APHC010106692018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI f \i THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE li (I V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 494 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C dated 22.01.2018 made in S.C No. 454 of 2015 Sessions Judge for trail of SCs and STs Judge, Anantapuramu. Between: aggrieved with the Judgment on the file of the Special cases Cum VIII Additional Sessions Pujari Prakash, s/0 Sannapalli Palaiah, Anumapalli Village, Setturu Mandal, Anantapuramu District aged about 50 years, R/o. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of A P represented by Circle Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg, through Public Prosecutor, A.P, High Court of Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : APHC010106692018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 494/2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.454 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs& STs (P.O.A) Act Cases - cum - Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, is the appellant. 2. He was tried by the learned Special Sessions Judge under the following charges: The first charge was under Section 450 IPC, The second charge was under Section 302 IPC, The third charge was under Section 380 IPC and The fourth charge was under Section 404 IPC. 3. Substance of the charges is that on 07.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused armed with a knife, trespassed into the house of P.W.1 situated at Anumpalli village, Settur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, and throttled Vadde Saraswathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and cut her throat with the knife causing her death and in the same process, the accused committed theft of gold ear studs from her person, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 450, 302, 380 and 404 of IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Learned Special Sessions Judge further convicted the accused for the offence under Section 380 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The learned Special Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 450 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 4. 5. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence is as follows; (i) The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses residents of Anumpalli village, Settur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. are The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. About 9 years prior to the date of incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with, one Venkateswarlu, who is other than brother’s son of mother of the deceased. After the marriage, couple blessed with a daughter by name Bhoomika. Two years after the marriage, her husband died. Thereafter the deceased along with her daughter returned to her parents’ house and was attending to coolie works. On the night of 07.01.2015 P.W.1 along with his wife went to the 4 agricultural fields for changing sprinklers. The deceased along with her daughter remained in the house. After attending to agricultural works, P.W.1 and his wife returned home at about 1.00 a.m. in the night and saw their daughter in unconscious state, in a pool of blood in the second ■ none ■ room of the house. Immediately, P.W.1 and his wife raised cries and the neighbours came to the house and shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Kalyanadurgam in 108 ambulance and from there to GGH, Anantapuramu for better treatment. (ii) On 08.01.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. P.W.1 went to police station and gave a report (Ex.PI). P.W.7, Sub Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station, registered the same as case in Crime No.2 of 2015 under Section 452, 307 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P8 is the FIR. On the same day,'P.W.7 received medical intimation ’ (Ex.P9) from the GGK, Anantapuramu. He went to the Government Hospital, seized petty coat of the injured under panchanama (Ex.PIO). Thereafter, P.W.'7 went to scene of offence, secured the presence of P.W.4 and prepared an observation report (Ex.P2) and seized M.Os.2 to 6 under the cover of Ex.P2. He also photographed the scene with station camera and the photographs were marked as Ex.P11. He also prepared rough sketches (Exs.P12 and PI 3) at the scene of offence. (iii) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 10.01.2015. P.W.7 received the death intimation (Ex.P14) at about 7.00 p.m. on 10.01.2015. On the basis of Ex.P14, he altered the FIR to Section 450 and 302 IPC. Altered FIR is marked as Ex.P15. Further, investigation was taken over by P.W.8 Inspector of Police. (iv) On 10.01.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. P.W.8 received CD file from PW.7. At about 10.00 p.m. P.W.8 along with P.W.7 went to GGH Anantapuramu and he posted a guard at mortuary. On 11.01.2015 at about 7.30 a.m. he held inquest over the dead body, of deceased in the presence of P.W.5 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P6. P.W.8 took photographs of dead body in the mortuary room. Photographs and CD are marked as Exs.P17 and PI8. He also recorded statements of P.W.1 and others. P.W.8 sent the dead body for post mortem examination. (v) Dr.G.Mahesh (P.W.6) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia and its sequel as a consequence of ligature strangulation in association with cut throat injury. He issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P7). (vi) After inquest, P.‘W.8 visited the scene of offence and recorded statements of P.W.2 and others. He addressed a letter to the electricity department seeking a detailed report of electricity supply in AnumpaJli village. He received a reply (Ex.P19). On 16.01.2015 on receipt of credible information, P.W.8 along with P.W.7 and others apprehended the accused at Mulakaledu village. The accused said to have confessed about commission of offence in the presence of P.W.4 and another. On the confession made by the accused, P.W.8 recovered M.Os.1, 7 to 9 from his house under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P5). Thereafter he arrested the accused, who was remanded to judicial custody, (vii) On 18.01.2015, P.W.8 went to the village and recorded the statement of P.W.3. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL under a letter of advice (Ex.P21). RFSL report is marked as Ex.P22. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 marked Exs.P1 to P8 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 14. Page 6 of 10 c 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and reported no evidence. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. 9. Heard Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the. respondent-State. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. P.W.1 is none other than father of deceased. P.W.1 in his report Ex.P1 categorically stated that on 07.01.2015 after completing dinner, he along with his wife went to agricultural fields for changing drip sprinklers, as the power supply will be given during night time. He further stated in Ex.P1 that when both of them returned home at about 1.00 a.m. they found their daughter in unconscious state with injuries on throat in a pool of blood. Immediately, P.W.1 and others shifted the injured to hospital. Except stating so in Ex.P1, P.W.1 did not express any suspicion against any person. Page 7 of 10 Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, they were projected by « the prosecution to prove that on 07.01.2015 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 and altercated with the 12. deceased and after sometime, the accused left the house. 13. P.W;2 in his evidence categorically stated that after hearing cries of P.W.1 and his wife, he went to their house and found the daughter of P.W.1 with injuries and in unconscious state. If really, he saw the accused entering into the house of P.W.1 at about 10.30 a.m. he ought to have informed P.W.1 about the said fact. If really P.W.2 informed the said fact to P.W.1, the sanhe would have been mentioned in Ex.P1 report ■ by P.W.1. Insofar as P.W.3 is concerned, he stated that at about 10.30 p.m. 14. on the fateful day, he went and knocked the doors of the house, but there was no response from the deceased. He further stated in his evidence that at that time he found the accused going away through other door with blood stained shirt. He also did not inform the said fact to P.W.1. P.W.8 in his evidence categorically admitted that he recorded the 15. ■ Statement of P.W.3 for the first time on 18.01.2015. If really P.Ws.2 and 3 had witnessed the accused entering into the house of P.W.1 and quarreled with deceased, they ought to have informed the police or at least to the parents of deceased. But no such information was given by P.Ws.2 and 3. 16. Having analyzed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 hesitation to hold that P.Ws.2 and 3 agency after the death of deceased. As such any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. we have no were planted by the prosecuting we are not inclined to place 17. Coming to the recovery of M.Os.1, 7 to 9 from the possession of accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of mediator P.W.4., According to P.W.8, he apprehended the accused on 16.01.2015 at about 8.45 p.m. On the confession made by the M.Os.1, 7 to 9 from the house of accused in the presence of P.W.4 under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P5). accused, he recovered 18. Curiously, P.W.2 in his cross examination on the next date of incident, police have taken specifically admitted that away the accused along with other suspects and kept them in their custody for a period of six days. The said fact was also suggested to P.W.8 investigating officer, who denied the said suggestion, p.w.2 admitted the said fact in his cross examination. When the accused on the next date of incident was already taken into custody are unable to place any reliance on the so called recovery made on 16.01.2015. Except the evidence we of P.Ws.2 and 3, there are no other witnesses in the present case. As already pointed out, P.Ws.2 and 3 were planted after the death of deceased. In fact, in the inquest report (Ex.P6), the names of P.Ws.2 and 3 were not found place in Column No.I (b). If really, P.Ws.2 and 3 witnessed the accused entering into the house of P.W.1 at about 10.30 p.m. obviously, their names would have been mentioned in the inquest held on 11.01.2015. Even after 4 days from the date of incident, the names of P.Ws.2 and 3 did not come to light. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be relied on. 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge needs to be interfered with. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the 20. conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs& STs (P.O.A) Act Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu in S.C.No.454 of 2018, dated ,22.01.2018. Accordingly the appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences under Sections 302, 380 and 450 IPC. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him. The appellant/accuse d is B ■ f-''. 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. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO | JOINT REGISTRAR ^ 0^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs & STs Cases- cum- VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, Ananthapuram 2. The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg, Ananthapuram 3. The Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Circle, Ananthapuram 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison District District District Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 5. One CC to Sri. Seshadri Goalla Advocate 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section 8. Two CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh. PR TAC if* HIGH COURT DATED:28/08/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 494 OF 2018 ' I SEP 20?5 ★vQiirrMlSectjgtL^'^ n-- o ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL