APHC010040992018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 153 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed in S.C. No. 125 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasham at Markapur. Between: 1. Aieti Srinu, S/o Janaki Ramulu, Aged 23 Jangala Caste, R/o.Sirigiripadu Village, Veldurthi District, AP., years, occ.Coolie, Budaga Mandal, Guntur 2. Kallem Ganga Rao, S/o Sambaiah, Aged 20 years, Occ. Coolie, Budaga Jangala Caste, R/o,Durgi (V and M), Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ■■■APPELLANTS/ACCUSED N0.1 AND 2 AND State of AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT i''. Counsel for Appellant No.1 : SMT A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for Appellant No.2 : SRi raJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent ; SRi MARRI VENKATA RAMANA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : ti APHC010040992018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA [3528] m CRIMINAL APPFAL NO: 153/2018 Between: 1.ALETI SRINU. S/0 JANAKI RAMULU, AGED 23 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, BUDAGA JANGALA CASTE, R/O.SIRIGIRIPADU VILLAGE, VELDURTHI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP. 2.KALLEM GANGA RAO, S/0 SAMBAIAH, AGED 20 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE, BUDAGA JANGALA CASTE, R/O.DURGI (V AND M), GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...APELLANT(S) AND 1.STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, high Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): ■1.RAJA REDDY KONETI 2.A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 0' CrI.A.No.l53 of 2018 The Court made the following JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Both the accused, in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following three (3) charges 1®* charge was under Section 364-A IPC, 2^^ charge was under Section 302 IPC and the O'"* charge was under Section 201 IPC against both the accused. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on the intervening night of 30.06.2013/01.07.20213 both the accused kidnapped one Chitte Sai Venkata Harshith Kumar Reddy @ Harshith Reddy {hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), at Obulakkapalli village, while he was sleeping with P.W.4 and demanded a ransom of Rs.7,00,000/- and in the same process, both the accused caused the death of the deceased, such as by A.2 closing the mouth and nose, by A.1 pressing the neck and legs and threw the dead body in a canal at Bodireddypalli village covering with branches to screen the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC and 3 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ under two counts and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under two counts, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted both the accused under Section 201 IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the substantive sentences imposed against A.1 and A.2 were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) Ail the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Obulakkapalli village. The deceased boy who is aged about 3 years, was also resident of the same village. P.W.2 is the father, P.W.3 is the mother, P.W.4 is the grandmother and P.W.5 is the grandfather of the deceased respectively. P.W.1 is the friend of P.W.2. P.W.6 is neighbor of P.W.2. A.1 was eking out his livelihood by parakeet fortune telling whereas A.2 was eking out his livelihood by doing gas stove repairs. While so, on 30.06.2013 both the accused, who belong to different villages, moved at Obulakkapalli village and spotted out the deceased boy. On the intervening night of 30.06.2013 / 01.07.2013 both the accused kidnapped the deceased while he was sleeping on the cot of 4 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 P.W.4. The deceased woke up from the sleep and the accused were unable to control the weeping of the deceased. Then A.2 closed the mouth and nose and A.1 pressed the neck and legs and caused the death of the deceased instantaneously. Thereafter, to screen the evidence, they have hidden the dead body in a canal of Bodireddypalli village and covered with tree branches. (ii) While kidnapping the deceased boy from the cot of P.W.4, A.1 and A.2 left two slips giving their mobile numbers asking them to contact to the said number. On 01.07.2013 P.W.2 woke up around 4.30 A.M. and found the deceased missing. He called his friend P.W.1 who immediately came to his house. When they were searching for the deceased, they noticed the slip near the cot indicating that if they want the deceased boy, they have to telephone to the number given in the slip. The phone number was shown as‘9951171780’. Another slip was pinned to the saree of P.W.4. Both slips were marked as Exs.P2 and P3. When P.Ws.1 and 2 called to the said number, the accused demanded ransom of Rs.7,00,000/- for releasing the boy. The accused switched off the mobile phone. P.W.1 once again called stating that they are Auto drivers and they cannot get an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Again, they called the said cell phone to inform that they can arrange an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Once again, P.W.2 made a call to the said mobile number between 9.00 A.M. and 10.00 5 Crl.A,No.l53 of 2018 A.M. and found the said mobile number was switched off. Thereafter. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the police station along with some other villagers and gave report. (iii) P.W.16 police constable of Pedda Araveedu Police Station received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at about 10.30 A.M. on 01.07.2013. He registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2013 under Section 364-A IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.PI 9. On the same day at about 12-00 noon, the Inspector of police, Markapur received copy of FIR and visited Pedda Araveedu Police Station and secured the presence of P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He informed to his superiors about the kidnap. Thereafter, he went to Obulakkpalli village, recorded the statement of P.W.2. He seized two slips (Exs.P2 and P3) under a panchanama-Ex.P6 in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8. Thereafter, he recorded statements of P.Ws.3 to 6. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P7 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P35 at the scene of offence. As he was transferred, the further investigation was taken over by P.W.24. (iv) On 02.07.2013, P.W.24 recorded statements of P.Ws.7 to 9. He visited Markapur Rural Police Station, Tripuranthakam Police Station, Pedda Araveedu Police Station and also Dornala Police Station in search of the boy. Thereafter, when he reached Dayyapu 6 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 vagu nearby Venkata Chennu cold storage, he saw two persons moving suspiciously. When P.W.24 along with his staff interrogated both the accused, they confessed stating that they kidnapped the deceased and also killed him. He seized Rs.100/- notes from each one of them, which were marked as M.Os.6 and 7 in the presence of He also seized shirts of both the accused under a In pursuance of the confession, P.W.24 along with the mediators reached the land of one Gilaka Gangamma, where the dead body of deceased boy was found in a canal covered with tree branches. