APHC010505382018 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 SUBBA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1975/2018 Between: 1. PASALA GANGAIAH @ MABBU GANGAIAH, RAJUKUNTA VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P, Through S H O, Chitvel PS, Retd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 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 Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction made in S C No. 301/2015 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kadapa at Rajampet. 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 fix an early date of hearing of appeal a as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peti IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1975/2018 PASALA GANGAIAH @ MABBU GANGAIAH, RAJUKUNTA VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...AP AND THE STATE OF A P, Through S H O, Chitvel PS, Retd. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...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 Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction made in S C No. 301/2015 on the file of t and Sessions Court, Kadapa at Rajampet. 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 fix an early date of hearing of appeal and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY REDDY SATTI PASALA GANGAIAH @ MABBU GANGAIAH, RAJUKUNTA VILLAGE, PPELLANT THE STATE OF A P, Through S H O, Chitvel PS, Retd. by Public ...RESPONDENT 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 Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction made in S C No. 301/2015 on the file 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 to nd to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated tion, the High Court may be pleased 2 pleased to release the petitioner on bail during pendency of Crl.A.No. 1975/2018 by suspending sentence imposed in S.C.No.301/2015 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajampet, YSR Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY 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.301 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 30.09.2013 at about 2.30 P.M., the accused along with one M.Venkata Subbaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) went to the Western hillocks of Rajukunta Village to occupy the vacant site, where the deceased demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for preparation of Pattadar Passbook, the accused became wild, picked up a stick, beat him on the head and chest, causing his instantaneous death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in nutshell, is as follows: (a) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Rajukunta Village, Chitvel Mandal. The deceased was also resident of same village. PW.1 is the wife, PWs 2 & 3 are sons and PW.4 is the mother of the deceased respectively. PWs 9 and 10 are relatives of PWs 1 to 4. The 4 deceased used to indulge in preparation of Pattadar Passbooks pertaining to Government lands and allot the said land to known persons. The deceased promised the accused that he will arrange Government land and allot it to him and so saying he collected an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The deceased has shown a land situated in Sy.No.253 of the same village and asked the accused to fence the said land. Accordingly, the accused occupied the said land and arranged the fencing. On the complaint made by the villagers, the Revenue officials PWs 6 to 8 removed the fencing and advised the accused not to occupy the Government land. Thereafter, the accused questioned the deceased, who informed him stating that he will allot some other land. The deceased was postponing the same for one reason or the other. (b) While so, on 30.09.2013 at about 2.30 P.M., the accused went to the deceased and questioned him. The deceased informed him stating that there was a land available near the western side hillock and asked him to occupy the same. So saying the deceased took the accused to the western hillocks, showed the land and asked him to occupy the same. When the deceased demanded the accused to pay additional amount of Rs.50,000/- for preparation of Pattadar Passbook, immediately, the accused became wild, picked up a stick and dealt blows on the head and chest. The deceased, having received injuries, died on the spot. As the deceased did not return home, PWs 1 to 4 searched for him. On the next day, when they were searching, they came to know that the dead body of the deceased was found at the hillock area through one N.Lokanath (L.W.4). PWs 1 to 4 went to the 5 scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased with head injury at about 3.30 P.M. On the same day i.e., on 01.10.2013, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. (c) PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Chitvel Police Station received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 at about 07.00 P.M. and registered a case in Cr.No.92/2013 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P6. Having received the information from PW.13, Inspector of Police PW.14 took up investigation. He proceeded to the scene of offence situated in the Hillock at a distance of half-kilometre from Rajukunta Village. As it was late in the night, he posted two constables to guard the scene of offence and returned to the Police Station. On the next day i.e., on 02.10.2013, PW.14 resumed further investigation. He prepared Rough sketch Ex.P7 at the scene of offence. He also seized blood stained wood stick piece, pair of huawai chappal, blood stained earth and its control M.Os 2 to 9. He also held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.11 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. After inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (d) PW.12 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajampet conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death of the deceased was due to cardio-respiratory failure due to shock due to intra cerebral hemorrhage due to head injury. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P5. 6 (e) On 03.10.2013, PW.14 visited the Tahsildar Office, Chitvel and recorded statements of PWs 5, 7, 8 and others. Thereafter, he visited Rajukunta Village and recorded statements of PWs 9 & 10. On 20.10.2013, having received the information, PW.14, along with his staff, apprehended the accused near Rapur Cross road, Chitvel in the presence of PW.8 and another. The accused said to have confessed about the commission of offence. On the confession made by the accused, PW.14 seized M.O.1 stick from the bushes at ST Colony, Rajukunta Village in the presence of PW.8 and another. On 21.10.2013, PW.14 forwarded the crime weapon (stick) to F.S.L. F.S.L. reports were marked as Exs.P8 and P9. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, the successor of PW.14 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P9 and exhibited M.Os 1 to 9. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 6. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent / State. 7 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident in the present case and the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has projected two circumstances. The first circumstance is motive for the accused to commit murder and the second circumstance is the last seen theory. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 6 to 9. PWs 6 to 8 were working as Revenue officials. PWs 6 to 8, in their evidence, have categorically stated that having received the complaint from the villagers about the accused occupying the Government land, they went to Rajukunta village and found the accused fencing the land situated in Sy.No.253. PWs 6 to 8, in their evidence, also categorically stated that having found encroachment made by the accused, they removed the fencing and cleared the land. Their evidence further disclose that the accused informed them stating that the accused asked the deceased to occupy the vacant land. PWs 6 to 8 in their evidence further stated that they have produced both the accused and deceased before the Tahsildar, who advised them not to occupy the Government land. PWs 6 to 8 further stated that part of the land acquired by the accused was already assigned to ST people. PWs 6 to 8 further stated that the accused was having grudge against the deceased as he did not allot the suitable land having received money from him. Learned counsel further contends that no record was produced by the Revenue officials to show that the said land situated in Sy.No.253 belongs to the Government and part of the land was allotted to ST people. He further contends that no record was 8 produced about the complaint given by the villagers. He also contends that there is no record to show that the Revenue officials removed the fencing and cleared the land situated in Sy.No.253. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the prosecution tried to establish the last seen theory through the evidence of PW.10. He further contends that PW.10 is not at all a truthful witness and he was set up by the prosecution belatedly and as such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW.10. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal inter alia contending that the evidence of PWs 6 to 8 clinchingly establish the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. He further contends that the evidence of PW.10 clearly establish that the deceased was last found in the company of the accused. As such, the prosecution could able to prove both the circumstances and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. PWs 1 to 4, who were kith and kin of the deceased, in their evidence have only stated that on 30.09.2013, the deceased went out and did not return home on that night. Though PWs 1 to 4 searched for the deceased on that night, they could not trace the deceased. It is only at 3.30 P.M. on the next day they came to know about the presence of the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence through one N.Lokanath (LW.4). Except to that extent, 9 the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not at all helpful to the prosecution in establishing the attack made by the accused. So far as PW.5 is concerned, he is also resident of the same village and he was working as V.R.A. and he only states that the accused and deceased were moving closely. Admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to the motive and the second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory. 12. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 6 to 8. PWs 6 to 8 in their evidence have categorically stated that having received the complaint from the villagers, they, being the Revenue officials, went to Rajukunta village and found the accused occupying the land in Sy.No.253 and fenced the same. PWs 6 to 8 in their evidence further stated that they removed the fencing and produced the accused and deceased before the Tahsildar, who admonished both of them and advised them not to occupy the Government land. Though PWs 6 to 8 have stated so in their evidence, they did not produce any document to show about either the complaint made by the villagers or the encroachment made by the accused or removing the encroachment i.e., fencing in Sy.No.253. Absolutely, no documentary evidence has been placed by the Revenue officials PWs 6 to 8 except their oral assertion. Further, as seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW.14, the statements of the Revenue officials were recorded on 03.10.2013. In view of the non-production of any 10 documentary evidence and in view of their belated version, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the first circumstance. 13. Coming to the second circumstance i.e., last seen theory, the prosecution projected PW.10. PW.10 in his evidence has stated that about 3½ years back while he was coming from his fields, he saw the accused and deceased coming in front of him. When he questioned them as to where they are going, the deceased told him that they are going to Chintalachelika Forest area. He also stated in his evidence that there are differences between the accused and deceased. PW.10 in his evidence further stated that on the next day, he came to know about the death of the deceased. PW.10 in his evidence further stated that he is closely related to PWs 1 to 4 and the deceased. Though PW.10 was closely related to PWs 1 to 4, he did not choose to give information about he questioning the deceased when he was going along with the accused towards the scene of offence. The dead body was traced on 01.10.2013 at 3.30 P.M. and PW.10 was also aware of the death of the deceased on 01.10.2013 itself. Inquest was conducted on 02.10.2013 by the Investigating Officer PW.14 in the presence of PW.11 and another. If really PW.10 saw the deceased in the company of the accused, he should have informed PWs 1 to 4 about the same. But, in Ex.P1, PW.1 did not attribute anything against the accused. They did not even express suspicion over the accused. Further, in the Inquest report also, it was silent about the last seen theory projected through PW.10. As already pointed out, 11 the inquest was held over the dead body on 02.10.2013. If really PW.10 saw the deceased in the company of the accused, the said fact ought to have been mentioned either in Ex.P1 report or in the Inquest report Ex.P4. The said factum of PW.10 witnessing the deceased in the company of the accused was conspicuously silent. Further, the statement of PW.10 was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW.14 on 03.10.2013. If really PW.10 witnessed the deceased in the company of the accused on 30.09.2013, he would have informed either to the police or to PWs 1 to 4 atleast on the next day i.e., 01.10.2013. But, curiously PW.10 kept silent without informing anyone. As such, the belated version of PW.10 does not inspire confidence of this Court. It seems the prosecution set up PW10 belatedly to suit their case. 14. Having analysed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing both the circumstances. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.301 of 2015 against the appellant, vide judgment dt.01.06.2018, is hereby set aside, and the appellant / Accused is acquitted for the said charge. As the appellant / Accused was released on bail by order in I.A.No.1/2024 dt. 01.05.2024 in terms of the order of the Composite High 12 Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, he is directed to surrender before the Superintendent of Prison concerned to complete the formalities in terms of Batchu Rangarao (supra). The Appellant / Accused is directed to set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other crime or cases. The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant / Accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC shall be refunded to him. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 05.01.2026 MVA 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)