1 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 APHC010609402018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3566] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2403/2018 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI PRASAD, R/O. BOMMAIAHPALLI (V) SC COLONY, VEDURUKUPAAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR, DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, (AP) High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT 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 Appeal questioning his Conviction and sentence in the Judgement dated 24th November, 2018 in SC.no.166 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi for the following and 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 202 days in perferring the appeal against the Judgement dated 24th November, 2018 in SC.no.166 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 Sentence of Life 2 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 Imprisonment as per the Judgment dated 24.11.2017 in S.C.No.166/2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tirupathi and release the petitioner on Interim Bail for a period of three (03) months and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 suspend the sentence of Life Imprisonment as per the Judgment dt. 24.11.2017 in S.C. No.166/2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tirupathi and release the Petitioner on Interim Bail for a period of three (03) months and pass such other 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 suspend the execution of sentence of petitioners in SC No. 166 of 2017 dt. 24-11-2017 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi and release the Petitioner on bail on any conditions pending disposal of the Appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2403 OF 2018 J U D G M E N T (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.166 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. 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.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 4 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2016 at about 1.00 a.m., while the accused was in sound sleep, his wife K. Sumathi (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) tied his legs with a towel and attempted to kill him by pressing a pillow on his face, but the accused woke up from sleep and pushed the deceased aside, firmly pressed her neck and fisted on her chest, as a result of which she fell unconscious on the TV stand, and in the same process he picked up a pillow and pressed it on her face and mouth and killed her, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:- The accused is a resident of Bommaiahpalli Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are neighbours of the accused. Marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized on 12.12.2012 at the residence of the accused. They led happy marital life for some time and were blessed with a son. Except the household disputes, the couple lived happily. (ii) While so, on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2016 at about 1.00 a.m., the accused knocked the door of his neighbour, P.W.3, and informed him that his wife was suffering from chest pain and that he intended to take her to the hospital in an auto rickshaw. P.W.4-the wife of P.W.3, also witnessed the same. P.W.3 then went 5 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying unconscious on a cot. Thereafter, the accused, along with the deceased, their son and his father, boarded the auto to proceed to Devalampet to consult a doctor. While proceeding to Devalampet, P.W.3 drove the auto, and the accused telephoned to P.W.1 and informed him that his wife was suffering from chest pain and asked him to come. (iii) Accused took the deceased to P.W.5-RMP Doctor at Devalampeta. P.W.5, on examining the deceased, advised the accused to take her immediately to the Government Hospital, Chittoor. Thereafter, they started to Chittoor via Lakshmireddypalle, the village of in-laws of the accused. The accused informed P.W.1 that they were proceeding via Lakshmireddypalle and requested P.W.1 and his in-laws to come to the main road at Lakshmireddypalle. By the time the auto reached Lakshmireddypalle, P.W.1 and the mother-in-law of the accused were present on the main road. When P.W.1 enquired about the condition of his sister, the accused stated that she was suffering from chest pain. The mother-in-law of the accused and another person boarded the auto, while P.W.1 followed them on his motorcycle. The accused thereafter took the deceased to P.W.6- another RMP Doctor at Kothapallimitta. P.W.6 examined her and 6 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 declared her dead. Thereafter, the accused brought the dead body back to his residence. (iv) P.W.2- relative of P.W.1, went to the house of accused and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the verandah. P.W.2 noticed certain injuries on the dead body, particularly on the neck, lips and knee. He immediately informed P.W.1 and others. Thereafter P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report. (v) On the same day, i.e., on 27.11.2016, P.W.13-the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Vedurukuppam Police Station, received a report-Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.72 of 2016 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P7. He also issued a requisition to the Tahsildar for conducting inquest over the dead body. (v) P.W.12, the Tahsildar, Vedurukuppam Mandal, conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators-P.W.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. In the inquest report, the Panchayatdars opined that the deceased died due to the injuries found on the neck, nose, right hand, upper lip and knees. (vi) After registering the crime, the Investigating Officer,- P.W.13, proceeded to the scene of offence at about 8.30 p.m. As it was late in the night, he posted guards at the scene. On the next 7 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 day, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.13 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P8, in the presence of P.W.8 and another. During the course of the observation proceedings, P.W.13 found broken glass pieces of a TV stand and seized the same, which were marked as M.O.7. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P9, at the scene of offence. Thereafter, P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and others, and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (vii) P.W.11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Puttur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He found contusions on the inner side of the lower lip as well as the inner side of the upper lip with bluish discoloration. On the basis of RFSL report and the external injuries, he opined the cause of death was due to pressure over the nose and mouth leading to airway obstruction, resulting in asphyxia and cardio-respiratory arrest, culminating in death. He issued his final opinion marked as Ex.P6. He further stated that he did not find any symptoms of heart attack. (viii) P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws. 3 and 4. He also seized wearing apparel-MOs. 1 to 4 of the deceased under police proceedings-Ex.P10. (ix) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.14-Inspector of Police, Karvetinagaram circle. On 07.12.2016, P.W.14-the 8 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. On the same day, P.W.8-Village Revenue Officer of Bommaiahpalli, brought the accused and produced him before P.W.14, stating that the accused confessed his guilt in the presence of panchayatdars- P.W.10 and another. Ex.P3 is confessional statement of the accused. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, P.W.14 recovered a towel and a pillow, marked as M.Os. 5 and 6, and seized them under a panchanama marked as Ex.P4. He arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory and received the RFSL report- Ex.P12, which indicated that no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased. (x) On 16.3.2017, P.W.14 received final opinion-Ex.P6 from P.W.11. After receiving all documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12, apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 7. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him from the prosecution witnesses. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf but got marked Ex.D-1. 9 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to establish motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. He further submits that neighbours-P.Ws. 3 and 4, did not speak about any harassment by the appellant towards the deceased. He also contends that the so-called extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon, as P.W.8, before whom the appellant is said to have made such confession, did not support the prosecution. He further submits that there was abnormal delay in lodging the report-Ex.P1 with the police by P.W.1. He contends that the deceased fell down and suffered with heart attack, and that it was the appellant who took the deceased to doctors-P.Ws. 5 and 6. He further contends that, apart from the appellant, other inmates were also present in the house. As such, he contends that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are illegal and liable to be set aside. 10 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the deceased met with a homicidal death in the house of the appellant. It is also admitted by the appellant that he was present in the house at the time of the incident. He further submits that P.W.11, the Medical Officer, in his post-mortem report-Ex.P6, has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to pressure exerted over the nose and mouth, leading to airway obstruction, resulting in asphyxia and cardio-respiratory arrest, culminating in death. He further submits that P.W.11, in his evidence, specifically stated that there were no symptoms of heart attack. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contends that, in view of the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the appellant to explain as to how the deceased met with a homicidal death in his house. Instead of offering any plausible explanation, the appellant came up with a false story of the deceased having fallen accidentally, which has been negatived by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.11. As such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 11 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 12. According to the prosecution, the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased suspecting her fidelity. However, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to establish the alleged motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. Neighbours-P.Ws. 3 and 4 also did not whisper anything about any quarrels between the appellant and the deceased. P.Ws. 3 and 4, in their evidence, stated that on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2016 at about 1.00 a.m., the appellant knocked their door and informed them that the deceased was suffering from chest pain and that he intended to take her to the hospital. They further stated that P.W.3 drove the appellant’s auto, in which the deceased was first taken to P.W.5, an RMP Doctor, and thereafter to another doctor, P.W.6, who confirmed the death of the deceased. 13. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 disclose that injuries were found on the neck, lips and knees of the deceased. On noticing these injuries on the body of the deceased, P.W.1 lodged a report- Ex.P1, with the police. Thus, it was only after observing the injuries the criminal law was set in motion. Till then, the appellant had been stating to P.W.1 and his relatives that the deceased was suffering from chest pain. Subsequently, the appellant is said to have made an extra-judicial confession before the Village Revenue Officer, 12 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 Bommaiahpalem, on 07.12.2016. However, P.W.8 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. 14. P.W.14-the Investigating Officer, stated that on 07.12.2016, P.W.8 produced the appellant before him along with the confessional statement-Ex.P3. Another witness, P.W.10, who was working as Village Revenue Officer of Mambedu Panchayat, stated that in his presence, P.W.8 produced the appellant before P.W.14, before whom the appellant made confessional statement, Ex.P3. However, as the so-called confessional statement-Ex.P3, was made in the presence of the Investigating Officer- P.W.14, no credence can be given to the said confession. 14. Further, if M.Os. 5 and 6 were used to kill the deceased, the pillow ought to have contained saliva. Curiously, M.Os. 5 and 6 were not sent to the RFSL to ascertain whether any saliva was present on the pillow cover or not. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the motive as well as the so-called extra-judicial confession in the circumstances of the case. 15. Coming to the next evidence available on record, namely the medical evidence through P.W.11, he stated in his evidence that he found contusions on the inner side of the lower lip as well as on the inner side of the upper lip with bluish discoloration. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 lends support to the medical evidence adduced 13 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 through P.W.11 to the effect that injuries were found on the body of the deceased. It was only after noticing these injuries P.W.1 lodged report-Ex.P1. 16. P.W.11, in his final opinion, stated that the cause of death was due to pressure exerted over the nose and mouth, leading to airway obstruction, resulting in asphyxia and cardio-respiratory arrest, culminating in death. P.W.11 also categorically deposed that he did not find any symptoms of heart attack. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 stands corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P6. Consequently, the prosecution was able to establish that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the appellant. 17. In this connection, it is trite that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments including the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, has laid down five (5) golden principles, which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence: “(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is 1 (1981) 4 SCC 116 14 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be followed, AND (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 18. In the case on hand, the prosecution has established that the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of the appellant. The prosecution has also established that the appellant was present in the house at the time of the incident. Apart from these circumstances, no explanation has been forthcoming from the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Instead of offering any explanation, the appellant came up with a false story of chest pain. As such all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution pointing guilt towards the appellant alone, but to none others. 19. Having analysed the evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellant caused the death of the deceased. As such, there are no grounds to interfere 15 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 20. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, in Sessions Case No.166 of 2017, dated 24.11.2017. As the appellant/Accused was released on bail, he is directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith. Failing which, the learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of appellant by issuing warrants for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date:12.03.2026 GR 16 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2403 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2403 OF 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Date:12.03.2026 GR