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.7 and another. He also prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence, which was marked as Ex.P36. He collected hair in the right hand fingers of the deceased and left shoulder of the deceased. He also seized blood stained earth and P.W.7. panchanama, marked as M.Os.4 and 5. controlled earth-M.Os.8 and 9 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he filed a Memo altering the Section of law to Section 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. He secured the presence of P.Ws.2, 3 and others, who identified the dead body of the deceased boy. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P4. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. (V) 7 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 (Vi) P.W.14-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “asphyxia due to strangulation”, issued Ex.P15-post-mortem certificate. He (vii) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.25. 03.07.2013 P.W.25 seized M.0.1-banian belonging to the deceased boy, which was handed over by the doctor after post-mortem examination. In the meanwhile, he got photographed the dead body and scene of offence, which were marked as Exs.P20 to P31. On 07.07.2013 at about 9.00 A.M., P.W.5 went to the police station and handed over two mobile phones, which were found in the fields. Then, he secured the presence of P.W.11 and 12 and seized both cell phones under a cover of panchanama. Mobile phones were marked as M.Os.2 and 3. He sent the material objects, hyoid bone, skin around the neck and viscera to the RFSL. RFSL reports were marked as On Exs.Pie to PI 8. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, the successor of P.W.25 filed the charge sheet. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 25, 5. marked Exs.P1 to P36 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. On behalf of defence, portion of statement of P.W.3 was marked as Ex.DI. Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 f examined under Section 313 When both the accused Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them. 6. were Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/A.1 and A.2 as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/A.1 and A.2 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 7. 8. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for the 2^^^ appellant/A.2, Smt A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 1®‘ appellant/A.1 and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the prosecution rests its case only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel further contended that not even single circumstance was established by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. The conviction is solely based on the so-called confession said to have been made by both appellants, which is not permissible. They further contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge went to the extent of saying that the call data of the accused discloses the conversation between PW.1 and accused though the prosecution has not placed the so-called call data before the Court. 9 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 Learned Additional Sessions Judge appellants. As such, both the learned allow the Criminal Appeal by setting imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. on surmises convicted both the counsel requests this Court to aside conviction and sentence / 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal by contending that the dead body at the instance of the appellants, deceased was kidnapped 01.07.2013 and the dead body of the deceased was recovered He further contends that the the intervening night of 30.06.2013 / on was traced on the next day i.e., on 02.07.2013. As such, he contends that there is no time gap between the time of missing of the boy and tracing the dead body the deceased. He, therefore, requests this court to dismiss the of Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. 12. In the case on hand, there is no last scene theory. According to the prosecution, the accused kidnapped the deceased boy while he was sleeping on the cot of P.W.4 by leaving two slips, marked Exs.P2 and P3. The prosecution came up with the version that there was a conversation between P.W.1 and the accused through mobile phone belonging to the accused. But, the investigation agency has not as 10 Crl.A.No.l53 of 2018 'f' k taken any steps to verify the call data pertaining to those two mobile phones. As such, it can safely be presumed that there is no evidence with regard to the conversation between P.W.1 and the accused. The only circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the confession said to have been made by the accused, which led to recovery of the dead body of the deceased. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.7 and 9 to show the recovery. Unfortunately, these two mediators i.e., P.Ws.7 and 9, did not support the prosecution and they were declared as Learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment at paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 relied on the entire confession made by the accused and convicted them, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is impermissible. Further, the RFSL reports-Exs.PIG to PI 8 did not helpful to the prosecution. The hair found in the hands of the hostile. deceased did not tally with the hair of the accused. So far as Exs.P2 and P3 are concerned though they were sent to the hand-writing expert, no report was placed before the court. Therefore, having analyzed the entire evidence carefully and 13. scrutinized the same scrupulously, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not established single circumstance to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. 11 \ Crl.A.No,153 of 2018 14. On the above analyses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/A.1 & A.2 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur in S.C.No.125 of 2015 on 22.11.2017 and the appellants/A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections. 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted. 16. The appellants/Accused No.1 & 2 are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other cases or crimes. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SDI- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District, (with records) 2. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Station House Officer, Peddaraveedu Police Station, Prakasam District. 5. One CC to Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Smt A Gayatri Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati [OUT] 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 9. Two CD Copies stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 ^OFANO^-s JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 153 OF 2018 I ? AUG 2025 S Current Section .-0 ^'SsSS^AATCHeS,^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL