APHC010481752018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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: 1919/2018 Between: 1. HARIJANA SHYAMAPPA OR SHYAMANNA, R/O CHINTHARIAPALLI VILLAGE, SETTUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, rep by its PP, 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 present this memorandum of grounds of Criminal Appeal against the judgement Dt. 20-06-2018 in Sessions Case No. 300 of 2016 on the file of the court of the III Addl. Sess Judge (FTC), Anantapuram Counsel for the Apellant: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 APHC010112382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH 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: 1919 of 2018 JUDGMENT:-(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.300 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act 1989-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu (FAC) IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, is the appellant. He along with accused Nos.2 and 3, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 31.10.2015, at about 11:30 p.m., at Chintharlapalli Village, Settur Mandal, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3, in furtherance of common intention, caused the death of Harijana Buldi Vannur Swamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: (i) All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Chintharlapalli Village, Settur Mandal. The deceased was also a resident of the same village. P.Ws.1, 6 and 2 are father, mother and wife of the deceased, respectively. The marriage of the deceased was performed with P.W.2 about seven months prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that the deceased used to move closely with the wife of the appellant, and on that account, the appellant/accused No.1 quarrelled with the deceased twice or thrice and threatened him with dire consequences. (ii) While so on 31.10.2015, P.Ws.1, 6 and the deceased went to the fields for watering the groundnut crop and returned at about 6:00 p.m. After taking dinner, P.Ws.1 and 6 slept inside the house, whereas the deceased slept on the pail outside the house. At about 11:30 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 6 woke up, on hearing noise from outside. They opened the window and noticed the appellant/accused No.1 and two others running away. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 6 opened the doors and found the deceased lying dead with bleeding injuries 4 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 on his head. P.Ws.1 and 6 also found a big boulder near the head of the deceased. On seeing the same, P.Ws.1 and 6 raised hue and cry and neighbours gathered at the spot. On the next day, i.e on 01.11.2015 at about 8:30 a.m., P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. (iii) On 01.11.2015, P.W.10, S.I. of Police, Settur Police Station received Ex.P1, report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.112 of 2015 under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. He forwarded copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P8. (iv) P.W.11, Circle Inspector of Police, on the same day, at about 8:40 a.m., received information from P.W.10 and proceeded to the scene of offence and reached there by 9:30 a.m. He collected copy of F.I.R. at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body, in the presence of P.W.8, V.R.O. and others. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 and recorded their statements. He also seized M.Os.4 and 7 to 10 during inquest. P.W.11 sent information to the headquarters, Ananthapuram, to send dog squad to the scene. He prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P9, at the scene of offence. He also prepared another rough sketch, Ex.P10. Thereafter, P.W.11 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (v) P.W.5, A.R. Constable, working with dog squad unit, came to the scene of offence. Nothing came forward through the dog squad. 5 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 (vi) P.W.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to head injury. He issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P7. (vii) After post-mortem examination, the blood-stained clothes of the deceased were seized. On 02.11.2015, P.W.11 recorded the statement of P.W.7 and others. On 17.11.2015, P.W.11, along with his staff, apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. On the confession made by accused Nos. 1 to 3, the blood-stained lungis, M.Os.5 and 6, were seized under the culvert in the presence of P.W.8. The seizure report is marked as Ex.P13. On 23.11.2015, P.W.11 sent material objects to RFSL, Tirupathi. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P14. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P15 and exhibited MOs 1 to 10. On behalf of the defence, portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.D1. 6. When accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused No.1 as aforesaid. 6 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 8. Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 10. There are no witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the motive for the appellant to kill the deceased was that the latter used to move closely with the wife of the former. It was only for the said reason the appellant decided to kill the deceased. The prosecution is able to establish the said motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6, in their evidence, have stated that the deceased was moving closely with the wife of the appellant. Except the said motive, the prosecution could not able to prove any other circumstance. 11. The next chain of link that was projected by the prosecution is that at about 11:30 p.m. on 31.10.2015, P.Ws.1 and 6 were sleeping inside the house, and they heard noise from outside. Immediately, they opened the window and saw the appellant and two others running away. P.Ws.1 and 6, in their statement, also stated that with the help of street light, they could identify the appellant, who was running away. P.Ws.1 and 6 did not state that they witnessed the actual attack. As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused Nos.3 and 2 are elder brother and brother-in-law of the 7 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 appellant, respectively. As such, they are not strangers to the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the prosecution witnesses have specifically admitted in their evidence that they also know accused Nos 2 and 3. But, curiously, P.Ws.1 and 6 did not identify them while they were running away. They specifically stated that they could identify only accused No.1 with the help of street light. The prosecution witnesses did not say as to who, among the three accused, threw the boulder on the head of the deceased. When three people, according to the prosecution, participated in the attack, the prosecution could not place any material to show who threw the boulder on the head of the deceased. Except the fact that the appellant, along with two others, was found running away at the relevant point of time, there is no other circumstance placed by the prosecution to establish the commission of offence by the appellant. 12. Insofar as recovery of blood-stained lungies is concerned, the learned trial Judge disbelieved recovery of lungi worn by accused No.2, but believed the recovery of lungi of the appellant, though lungis of both the appellant/accused No.1 and accused No.2 were recovered under a culvert, accessible to the public. Further, it is very improbable to accept why the blood- stained clothes were kept under a culvert even after seventeen days from the date of incident. It is highly improbable to accept the so-called recovery of lungi of the appellant/accused No.1. 8 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 13. Coming to the actual witnessing, the appellant/ accused No.1 running at the scene of offence by P.Ws.1 and 6, the same cannot be accepted. If really, P.Ws.1 and 6 witnessed the appellant/accused No.1 running away at the scene of offence, they ought to have reported at the Police Station, which is at a distance of 4 k.m. But, curiously, P.Ws.1 and 6 kept quiet till the next day morning i.e. till 8:30 a.m. It seems it is only after they found the dead body in the early morning, they reported to the Police against the appellant and his relatives, on suspicion. Further, though report was given at 8:30 a.m. on 01.11.2015, the said F.I.R. was received by the Magistrate, which is at a distance of around 20 K.M., at about 1:45 p.m. As such, Ex.P1 was prepared and submitted at the Police Station at a belated stage, after due deliberations and consultations with the villagers, by ante-timing the same. P.W.1 also admitted that he is not aware as to who drafted Ex.P1, report. The prosecution has not placed any material to show the scribe of Ex.P1, as P.W.1 is an illiterate. Except the motive for the appellant, the prosecution could not prove any further circumstance to connect the appellant with the alleged incident. Motive, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. Further, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C., however, there is no evidence on record as to who participated along with the appellant. 9 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act 1989 –Cum- VIII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court in S.C.No.300 of 2016, dated 20.06.2018. Accordingly, the appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused No.1 shall be refunded to him. The appellant/accused No.1 is directed to 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 SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dt. 25.11.2025 IKN 10 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.1919 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1919 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 25.11.2025. IKN