APHC010306882018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1339/2018 Between: 1. JAGAVARAPU VENKATESH, D.NO.41 STREET, NEAR RAMALAYAM, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 1. STATE OF AP, through Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada city, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 10 SC.No.195 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 282 days in filing this criminal appeal against the sentence passed in SC.No.195 of 2016 in its judgment dated 10 the file of the XII Additional District Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH 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: 1339/2018 JAGAVARAPU VENKATESH, D.NO.41-20/3-71, VALLURIVARI STREET, NEAR RAMALAYAM, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. AND STATE OF AP, through Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, ijayawada city, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the judgment dated 10-05- SC.No.195 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated vit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 282 days in filing this criminal appeal against the sentence passed in SC.No.195 of 2016 in its judgment dated 10 the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY SUBBA REDDY SATTI 71, VALLURIVARI STREET, NEAR RAMALAYAM, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA. ...APELLANT STATE OF AP, through Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, ijayawada city, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High -2017 passed in SC.No.195 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated vit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 282 days in filing this criminal appeal against the sentence passed in SC.No.195 of 2016 in its judgment dated 10-05-2017 on and Sessions Judge cum VI Additional 2 IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner by suspending the sentence passed in SC.No. 195 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge cum VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of this criminal appeal. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner herein/Accused on bail by suspending the Calendar and Judgment dated 10/05/2017 passed by the Court of the XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in S.C.No.l95 of 2016 pending disposal of the main Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.1339 of 2018 pending on the file of this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K JOSEPH 2. - Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) APHC010306882018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1339/2018 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.195 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District & Sessions Judge Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’) rigorous imprisonment for undergo simple imprisonment for 2. Substance of the charge is that, on 29.07.2016 after 4.00 P.M., the accused caused the death of one as ‘deceased’) near Kalikrishna Bhagavan Ashram road, Milk Factory Flyover down, Vijayawada by pressing his neck to the iron rod of the auto rickshaw, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH 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: 1339/2018 Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.195 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by earned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of Indian Penal (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/ undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Substance of the charge is that, on 29.07.2016 after 4.00 P.M., the accused caused the death of one Kasarelli Subba rao (hereinafter referred to near Kalikrishna Bhagavan Ashram road, Milk Factory Flyover ijayawada by pressing his neck to the iron rod of the auto rickshaw, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Sole accused in Sessions Case No.195 of 2016 on the file of the Court VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by of Indian Penal and was sentenced to undergo of Rs.500/- in default to Substance of the charge is that, on 29.07.2016 after 4.00 P.M., the (hereinafter referred to near Kalikrishna Bhagavan Ashram road, Milk Factory Flyover ijayawada by pressing his neck to the iron rod of the auto rickshaw, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Vijayawada. The deceased was also resident of Vijayawada. P.W.1 is the wife, P.W.2 is the daughter and P.W.3 is the son of the deceased respectively. P.W.2 is none other than the wife of the accused. The deceased is the father-in-law of the accused. Marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed about 10 years prior to the date of the incident. The accused and P.W.2 were blessed with a son and daughter. The accused used to harass P.W.2 for the sake of dowry. For the last eight years, P.W.2 was residing separately. The accused used to insist the deceased and P.W.1 to send P.W.2 to his house, but they refused to send P.W.2 with the accused, as the latter was harassing her. (ii) While so, on 29.07.2016 at about 4.00 P.M., the accused went to the house of deceased and asked P.W.1 and the deceased to send his wife along with him, but the deceased and P.W.1 refused to send her. The accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences. After some time, the accused spoke good words with the deceased and took him in his auto, but the deceased did not return home. P.Ws.1 to 3 along with their relatives searched for the deceased. (iii) At about 10:00 A.M. on 30.07.2016, P.Ws.1 to 3 came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found in an auto rickshaw near Milk Factory Flyover at Kalikrishna Bhagavan Ashram road. Immediately P.Ws.1 to 5 3 went to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying dead in the auto belonging to the deceased. (iv) At about 12:00 Noon on the same day, P.W.1 went to Police Station and gave a report. P.W.13-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vijayawada received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.264 of 2016 under Section 302 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R to all the concerned. Ex.P1 is the F.I.R. P.W.13 went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report- Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.9 and another. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.12. The Photographs and Compact Disk (CD) were marked as Exs.P6 and P7. He also seized M.O.1- Auto at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.9 and another under a Panchanama. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P14 at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. At the inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 5. He sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination. (v) P.W.10-Head of the Department, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was due to ‘Mechanical Asphyxia due to Fracture of Thyroid of neck’. He issued Post Mortem Certificate-Ex.P5. (vi) On 01.08.2016, P.W.13 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.9 and another under a Panchanama-Ex.P9. On 02.08.2016, he recorded the statements of P.W.6 and P.W.11. On 03.08.2016, he visited ‘Anu Bar and 6 Restaurant’, Jakkampudi, in which P.W.7 is working as cashier. He verified the C.C T.V footage belonging to the said Bar. He copied the C.C T.V footage of 29.07.2016 in a Compact Disc, which is marked as Ex.P9. Ex.P8 is the Certificate pertaining to Ex.P9. On seeking the C.C T.V footage, he found the accused and the deceased coming in the said auto and going away after purchasing liquor at the relevant point of time. On the same day, he recorded the statements of P.W.8, P.W.12 and others. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 apart from exhibiting M.O.1. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D4-contradictions were marked. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence that emerged against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri K.Joseph, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are no eye witnesses in the present case and the prosecution rests its case on circumstantial evidence. He further contends that no reliance can be placed 7 on the so called C.C T.V footage-Ex.P9. He further contends that the accused is eking out his livelihood by doing laundry work. He contends that the accused cannot drive the auto rickshaw. He further contends that M.O.1 does not belong to the accused. He also contends that the accused did not visit the house of the deceased on 29.07.2016. As such, he requested this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is consistent and their evidence established that the deceased was in the company of accused at the relevant point of time. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the present Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses in the present case. The prosecution rests its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the ‘Motive’. To substantiate the motive, the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6, in their evidence, categorically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased for the sake of additional dowry. Their evidence further disclosed that due to harassment, P.W.2 was residing separately by taking a house for rent near the house of her brother. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 6 is consistent with regard to the harassment metted out by the accused towards P.W.2. Their evidence further disclosed that the accused used to demand the deceased and P.W.1 to send P.W.2 to his house, but the deceased and P.W.1 refused, as he did not change his attitude in harassing P.W.2 in spite of mediations. P.Ws.1 to 3, in their evidence, further stated that they have given a report to the police, who called the accused to police station and admonished him without registering any crime. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.6 established the motive on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. 12. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the ‘last seen theory’. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P6 to P9 to establish the last seen theory. P.Ws.1 to 3, in their evidence, categorically stated that on 29.07.2016 at about 4.00 P.M., the accused visited the house of the deceased and demanded to send P.W.2 along with him, but the deceased and his family members refused to send P.W.2 along with the accused. P.Ws.1 to 3 further stated that the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences. After some time, the accused made sweet words with the deceased and took him in his auto bearing No.AP16 TB 3511. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.Ws.4 to 7 also stated in their evidence that they saw the deceased and the accused going in the said auto at the relevant point of time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment at paragaraph Nos.19 and 20 observed as follows: 9 “19. Ex.P9 video compact disc was played in court’s computer in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor, the counsel for accused and the accused. Ex.P9 video compact disc consists of the video recorded by two cameras [Camera-2 and Camera-4]. Camera-2 is focused to the main road i.e., the entry into the bar and restaurant. Camera-4 is focused to counter where one can see the persons approaching salesman of the bar. P.W.7 states that he was in cash counter on the day and he is on extreme right of the persons in the cash counter. 20. I have carefully examined the video under Ex.P9. At 17.52:31 seconds, one auto was stopped in front of a bar. The deceased got down from the auto at 17.52:35 seconds and went into the bar at 17.53:52 seconds. The careful examination of the said CC TV footage of camera No.2 reveals that a person from driving seat of the auto also got down from auto in between 17.53:03 seconds and 17.53:52 seconds and went into the bar. The deceased and accused are found in the said CC TV footage of camera No.4. The accused is found at 17.53:15 seconds to 17.54:43 seconds. The accused was found returning to auto in camera No.2 at 17.57:44 seconds to 17.57:48 seconds. The accused and deceased are together found in at 17.54:43 seconds [camera No.4]. The deceased returned from bar at 17.58:08 seconds and boarded the auto at 17.58:42 seconds and the auto left the place immediately. The auto in which the deceased and accused came to bar was stopped in front of the said bar from 17.52:31 seconds to till it left the bar place. The accused and deceased came in the same auto and left the place in the same auto. As the camera No.2 is focused towards the road and entry into bar, therefore, number of the auto could not be seen. Whatever it may be, it is a green coloured auto. For better appreciation of fact, I am enclosing the relevant CC TV footages captured from Ex.P9 as annexure to this judgment.” 10 13. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, the prosecution could able to prove that the deceased was in the company of the accused at the relevant point of time by producing CC TV footage-Ex.P9, which was certified under Ex.P8. Though P.Ws.1 to 7 were cross examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited by the defence. As such, the prosecution is able to establish the last seen theory through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. 14. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is ‘tracing of the dead body of the deceased’. P.Ws. 1 to 3 in their evidence have categorically stated that on 30.07.2016, at about 10:00 A.M., having received information, they went to the scene of offence and found the body of the deceased in the auto driven by the accused. Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P1. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the third circumstance also with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. 15. The fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that ‘the accused is plying the auto bearing No.AP 16TB 3511’. The prosecution examined P.W.11, from whom the accused had taken the said auto and plying the same. P.W.11, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he gave the said auto to the accused, advising him to ply the same and settle his family life. The Certificate of registration of vehicle bearing No.AP 16TB 3511- Ex.P11, Permit issued by Transport Department- Ex.P12 and Delivery letter of auto-Ex.P13 were also marked to show that P.W.11 was having the above auto rickshaw. Apart from the evidence of P.W.11, P.Ws.1 to 3 also stated that the accused came to the house of the deceased on 29.07.2016 at about 11 4:00 P.M in the auto-M.O.1 and took the deceased along with him. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the fourth circumstance by adducing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 11. 16. The fifth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is ‘recovery of the auto-M.O.1 at the scene of offence’. As already pointed out, on 29.07.2016, the accused took the deceased in M.O.1-auto at about 4:00 P.M and did not return home. Though the accused was plying the said auto rickshaw, he abandoned M.O.1 at the scene of offence along with the dead body. As such, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused abandoned the auto rickshaw at the scene of offence without returning it to P.W.11. 17. The sixth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to ‘deceased met with homicidal death’. P.W.10-Medical Officer, in his evidence, has stated that the cause of death was due to ‘Mechanical Asphyxia due to Fracture of Thyroid of neck’. He also stated in his evidence that if any force is applied on the back of neck or head, there is a possibility of causing such injury by the hard object. P.W.10, in his cross examination, has categorically stated that there is no possibility of causing such injury, if a person fell on a road. As such, the prosecution is able to prove that the deceased met with homicidal death. Hence, the prosecution is able to establish the chain of circumstances pointing the guilt towards accused alone and to none others. 18. As per the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. The prosecution could able to prove the last seen theory by adducing 12 the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. As the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death. Instead of giving explanation in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the accused came up with a false explanation. 19. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution pointing guilt towards the accused alone and to none others. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in Sessions Case No.195 of 2016, dated 10.05.2017 under Section 302 I.P.C. Needless to say that the period already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 07.10.2025 MP 13 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1339 of 2018 Date: 07.10.2025 MP