya, Aged about 28 years R/o. D.No.7-134, Opp: Post Office, Post Office Street, Relangi(V) Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Appellant/Accused No.1 AND The State of AP., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. C Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following:COMMON JUDGMENT APHC010690442017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 567/2017 Between: DASIREDDY ANJANEYA RAJU (A-2) S/0. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/0. POST OFFICE STREET, RELANGI VILLAGE, IRAGAVARAM MANDAL. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP REP PP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.TNAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) AND 2 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 , APHC010185992017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3528] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 615/2017 Between: PASUPULETI SATYAVATHI, W/0. KRISHNA @ KISHTAYYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/0. D.NO. 7-134, OPP: POST OFFICE, POST OFFICE STREET, RELANGI(V), IRAGAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP REP PP, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.CSHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 Crl.A.Nos.567 AM) 615 OF 2017 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As both the Criminal Appeals are arising out of the same Sessions Case, they are being taken up together for “hearing” and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment. 2. Both the accused in Sessions Case No. 130 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges i. 1®* charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2: ii. 2'^'’ charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 08.01.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. A.2 forcibly rounded the neck of Pasupuleti Krishna @ Kishtayya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with a towel and strangulated him to death and A.1 sat on the deceased and caught the legs of deceased, causing his death and thereafter as per their preplan at about 4.00 p.m., A.1 called the neighbours in a hurried and weeping manner and then neighbours rushed there and found the deceased lying on the cot. She made phone call to the RMP doctor, who in turn visited and examined the deceased and suggested to take deceased to ? 5=3^, 4 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 the higher hospital, but by that time the deceased died, on that A.1 sent information to the father of the deceased in order to screen away the evidence and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, by Judgment, dated 29.05.2017 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. They were further convicted under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences imposed against the accused No.1 and 2 were directed to run concurrently. were 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017; whereas accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2017. 6. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in Cri.A.No.567 of 2012 and Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.615 of 5 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 2017 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A.No.615 of 2017 has stated that Accused No.1 was already released by granting remission, vide G.0.1\/ls.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated, 14-08-2022, and as such, he requests this court to close the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017. In support of his contention, he also filed a photocopy of the above said G.O along with annexures. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the factum of granting remission to the Appellant/Accused No.1 by the Government. 7. While recording the above said statements. Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is liable to be closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.1 was already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14-08-2022. 8. 9. The case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) Accused No.1 is none other thao the wife of the deceased and they are residents of Relangi village, Iragavaram Mandal. P.W.1 is father, P.W.5 is mother, P.W.6 is brother and P.W.10 is the sister of the 6 Crl.A.Nos.567 AITO 615 OF 2017 deceased respectively. They are also residents of the Accused No.2 is also resident of the same village, same village. The marriage was performed about 10 between Accused No.1 and deceased prior to the date of offence and they aged about 8 years. The deceased doing agricultural works, deceased and Accused No.1 left for years were blessed with a daughter, was eking out his livelihood by After 1 years of their marriage, the Bandapuram Village for doing used to reside at the agricultural coolie works. They both house of the Accused No.1. parents When P.W.1, father of the deceased, questioned him, he informed stating that Accused No.1 eloped with the parents of Accused No.1 RMP Doctor. Six (6) months thereafter, brought her back and left her im matrimonial home stating that she No.1 and deceased set one year. The couple was having illicit intimacy with others, intimacy with Accused No.2. committed a mistake. Thereafter, Accused up a separate house and they lived peacefully for used to quarrel as Accused No.1 Thereafter, Accused No.1 developed illicit (ii) While so, returned from coolie work i Accused No.1, abused her i on 08-01-2014 at about 3.00 P.M the deceased an inebriate condition and shouted in at in an uncouth language. He laid on the cot 1 came out and informed to Nos.1 by strangulation at about 4.30 a drunken state. Then Accused No. in Accused No.2, who was found on the road. Later, both Accused and 2 caused the death of the deceased 7 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 or 5.00 P.M. P.W.1 received information about the death of the deceased. He rushed to the house and found the deceased the cot and when he inquired Accused No.1 lying on she replied stating that she tried to wake him up for serving a Tea, but he did not respond and she also informed to the local RMP Doctor by name Boby, who in turn came and examined and informed her to take the deceased to the Tanuku hospital. After arrival of the relatives. Pw.1 went to Iragavaram police station and gave a report. (iii) On 08-01-2014 at about 11.00 P.M. Police received Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 and 2014 under Section.174 Cr.P.C. the Sub-inspector of registered a case in Cr.No.2 of F.I.R is marked as Ex.P-23, visited the scene of offence and deployed two Constables. He On 09-01- 2014 at about 8.00 A.M, P.W.20 went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P-13 in the presence of P.W.15 and another. He also seized Mos.1 to 4 under Ex.P-13 and he got the scene photographed through P.W.11. Photographs Ex.P-9. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-24 were marked as at the scene of offence. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 11 and Accused No.1. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.15. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.18-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Tanuku conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the 8 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 cause of death was “due to ante mortem pressure over the neck probable due to throttling or strangulation may be combined with pressure over the face and ante mortem pressure over the chest.” He issued preliminary report-Ex.P-19 and final opinion-Ex.P-22. P.W.20 sent the material objects to R.F.S.L, Vijayawada and R.F.S.L report is marked as Ex.P.20. The further investigation was taken over by P.W.21. After receipt of R.F.S.L. report, P.W.21 altered the F.I.R to Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. Altered F.I.R is marked as Ex.P-25. On 01-07-2014 P.W.15-V.R.O, Relangi brought both the accused along with his report-Ex.P-16 stating that both the accused confessed before him about the commission of offence. He arrested both the accused under cover of panchanama-Ex.P-17. Thereafter, P.W.22 took up further investigation. On 29-06-2014 he verified the investigation done by P.W.20 and found it on correct lines. The statements of P.Ws.1 and 12 were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. After completion of investigation, P.W.23 filed the charge. 10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 23 marked Exs.P-1 to P-26 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. On behalf of the defence. Exs.D-1 to D-14 were marked. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 11. they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 9 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 12. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused as aforesaid. Sri.T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant/ Accused No.2 in Crl.A.No.567 of 2017 strenuously contends that except the so-called confessional statement made before P.W.15, there is no other material to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. He further contends that the prosecution has not placed material to show that Accused No.1 was having illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. He further contends that the extra judicial confession i: a very weak piece of evidence and on the sole basis of an extra judicial confession, the appellant cannot be convicted. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant requests this court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by allowing the Appeal. 13. any IS 14. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal. 15. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.WI-father, P.W.5-mother, P.W.6-brother and P.W.IO-sister of the deceased respectively did not whisper anything in their evidence about the alleged illegal intimacy between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2. Absolutely, no material placed by the prosecution to show that Accused i 10 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 No.1 was having illicit i 13 and 14 did not intimacy with Accused No.2. P.Ws.2. 3, 4, 7, 8, were declared support the prosecution and they hostile. Therefore, the only evidence as available on record is P.W.15 ■ P.W.15 in his evidence who is V.R.o of Relangi village 01-07-2014 both stated that on the accused approached him in his office and want to surrender before the informed him that they they killed the deceased. police stating that their statements Immediately, he recorded station and handed accused. P.W15 in his evidence did and took them to the police turn arrested the both the over to P.W.21, who in not state that acquainted with him. It is also not stated that as to why they Further, accused were anything in his evidence about the are informing P.W.15 according to the and the so-called accused was SIX months. As seen from the panchanamas and for of P.W15, there is no connect the appellant/Accused No.2 with the alleged commission of offence. even place on 08-01-2014 prosecution, the offence took extra judicial confession on 01-07-2014 i said to have been made by the nearly after lapse of si i.e.. evidence, P.W.15 i all practical other material to offence. IS the panch witness for all the purposes. Except the sole evidence 16. In this connection, it i 'S *haf the Hon'ble Apex Court i especially in the following in a catena of cases the extra judicial cases categorically held that IS a weak piece of evidence confession i and the i M rj ■ a. 11 Crl,A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 conviction cannot be recorded on the sole basis of the so-called extra judicial confession 1. Rahim Beg & another v. State of UP., (1972) 3 SCC 759; 2. Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 (Supp) Supreme Cases 526; 3. State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh., (1999) 7 SCC 714; 4. Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165; 5. Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu., (2012) 6 SCC 403; 6. Pedakapu Sannayya v. State of A.P., 2018 (1) ALD (CrI) 1029. Further, the extra judicial commission said to have been made by the accused before the P.W.15 is nearly six months after the alleged incident. In view of the above circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, the conviction and sentence recorded by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku, dated 29.05.2017 in S.C.No.130 17. of 2015 as against the Appellant/Accused No.2 is not sustainable and accordingly the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is liable to be allowed. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2017 is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku in S.C.No.130 of 2015 12 Crl.A.Nos.567 AND 615 OF 2017 on 29.05.2017 and the appellant/A.2 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections. 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted. Since the appellant/Accused No.2 was already granted bail at the stage of admission, his bail bonds stands cancelled automatically. The Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2017 is closed as no orders are required to be passed as the Appellant/Accused No.1 already released by granting remission vide G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (PAROLES & HRC) Department, dated 14-08-2022. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. was SD/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,Tanuku. Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. The II Additional Judicial P'Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram Godavari District 4. The Inspector, Penugonda Circle, Penugonda, West Godavari District. 5. One CC to Sri. C Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. T Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, .High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi West East 9. Three CD Copies A HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.567 and 615 of 2017 ^ 0 3 JUL 2025 1Sf*i ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 615 of 2017 CLOSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 567 of 2017