APHC010184632018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 878/2018 Between: 1. BALIJA KURAKULA SREERAMULU, R/O.ODIYAMPETA VILLAGE, D.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, NOW LODGED IN CENTRAL PRISON KADAPA. 1. THE STATE OF A Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to appeal against the judgment passed in SC.No. 455 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Anantapur dated 25 the following among other. 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 1411 days in preferring the present criminal appeal against the judgment passed in SC. 2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Anantapur. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH 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: 878/2018 BALIJA KURAKULA SREERAMULU, R/O.ODIYAMPETA VILLAGE, D.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, NOW LODGED IN CENTRAL PRISON KADAPA. ...AP AND THE STATE OF A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPO 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 judgment passed in SC.No. 455 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Anantapur dated 25 the following among other. 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 1411 days in preferring the present criminal appeal against the judgment passed in SC.No. 455 of 2007 judgment dated 25 2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Anantapur. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY SUBBA REDDY SATTI BALIJA KURAKULA SREERAMULU, R/O.ODIYAMPETA VILLAGE, D.K.SAMUDRAM MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, NOW LODGED ...APPELLANT . by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High present this memorandum of grounds of criminal appeal against the judgment passed in SC.No. 455 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Anantapur dated 25-02-2013 for 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 1411 days in preferring the present criminal appeal No. 455 of 2007 judgment dated 25-02- 2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Anantapur. 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 dispense with the certified copy of the judgment dated 25-02-2013 passed in SC.No. 455 of 2007 judgment dated 25-02-2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC) Anantapur in preferring the present criminal appeal. IA NO: 3 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 suspend the execution of sentence passed against the petitioner/appellant in SC.No. 455 of 2007 and allotted to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Anantapur and release him on bail, pending criminal appeal No.878 of 2018 before this Honourable Court. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) A.2 in Sessions Case No.455/2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur (for short, ‘the Additional Sessions Judge”) is the appellant. The appellant, along with A.1 and A.3 to A.5, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: (i) 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 to A.4; (ii) 2nd charge was under Section 120(B) IPC against A.5 (iii) 3rd charge was under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A.5 2. Substance of the charge is that on 14.07.2006 at about 04.15 P.M., A.1 to A.4 attacked one T.Hanumantha Rayudu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and hacked him with hunting sickle and knives at RTC Bus Stand complex, Anantapur causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120(B) r/w 109 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 & A.2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced both of them to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.3 to A.5 of all the charges. 4. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, A.2 filed present Criminal Appeal. So far as A.1 is concerned, he filed another appeal vide Criminal 4 Appeal No.278/2013. During pendency of the appeal, A.1 died and Criminal Appeal No.278/2013 was dismissed as abated. 5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows: (a) A.1 to A.5 belongs to different villages of Anantapur District. Originally, the deceased was resident of Narasapuram Village of Beluguppa Mandal. About 15 years prior to the date of incident, the deceased shifted his residence to Kadirampalli Village along with his brothers Yerriswamy and T.Gurrappa (PW.16). At that juncture, there were factional ill-feelings between the family of the deceased and the family of A.5. In the year 2004, the elder brother of the deceased by name Yerriswamy, who was the Sarpanch of the village, was killed by A.5 and his followers. In retaliation, one of the followers of A.5 by name Kamma Ramanjaneyulu was killed. Subsequently, A.5 was attacked and he left the village and started living in Nagaruru Village of Yadiki Mandal. (b) The deceased was involved in number of cases and he was lodged in District Jail, Anantapur. In connection with the criminal case, the deceased was being taken to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalyandurg. A.5 came to know about the deceased being produced before the Court at Kalyandurg. As such, he conspired with A.1 to A.4 to attack the deceased. While so, on 14.07.2006, A.5 hatched a plan and conspired with A.1 to A.4 for 5 killing the deceased when he was escorted by police and taken to Court at Kalyandurg. (c) While so, on 14.07.2006 at about 09.30 A.M., R.S.I. instructed PWs 1 & 2 to go to District Jail, Anantapur and report before the Superintendent of District Jail at Anantapur. The Superintendent, District Jail handed over three P.T. warrants. PW.1 was working as Constable in Pothukunta Police Station, whereas PW.2 was working as Constable in Tadimarri Police Station. PWs 1 & 2 were directed to produce the deceased before the Court at Kalyandurg. Accordingly, PWs 1 & 2 took the deceased into their custody and boarded RTC Bus at Anantapur and reached Kalyandurg. At about 12.30 noon, PWs 1 & 2 produced the deceased before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg. After adjournment, PWs 1 & 2 boarded RTC Bus at Kalyandurg along with the deceased and reached Anantapur at about 04.15 P.M. PWs 1 & 2 along with the deceased got down from the bus at RTC Bus Stand. The deceased asked PWs 1 & 2 as he has to attend the calls of nature. Accordingly, PWs 1 & 2 took the deceased for urination and returned. The deceased asked PWs 1 & 2 to provide drinking water. Then, all the three went to Dwaraka Cool Drink shop situated at shop No.7 of RTC Bus Stand shopping complex and purchased three water packets and were drinking the water. At that juncture, A.1 to A.4 came from backside of the deceased and attacked him with hunting sickles and daggers. PWs 1 & 2 raised big cries. They tried to rescue the deceased from the clutches of A.1 to A.4, but their efforts proved futile. It is alleged that A.1 has shown hunting sickle to PWs 1 6 & 2. Having no other go, PWs 1 & 2 loaded their riffles and opened fire. PW.1 fired four rounds and PW.2 fired five rounds against A.1 to A.4. In the said fire, A.1 & A.2 received bullet injuries, A.3 & A.4 escaped. Immediately, they called 108 Ambulance. The deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur in 108 Ambulance. A.1 & A.2 having received bullet injuries fell down at the entrance of the RTC Bus Stand. PW.1 shifted both the injured i.e., A.1 & A.2 to Government General Hospital, Anantapur in an Auto rickshaw. During the course of travel in the said Auto rickshaw from RTC complex to Government General Hospital, Anantapur, PW.1 said to have obtained the names of A.1 & A.2. After admitting A.1 & A.2 in the hospital, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. (d) On the same day at about 07.00 P.M., PW.21 Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Anantapur received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.193/2006 under Sections 120(B), 302 & 109 r/w 34 IPC. PW.21 issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P25 is the F.I.R. He recorded the statements of PWs 1 & 2. He seized MOs.5 and 8 riffles from PWs 1 & 2 and also empty cartridges marked as MOs.6, 7, 9 & 10 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P11 in the presence of PW.11 and another. PW.21 visited the scene of offence along with PWs 1 & 2 located at RTC Bus Stand, Anantapur. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P26 at the scene of offence. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P12 in the presence of mediators. He seized blood stained stone piece and control stone piece MOs.1 & 2 at the scene of offence. He also seized MOs.3 & 4 at the scene of offence. He 7 visited the Government General Hospital, Anantapur at 11.25 P.M. and secured the presence of PW.16 and recorded his statement. PW.4, one of the bystanders in the RTC Bus Stand, also received bullet injury. A.1 was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. On 15.07.2006, PW.21 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary room, Government General Hospital, Anantapur in the presence of PW.11 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P10. At the inquest, he seized clothes of the deceased marked as MOs.11 to 14. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (e) PW.17 Professor, Government Medical College, Anantapur conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He found as many as 16 injuries on the person of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P19. (f) In the meanwhile, A.2 was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On 26.07.2006, PW.21 sent material objects to the R.F.S.L., Tirupati and F.S.L., Hyderabad under a Letter of advice Exs.P27 and P28. R.F.S.L. and F.S.L. reports are marked as Exs.P29 & P30. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.21 filed charge sheet. 8 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 21, marked exhibits P.1 to P.30 and exhibited MOs.1 to 14. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 8. Accepting the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 coupled with the evidence of PWs 10 & 20, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. It is not in dispute that PWs 1 & 2 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. According to PWs 1 & 2, on 14.07.2006, the deceased was taken to Kalyandurg to produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate in connection with the criminal case. It is the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that after adjournment both of them started along with the deceased at about 2.30 P.M. and at about 4.15 P.M. all the three got down at RTC Bus Stand, Anantapur. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence further stated that when they were drinking water, A.1 to A.4 came from behind and attacked the deceased with hunting sickles and daggers. PWs 1 & 2 further stated that as they could not stop the attack, both of them resorted to fire on the accused. A.1 & A.2 said to have received 9 bullet injuries and fell down at the entrance of the Bus Stand. So far as A.3 & A.4 are concerned, they escaped from the bus stand having mixed up with the passengers. It is also the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that PW.4, who was standing near the Reservation counter, also received bullet injuries and there is no evidence on record to show as to who shifted PW.4 to the hospital. According to PW.1, he shifted A.1 & A.2 to the Government General Hospital, Anantapur in an Auto rickshaw. PW.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that the seat in the Auto rickshaw was drenched with blood and also floor. PW.1 in his evidence further stated that he sat in the middle of the seat and A.1 & A.2 were sitting on either side of him. Curiously, there were no blood stains on the clothes of PW.1. Further, neither Auto rickshaw nor the seat of Auto rickshaw was seized by the Investigating Officer PW.21. In fact, neither PW.1 nor PW.21 furnished the details and number of Auto rickshaw. At one stage, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Para 32 of the judgment, has stated as follows: “The failure of Investigation Officer in not seizing the auto rickshaw through which A.1 & A.2 were brought to hospital also throws some suspicion about the alleged statement of A.1 to PW.1. “ 12. PW.1 in his chief examination has stated that while he was taking A.1 & A.2 to the hospital in an Auto rickshaw, A.1 & A.2 said to have disclosed their names and identity. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted stating that there was profuse bleeding in the Auto and both A.1 & A.2 were gasping and 10 groaning. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the so-called confession said to have been made by A.1. It is only for that reason the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave a finding to the effect that the prosecution could not able to prove the conspiracy between A.1 to A.4 & A.5. PW.1 also did not state in his earliest report Ex.P1 about he shifting A.1 & A.2 in an Auto rickshaw to the Government General Hospital, Anantapur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 that he shifted A.1 & A.2 in an Auto rickshaw. 13. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 & A.2 on the sole basis that they received bullet injuries at the RTC Bus stand. Neither PW.1 nor PW.2 attributed any specific overt acts to A.2. On the basis of the very same evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.3 & A.4, in spite of PWs 1 & 2 identifying them in the Court. PW.1 in his evidence has further stated that he could able to identify A.1 & A.2 as he has taken both of them in an Auto rickshaw. As already pointed out, said identification cannot be accepted as he did not state in his report Ex.P1 that he took both of them in an Auto rickshaw to the hospital. Learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 with regard to the participation of A.3 & A4. PWs 1 & 2 in their evidence have stated that all the four accused attacked the deceased. The only overt act attributed by PW.1 is that A.1 has shown hunting sickle. Except that no specific role is attributed to any one of the accused. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that having received bullet 11 injury A.2 fell down at the entrance of the RTC Bus Stand. As already pointed out, along with A.2 PW.4 also received bullet injuries. Having acquitted A.3 & A.4, learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have acquitted A.2 also who stand on the same footing. No specific role has been attributed to A.2 either by PW.1 or by PW.2. 14. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the appellant / A.2 is also entitled to same benefit as that of A.3 & A.4. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur in Sessions Case No..455/2007 vide judgment dt. 25.02.2013 cannot be sustained and hereby set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant / A.2 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur in Sessions Case No.455/2007 vide judgment dt. 25.02.2013 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted. As the appellant / A.2 was already released on bail by order dt. 04.07.2018 in terms of the order of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.1, he is directed to appear before the concerned Authority and complete the formalities in terms of the judgment in Batchu Ranga Rao (supra). No order as to costs. 1 [2016(3)ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)] 12 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 13.10.2025 MVA