APHC010164822018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 777/2018 Between: 1. VELPULA SIVA PRASAD AND 4 OTHERS, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. VELPULA YESAIAH @ CHINA YESAIAH @ BULLESU (DIED), R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. MANGALAGIRI SALMANRAJU @ SALOMAN, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. KODIDETI LATCHAIAH (DI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 ARE DIED, CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 IN CRL.A. 5. SRIPATHI JEEVAIAH, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P, hyd IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 777/2018 VELPULA SIVA PRASAD AND 4 OTHERS, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. VELPULA YESAIAH @ CHINA YESAIAH @ BULLESU (DIED), R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, MANGALAGIRI SALMANRAJU @ SALOMAN, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. KODIDETI LATCHAIAH (DIED), R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 ARE DIED, CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 28.01.2026 IN CRL.A.NO.777 OF 2018. SRIPATHI JEEVAIAH, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) AND THE STATE OF A P, hyd ...RESPO IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3566] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY HARANADHA SARMA VELPULA SIVA PRASAD AND 4 OTHERS, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. VELPULA YESAIAH @ CHINA YESAIAH @ BULLESU (DIED), R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, MANGALAGIRI SALMANRAJU @ SALOMAN, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ED), R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, DACHEPALLY MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SINCE APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 ARE DIED, CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 4/A2 AND A4 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED SRIPATHI JEEVAIAH, R/O.S.C.COLONY, NADIKUDI VILLAGE, PELLANT(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to allow the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment dated 07-02-2018 in SC.No. 422 of 2014 on the file of the Honourable X Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Guruzala, Guntur district wherein the Honourable Court convicted and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offences under section 302 of IPC and sentenced all the appellants for LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under section 302 of IPC and further convicted the appellants for the offence under section 449 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple impriosonment for a period of one month and both the senteces were directed to run concurrently and to pass such other order or orders as it deems fit proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 suspend the operation and effect of the judgment dated 07-02-2018 in SC.No. 422 of 2014 on the file of the Honourable X Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Guruzala, Guntur District wherein the Honourable Court convicted and setenced all the appellants for LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under section 302 of IPC and further convicted the appellants for the offence under section 449 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple impriosonment for a period of one month and both the senteces were directed to run concurrently and enlarge the petitioners on bail, pending disposal of the main criminal appeal case in the interest of justice. 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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 777/2018 before this Hon'ble Court which is filed against the judgment passed in S.C.No. 422 of 2014 by the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, dated 07-02¬-2018, pending disposal of CrI.A before this Hon'court and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 3 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 pleased to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No. 1, 4 and 5 on bail after suspending the sentence of imprisonment dated 07-02-2018 passed in S.C.No. 422/2014 on the file of the X Addl. District and Session Judge, Gurazala pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 2018 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA 2. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 4 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) All the five accused in Sessions Case No.422 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302 & 449 r/w 149 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that all the five accused trespassed into the house of one Velpula Danamma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) at about 11.30 P.M. on 16.07.2013 and caused her death instantaneously by hacking her with an Axe. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the five accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 449 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 4. When the appeal was listed on 28.01.2026, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the written instructions confirming the information 5 given by the learned counsel for the appellants that during pendency of the present appeal, the appellant Nos.2 & 4 / A.2 & A.4 died. As such, it was recorded on 28.01.2026 that the appeal against the appellant Nos.2 & 4 / A.2 & A.4 was dismissed as abated, and the present appeal is heard insofar as the appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 / A.1, A.3 & A.5 are concerned. 