APHC010216262018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1062/2018 Between: 1. KALUVA KOTESWARA RAO @ KOTI, R/O.D.NO. 42-16-6, BLOCK NO.69, KOLA BHUSHANAM ROAD, AJEET SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 27-02-2018 in Sessions Case Nos. 282 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet (for short, 'the trial Court’), the accused therein preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court. 2. The accused was tried and convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 30-11-2016 at about 12 noon, the accused stabbed one Munnangi Sirisha (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') with a knife on her neck, stomach and back in the fields situated in Takkellapadu Village of Phirangipuram Mandal, Guntur District, causing her death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus: The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Vijayawada City. The deceased was also resident of the same city. While so, on 29-07-2016, someone called the deceased over 3 phone and informed that her husband invested amounts in Indian Oil Corporation and that since her husband had passed away, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- would be paid to her family and asked her to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- in order to get the said amount released at the earliest. On 30-07-2016, the said unknown person once again called the deceased and asked her to come to City Bus Stand, Vijayawada, to give the amount to him. The deceased sent her son-P.W.5 and her brother-in-law by name Lam Srinu Babu (L.W.9) with an amount of Rs.30,000/- to City Bus Stand, Vijayawada. At Bus Stand, P.W.5 met P.W.9 who introduced himself as an agent of Indian Oil Corporation. P.W.5 handed over Rs.30,000/- to P.W.9 who obtained signatures of the deceased on some blank papers. P.W.9 also gave a slip mentioning his name and mobile number and instructed P.W.5 to call him if the amount was not credited to the account of the deceased. As the amount was not credited to the account of the deceased, P.W.5 tried to contact P.W.9 but there was no response. Since there was no response, P.W.5 kept quiet. While so, on 24-11-2016, P.W.5 and the deceased attended marriage ceremony of younger brother of the accused at Ajitsingh Nagar, Vijayawada. While P.W.5 was having lunch, he identified P.W.9, to whom he paid Rs.30,000/- on 30-07-2016 at City Bus Stand, 4 Vijayawada. Since the deceased was not with him at that time, P.W.5 took a photograph of P.W.9 on his mobile phone. Later, P.W.5 showed the said photograph to the deceased. P.W.5 and the deceased searched for that person in the marriage function but could not trace him. Then, the deceased showed the said photograph to the accused and inquired about him. They searched for the said person but in vain. When the deceased expressed her intention to lodge a complaint against P.W.9, the accused convinced her by saying that he would search for him through his colleagues. Being afraid that the matter would come out if the deceased gives a report to police against P.W.9, the accused decided to eliminate the deceased. While so, on 30-11-2016, the accused went to the house of the deceased and informed her that P.W.9 was at Sattenapalli and asked her to accompany him to collect the money. Accordingly, around 12 noon, the deceased went along with the accused towards Sattenapalli. While going, the deceased gave keys to P.W.8, who is her tenant, and informed her that she was going to Sattenapalli along with the accused. On the same day at about 5 p.m., P.W.5 returned home from college and found the door locked. P.W.5 opened the door with duplicate key. As the deceased did not return home, P.W.5 contacted the accused who informed that the deceased got down at RTC Bus Stand on some 5 work leaving her mobile phone with him. The accused asked P.W.5 to come to his house and collect the mobile phone. P.W.5 visited the house of the accused and collected the mobile phone. Thereafter, P.W.5 along with his relatives and the accused searched for the deceased but in vain. Having searched, P.W.5 went to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station on 06-12-2016 and gave a report. Basing on the report, a case in crime No. 628 of 2016 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station was registered under the head 'Woman Missing'. In the meanwhile, the Village Revenue Officer, Phirangipuram-P.W.1, having come to know about the presence of an unidentified dead body in the fields of Takkellapadu Village, went to Police Station, Phirangipuram, on 03-12-2016 and presented a report-Ex.P1. P.W.12-the Sub Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station, received Ex.P1 on 03-12-2016 from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No. 112 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P10 is FIR. Having received the information, the Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Circle-P.W.13, secured the presence of P.W.2 and another-mediators and went to the fields of Takkellapadu Village. He prepared an observation report in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 6 Observation report was marked as Ex.P2. He also seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through P.W.4. Photographs were marked as Ex.P6. He prepared a rough sketch- Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.11 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P3. At the inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and others. After inquest, he recorded statement of P.W.3 who is neighbouring landowner. He shifted the unidentified dead body to Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.10-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Narasaraopet, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to cut injury to throat. He accordingly issued Ex.P9-post mortem certificate. On 04-12-2016, P.W.13 recorded statement of P.W.4. On 09-12-2016, P.Ws.5 to 7 went to Phirangipuram Police Station and identified the dead body as that of the deceased with the aid of photographs and her wearing apparels. P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 7. On the same day, P.W.13 went to the house of the deceased and recorded statement of P.W.8. On 21-12-2016, he secured the presence of P.W.1 and arrested the accused at Nandigama Cross-Roads, outskirts of Sattenapalli, under a cover of panchanama- 7 Ex.P4. He seized M.O.4-Motorcycle from the accused. On the confession made by the accused, he seized M.Os.5 to 7 from bushes near the scene of offence. He forwarded the seized material objects to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur. On 22-12-2016, he recorded statement of P.W.9. R.F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P12. After collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 17. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no oral evidence, however got marked Ex.D1 on his behalf. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 9, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused as afore-stated. 8. Heard Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. There are no eyewitnesses to the alleged murder in the present case. The prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution places its case on two circumstances. The first circumstance is motive for the accused to kill the deceased and the second circumstance is last seen theory. 10. So far as the first circumstance i.e. motive is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.9 who was set up by the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused telephoned to the deceased and informed her that her husband invested certain amounts in Indian Oil Corporation and that since her husband had passed away, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- would be paid to his family. The accused also informed the deceased that an amount of Rs.30,000/- has to be paid in order to release the said amount at the earliest. Believing the words of the accused, the deceased paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to P.W.5 on 30-07-2016 and asked him to hand over the same to P.W.9 in City Bus Stand at Vijayawada. P.W.5 went to City Bus Stand, Vijayawada, on 30-07-2016 and handed over Rs.30,000/- to P.W.9 and returned. Thereafter, P.W.5 saw P.W.9 on 24-11-2016 in the 9 marriage ceremony of younger brother of the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused set up P.W.9 to collect Rs.30,000/- from P.W.5. Thinking that P.W.9 may reveal his name, the accused decided to kill the deceased. Though the payment of Rs.30,000/- had happened on 30-07-2016, no report was given to police either by P.W.5 or by the deceased. It is only after nearly four months i.e. on 24-11-2016, P.W.5 saw P.W.9 in a marriage ceremony. Though P.W.5 gave Ex.P7-report on 06-12-2016 itself, the statement of P.W.9 was not recorded till 22-12-2016. The statement of P.W.9 was recorded by P.W.13 only on 22-12-2016. Except the evidence of P.W.9, there is no other evidence to establish the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. As such, the prosecution could not able to prove the first circumstance. 11. Coming to the second circumstance i.e. last seen theory, the prosecution set up P.Ws.3, 7 and 8. P.W.8, who is tenant of the deceased, in her evidence categorically stated that on 30-11-2016 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased left along with the accused on his motorcycle. While leaving the house, the deceased informed P.W.8 that she was going to Sattenapalli. She also stated that the 10 deceased handed over the keys of her house to her. She further stated that at about 5 p.m. when P.W.5 returned home, she handed over the keys to him. P.W.8 further stated in her evidence that she informed P.W.5 that the deceased left for Sattenapalli along with the accused. P.W.5 in his Ex.P7-report dated 06-12-2016 did not whisper anything about P.W.8 informing him that the deceased went along with the accused to Sattenapalli. P.W.5 in his evidence stated that he went to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station on 06-12-2016 and gave a report-Ex.P7, on the basis of which a case in crime No. 628 of 2016 of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station was registered under the head 'Woman Missing'. In Ex.P7-report, P.W.5 simply stated that when he returned home at about 6 p.m. on 30-11-2016, the deceased was found missing. When P.W.5 inquired with the neighbours, the latter informed that the deceased left the house at about 1 p.m. and she would return in the evening. It is also stated in Ex.P7 that they searched for the deceased in Bus Stand, Railway Station and other places and as her whereabouts were not known, P.W.5 went to police station on 06-12-2016 and presented Ex.P7-report. If really P.W.8 saw the deceased in the company of the accused, the 11 same would have been mentioned in Ex.P7-report as P.W.5 was already informed by P.W.8 that the deceased went along with the accused to Sattenapalli. Curiously, the said aspect was not mentioned by P.W.5 in his earliest report-Ex.P7. 12. The prosecution also examined P.W.7 to establish the last seen theory. P.W.7 is none other than cousin of the deceased. P.W.7 in his evidence stated that at about 3 p.m. on 30-11-2016, he found the accused and the deceased while proceeding on bike towards Sattenapalli. Curiously, P.W.7 also did not inform either P.W.5 or police about he witnessing the accused going along with the deceased on 30-11-2016 towards Sattenapalli. 13. The prosecution is also relying on the evidence of P.W.3 who is neighbouring land owner to the scene of offence. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that on 30-11-2016 at about 3 or 3.30 p.m., he found one man and woman coming to canal bund while he was attending agricultural works; that after staying for some time, they left towards the fields of P.W.2 and that at about 6 p.m., he left the fields. P.W.3 in his evidence further stated that on the next day evening around 6.30 or 7 p.m., he came to know that one 12 unidentified female dead body was lying in the fields of P.W.2. Admittedly, P.W.3 is a stranger and no test identification parade was conducted. P.W.3 identified the accused in the Court only on 12-09-2017 i.e. after a gap of more than 8 months. 14. According to P.W.1, he saw the dead body for the first time on 03-12-016 having received information through someone. Immediately, P.W.1 went to police station and presented Ex.P1- report. Curiously, P.W.3 stated that he saw the dead body on 01-12-2016. According to P.W.13-investigating officer, he recorded statement of P.W.3 immediately after the inquest but the name of P.W.3 was not found mentioned in Ex.P3-inquest report. As such, the second circumstance i.e. last seen theory could not be established by the prosecution as P.Ws.3, 7 and 8 were planted by the police, after the dead body was traced, at a belated stage. Except these two circumstances, there is no other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. 15. So far as recovery of the material objects is concerned, according to P.W.13, they were recovered from bushes situated at a distance of 200 yards from the scene of offence. Therefore, no 13 reliance can be placed on the so called recovery as the material objects were recovered from a public place accessible to public. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances in pointing guilt towards the accused alone and not to any others. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court are required to be interfered with. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 27-02-2018 in Sessions Case No. 282 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge. As the appellant-accused has been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 31-03-2023 in I.A.No. 1 of 2023 in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No. 1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No. 607 of 2011 dated 02-11-2016), he is directed to 14 surrender himself before the concerned jail authorities for completing the formalities for his release. Fine amount paid, if any, by the appellant-accused shall be refunded to him. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in consequence. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J. ______________________ Date: 08-10-2025, SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. JSK 15 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1062 OF 2018 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) DATE: 08-10-2025 JSK