APHC010473332018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1851/2018 Between: 1. GEMMELI SEEMMANNA, CULTIVATION, R/O.KANDULUGADE KOTHAVURU (V), PEDALUVVASING PANCHAYAT, G.MADUGULA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P, of AP., at Hyderabad. Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment dated 01 Sessions Case No. 165 of 20 Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated 01 165 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Principal District and Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C.No.165 of 2015 dated 01.05.2018 on the file of t District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the CrI.A.No. 1851 of 2018, and to pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FOURTH 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: 1851/2018 GEMMELI SEEMMANNA, CULTIVATION, R/O.KANDULUGADE KOTHAVURU (V), PEDALUVVASING PANCHAYAT, G.MADUGULA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...AP AND THE STATE OF A P, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPO Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment dated 01- Sessions Case No. 165 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in the interest of justice. 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 the sentence dated 01-05-2018 passed in SC.No. 165 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Principal District and Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of 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 petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C.No.165 of 2015 dated 01.05.2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the CrI.A.No. 1851 of 2018, and to pass IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3566] THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA GEMMELI SEEMMANNA, CULTIVATION, R/O.KANDULUGADE KOTHAVURU (V), PEDALUVVASING PANCHAYAT, G.MADUGULA ...APPELLANT represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High -05-2018 in 15 on the file of the Principal District and that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2018 passed in SC.No. 165 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence he Principal District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 appellant/accused Gemmeli Seemanna, on bail in CrI. A. No. 1851 of 2018 of this Hon'ble Court which arose out of S. C. No. 165 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge,Visakhapatnam, Judgement dated 1.5.2018 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.165 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under the following charges: (i) 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC, and (ii) 2nd charge was under Section 201 IPC 2. Substance of the charge is that on 14.10.2014 at about 03:00 P.M., the accused, along with his junior paternal uncle Gemmeli Lakshmayya (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), went to Chinabandaveedhi Village of G. Madugula Mandal and consumed toddy, and during the course of an altercation that ensued between them, the accused beat the deceased with a stick on his head, resulting his instantaneous death, and thereafter buried the dead body near the canal of Chinabandaveedhi Village, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Learned Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of 4 Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in nutshell, is as follows: (a) The accused and P.W.1 are residents of Kandulugade Kothavuru Village, G. Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The deceased is none other than the junior paternal uncle of the accused and the father of P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 5 are residents of a neighbouring village, viz., Chinabandaveedhi Village of G. Madugula Mandal. The accused and the deceased were on cordial terms and there was no enmity between them. (b) While so, on 14.10.2014 at about 03:00 P.M., the accused and the deceased went to Chinabandaveedhi Village and consumed toddy in the shop of P.W.3. At that juncture, an altercation took place between them, and L.W.2 and P.Ws.2 and 3 intervened, separated them and went away. Thereafter, while both of them were returning to their village, i.e., Kothavuru, the accused, having felt insulted and being in an inebriated condition, beat the deceased on his head with a stick, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. Thereafter, the accused buried the dead body near the canal of Chinabandaveedhi Village and returned to his village. As the deceased did not return home, P.W.1 questioned the accused, but the accused gave an evasive reply. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with his relatives searched for the deceased. 5 (c) While so, on 12.11.2014 at about 02:00 P.M., when the village elders, including P.W.2 and others, questioned the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, initially he gave an evasive reply. However, when P.W.2 and others confronted him, the accused disclosed that both of them had quarrelled with each other and that he had beaten the deceased with a stick on his head, resulting in his instantaneous death. He further stated that he had buried the dead body near the fields of one Korra Sundara Rao situated at Kokkirapalli Gedda. Immediately, the accused absconded. Having received the said information, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report- Ex.P1. (d) On 12.11.2014 at about 05:00 P.M., P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, G. Madugula Police Station, on receipt of ExP1 report from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He issued copies of the F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P10 is the F.I.R. (e) On receipt of the said information from P.W.11, P.W.12 took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. On 13.11.2014 at about 09:00 A.M., P.W.12 visited Chinabandaveedhi Village and secured the presence of P.W.2 and another, as well as the mediators-P.W.6 and another, and prepared an observation report marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence- Ex.P11. On the same day, he recorded statements of P.W.4 and others. Thereafter, P.W.12 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of 6 mediators P.W.6 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. At the inquest, P.W.12 seized M.Os.1 and 2. (f) On 16.11.2014 at about 09:00 A.M., P.W.12 again visited Chinabandaveedhi Village and recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 5, 7 and others. On 17.11.2014 at about 12:00 hours, P.W.7 produced the accused along with his report-Ex.P7, stating that the accused had confessed before him. The accused was then examined in the presence of P.W.7 and another mediator. Pursuant to the information furnished by the accused, they proceeded to the scene of offence, where the accused shown the place where he buried the dead body. P.W.12 prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, which is marked as Ex.P12. He also recovered M.O.3-stick in the presence of mediators under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P6. Thereafter, P.W.12 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. (g) In the meanwhile, P.W.8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined the cause of death was “cardio- respiratory arrest secondary to intra-cerebral hemorrhage due to a blow on the head with a hard and blunt object.” He issued Post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P8. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked Exs.P1 to P12 and exhibited MOs. 1 to 3. 7 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs 2 and 12 coupled with the recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that, admittedly, the deceased was missing from 14.10.2014 onwards, but, P.W.1 did not choose to give any report to the police till 12.11.2014. He further contends that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who, in their evidence, stated that they had seen the accused and the deceased on 14.10.2014 at about 04:00 P.M. and had also witnessed a quarrel between them; however, they did not choose to inform anyone about the same till 12.11.2014 and 16.11.2014. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the “last seen theory”. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 does not, in any manner, advance the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel also contends that the alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been 8 made by the accused before P.W.7 was also disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. According to the learned counsel, the only circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge was the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused and the so-called retracted extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before the village elders, i.e., P.W.2 and others. Except the said retracted extra-judicial confession, there is no other material on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. So far as the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused is concerned, the prosecution itself is not certain as to when the same was effected, whether on 13.11.2014 or on 17.11.2014. In such circumstances, learned counsel contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending, inter alia, that though the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made before P.W.7, the prosecution has nevertheless succeeded in establishing the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused. He further contends that, had the accused not caused the death of the deceased at the relevant point of time, he would not have disclosed the place where the dead body was buried. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public 9 Prosecutor, the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 12. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 14. The evidence of PWs.3 to 5 has already been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the prosecution case now rests primarily on the testimony of PW.1. PW.1 stated in his evidence that the deceased was missing from 14.10.2014 onwards. According to him, on the afternoon of 14.10.2014 the deceased went along with the accused to Chinabandaveedhi Village. He further stated that at about 05:00 P.M. on the same day the accused alone returned to the village. When PW.1 questioned the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, the accused did not give proper reply. Thereafter, PW.1 along with his relatives searched for the deceased from 14.10.2014 onwards. PW.1 further stated that on 12.11.2014 at about 02:00 P.M., when PW.2 and other villagers confronted the accused, the accused confessed before them that he had killed the deceased on 14.10.2014 and buried the dead body. It was only thereafter PW.1 lodged a report with the police on the same day at about 05:00 P.M. However, a significant circumstance which creates serious doubt in the prosecution case is the inordinate delay in lodging the report. Even according to PW.1, he was aware that the deceased had gone along with the accused on 14.10.2014. If that is so, PW.1 ought to have reported the matter to the police at least within a reasonable time thereafter. Surprisingly, no report was lodged 10 for a period of nearly 28 days, and PW.1 remained silent until 12.11.2014. Such unexplained and abnormal delay in setting the criminal law into motion casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the version of PW.1. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be safe to place reliance on the testimony of PW.1. 15. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he is resident of Chinabandaveedhi Village. He stated in his evidence that on 14.10.2014 at about 05.00 P.M., the accused and the deceased came to their village and purchased certain provisions. He further deposed that thereafter both of them consumed toddy and an altercation ensued between them. According to him, he along with LW.2 intervened and separated them, after which both the accused and the deceased proceeded towards their village. PW.2 further stated that on 12.11.2014, when he along with LW.2 and other villagers confronted the accused, the accused allegedly confessed that he had beaten the deceased with a stick at Kokkirapalli Gedda, due to which the deceased died on the spot, and that he thereafter buried the dead body in the fields of one Korra Sundara Rao. It is his further version that after making such disclosure, the accused absconded from the place. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, PW.2 is not a resident of the village of PW.1 and the deceased, but belongs to a neighbouring village. In such circumstances, it is difficult to understand as to why PW.2 would confront the accused regarding the disappearance of the deceased. Further, the version that the accused voluntarily disclosed the commission of the offence before several villagers 11 and immediately absconded from the place appears highly improbable and unnatural. In view of these circumstances, the testimony of PW.2 does not inspire confidence of this Court and the same cannot be safely relied upon. 16. Coming to the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 with regard to the last seen theory, the learned Sessions Judge, upon a careful appreciation of their testimony, disbelieved their version and declined to place reliance on their evidence for the purpose of establishing that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The trial Court found material inconsistencies and improbabilities in their evidence and therefore rejected the prosecution case insofar as the last seen theory is concerned. 17. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the so-called extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW.7. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, disbelieved the testimony of PW.7 and declined to place reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession. Consequently, the trial Court rejected the prosecution case insofar as the extra-judicial confession is concerned. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has already disbelieved two important circumstances relied on by the prosecution, namely, the last seen theory as well as the extra-judicial confession allegedly made before PW.7. 18. Another significant flaw in the case of prosecution is that the so-called date of recovery of the dead body. There is material inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on this aspect. PWs.7 and 12 deposed 12 that on 17.11.2014 the accused was produced before the Investigating Officer and, pursuant to the disclosure made by him, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report marked as Ex.P12. However, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 indicates that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused on 13.11.2014. Thus, there is a clear contradiction between the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 on one hand and that of PWs.7 and 12 on the other with regard to the date on which the dead body was allegedly recovered. This material contradiction strikes at the very root of the prosecution case, particularly when the recovery of the dead body is projected as an important incriminating circumstance against the accused. Further, as already noted, though the deceased was stated to be missing from 14.10.2014, no report was lodged with the police until 12.11.2014, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution has therefore failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the circumstances brought on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the 13 appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are liable to be set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam under Sections 302 & 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.165 of 2015 vide judgment dated 01.05.2018 are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. As the appellant was released on bail by order in I.A.No.1/2025 dt. 19.03.2025 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 Pradesh1, he is 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA 24.02.2026 MVA 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)