5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in nutshell, is as follows: (a) The deceased was a Spinster and was residing at Nadikudi Village, Dachepalli Mandal. Earlier, she worked as Nurse in Odisha State and after her retirement, she came back to Nadikudi Village about 15 years prior to the date of incident. PWs 4 & 5 are younger brothers and PW.6 is the younger sister of the deceased respectively. (b) PW.1 is the nephew and PWs 2 & 3 are grandsons of the deceased respectively. A.1 is the son of PW.4. A.2 is the younger brother of PW.4. A.3 to A.5 are the relatives of PW.4. The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nadikudi Village, Dachepalli Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. About 15 years prior to the date of incident, the deceased returned to the village and settled there. The deceased owned a house and landed property. In one portion, the deceased was residing along with her brother PW.5 and his family. PW.5 also used to cultivate Ac.1.00 cents of land belonging to the deceased. While so, on 17.07.2013 at about 06.00 A.M., as the deceased could not come out, PW.1 and others went inside the house and found the deceased lying dead on 6 the cot with bleeding injuries. Immediately, PW.1 informed the relatives about the death of the deceased. Having received the information from PWs 2 & 3, PW.4 rushed to the house of the deceased and found the dead body with injuries. PW.4 lodged a report to the police. LW.15 Sub-Inspector of Police, Karampudi Police Station received Ex.P3 report from PW.4 and registered a case in Cr.No.114/2013 under Section 302 IPC of Dachepalli Police Station. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P17. At about 10.00 A.M. on the same day, PW.11 Inspector of Police, having received the copy of F.I.R., took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence situated at S.C.Colony, Nadikudi. He secured the presence of PWs 7 & 8 and prepared an observation report Ex.P18. He seized M.Os.1 to 7 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed through LW.13 marked as Ex.P19. He also prepared Rough sketch Ex.P20 at the scene of offence. PW.11 recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4. On 18.07.2013, PW.11 visited the scene of offence and recorded statements of PWs 5, 6 and others. On the same day, he held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PWs 8 & 9. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P13. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (c) PW.10 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Gurazala conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to ‘shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and fractures’. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P16. 7 (d) On 24.07.2013, PW.11 arrested all the accused at Pondugula Village in the presence of PWs 7 & 8. At the instance of the accused, PW.11 recovered M.O.8 Axe under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P22 in the presence of PWs 7 & 8. On the same day, PW.11 recovered the clothes of the accused marked as M.Os.9 to 13 from Christian Burial ground, Nadikudi under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P24. PW.11 forwarded the material objects to R.F.S.L. for chemical analysis. R.F.S.L. report was marked as Ex.P25. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 13. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D.4 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 the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the appellants 1 & 5 / A.1 & A.5, Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for appellant No.3 / A.3; and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent / State. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 8 11. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case only on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory and the third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to the recovery of M.O.8 Axe and blood stained clothes M.Os.9 to 13 belonging to the deceased at their instance. 12. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution examined PWs 4 to 6, who are none other than the younger brothers and younger sister of the deceased respectively. All the three witnesses in their evidence have categorically stated that about 15 days prior to the date of incident, A.1 & A.2 threatened the deceased demanding to convey the property in the name of A.1. This incident said to have taken place about 15 days prior to the date of incident. Except the vague evidence of PWs 4 to 6, there is nothing to suggest that the accused was having strong motive to kill the deceased. 13. Coming to the second circumstance i.e., last seen theory, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution and the prosecution could not able to prove said circumstance. 14. So far as the last circumstance i.e., recovery of Axe M.O.8 and blood stained clothes M.O.s 9 to 13 is concerned, both the Panch witnesses examined as PWs 7 & 8 did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. As such, the prosecution could not able to establish the 9 so-called recovery of M.Os.8 to 13 from the accused. As such, except the motive, there is no other material to connect the appellants with the alleged offence. Further, even according to PWs 4 to 6, the motive is for A.1 and not for others. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of Investigating Officer PW.11 accepted the so-called recovery of M.Os. 8 to 13. 15. As seen from the material available on record, all the material witnesses including Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution. As such, there is no legal evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged offence. 16. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs to be interfered with. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 / A.1, A.3 & A.5 by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala in Sessions Case No.422 of 2014, for the charges under Sections 302 and 449 r/w 149 IPC, vide judgment dated 07.02.2018, is hereby set aside, and the Appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 / A.1, A.3 & A.5 are acquitted for the said charges. As the appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 / A.1, A.3 & A.5 were released on bail by order in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2023 dt. 20.03.2023 in terms of the order of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , they are 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) 10 directed to appear before the concerned Court and complete the formalities in terms of Batchu Rangarao (supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA 09.02.2026 MVA