1 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY 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.2435 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Both the accused in S.C.No.150 of 2017 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur, are the appellants. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur under the following two (2) charges. (i) The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 and A2 and (ii) The second charge was under Section 201 IPC against A1 and A2. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 16.09.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., at the sand heap stored in the land bearing Survey No.369-7 belonging to A. Lingamma, situated near Yelakalagutta behind Chinnampalli High School of Puttaparthi Town, A.1 picked up a quarrel with his brother Tulasi Thakur (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and threw him on the ground, while A.2 caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased, A.1 cut the 2 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 throat of the deceased with a knife and A.2 beat the deceased on his left and right side of the chest with a stone, thereby caused his death, and in the same process both the accused buried the dead body under the sand heap to screen the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted both the accused under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: A.1 and A.2 are residents of the State of Jharkhand. The deceased was also resident of the same State and he was none other than the brother of A.1. A.2 is a close relative of A.1 and the deceased. P.W.13 is the brother of A.1 and the deceased. Both the accused and the deceased had come down to Puttaparthi from their native village for their livelihood to work in Handri Neeva Canal Project. They were working as proclainer operators. P.W.4 is a contractor executing civil contract works in Handri Neeva Canal Project at 3 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 Puttaparthi, and both the accused and the deceased were working under him. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the supervisors of the said contract work. There were ill- feelings between A.1 and the deceased with regard to sharing of the property in their native village. (ii) While so, on 16.9.2026, A1 and A2 took the deceased along with them as per their plan and all the three went to the scene of offence. At that juncture, A1 picked up a quarrel with the deceased and threw him on the ground, as a result the deceased fell down. Then A2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and A1 cut the throat of the deceased with a knife. A2 also beat the deceased with a boulder on the left and right side of his chest. Then both the accused buried the dead body under the sand heap in order to screen the evidence. Thereafter A1 and A2 approached P.W.4, collected their arrears of salary, and left Puttaparthi. (iii) While so, on 25.09.2016, P.W.2 noticed a gathering at the scene of offence and, on reaching the spot, found the dead body of a male person. Immediately, he went to the Village Revenue Officer, Puttaparthi- P.W.1, and informed him about the same. Then, P.W.1 proceeded to the Police Station and lodged a report- Ex.P1. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m., the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttaparthi, received the said report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P16. 4 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 (iv) Thereafter, P.W.14- Inspector of Police, Puttaparthi took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators-P.W.3, P.W.6 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P5. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P17 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed through P.W.7. Photographs were marked as Exs.P6 and P7. On the requisition made by P.W.14, a team of doctors visited the scene of offence, conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body, and issued Post-mortem Certificate- Ex.P8. (v) P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Penukonda conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to multiple injuries. He issued final opinion, which was marked as Ex.P10, based on Forensic Science Laboratory Report -Ex.P9. (vi) P.W.14 recorded statements of P.Ws.1, 2 and another. He also seized MOs.1 to 3 at the scene of offence. On 02.10.2016, the relatives of the deceased identified the dead body, and he recorded statements of relatives as well as P.Ws.7, 12 and 13. On 03.10.2016, P.W.14 recorded statements of P.Ws.4, 5, 9 and 10. (vii) On 24.10.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., A1 and A2 approached P.W.11, who was working as Vehicle In-charge in Handri Neeva Canal Project and confessed about commission of the offence. Thereafter, P.W.11 took both the accused to P.W.1 at about 10.00 a.m., before whom A1 and A2 said to have again confessed about the commission of offence. Since both the accused did not know Telugu and stated the facts in Hindi, P.W.1 recorded their 5 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 confession statements in Telugu with the assistance of the translator-P.W.11, and the said statements were marked as Exs.P2 and P3. On the same day, at about 10.45 a.m., P.Ws.1 and 11 produced both the accused before the Investigating Officer-P.W.14, along with Exs.P2 and P3, and the report submitted by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P4. P.W.14 recorded confessional statements of A1 and A2 under Ex.P12 in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 11. Pursuant to the confession made by both the accused, P.W.14 seized M.Os.4 to 7 under a panchanama, which was marked as Ex.P13. After collecting all documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17, apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 7. 5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the prosecution witnesses. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced both the accused/appellants as aforesaid. 7. Heard Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for both the appellants- accused Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 6 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 8. Admittedly, the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are; 1) Last seen theory. 2) Extra judicial confession 3) False explanation given by the appellants/accused. 4) Confession leading to recovery of Mos.4 to 7 at the instance of both the appellants/accused. 5) Motive 9. So far as the first circumstance, namely the “last seen theory,” is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.5, in his evidence, stated that at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. on 16.09.2016, he saw both the appellants/accused and the deceased shouting at each other near the sand mounds. He further stated that when he questioned A1 and A2, they asked him to leave the place stating that it was their family matter. He also stated that their uncle (babaiah) was present there and thereafter he left the place. P.W.5 further stated that the police examined him on 25.09.2016. However, the Investigating Officer, P.W.14, did not state in his evidence whether he recorded the statement of P.W.5 during the course of investigation and, if so, on which date such statement was recorded. Though P.W.5 saw both the appellants and the deceased shouting at each other, he did not choose to inform the same to anybody immediately. In the absence of clarity as to when the statement of P.W.5 was recorded during the course of investigation, coupled with his unnatural conduct in not informing the alleged 7 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 incident to anyone, the evidence of P.W.5 does not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon. Therefore, the first circumstance, namely the last seen theory, has not been established by the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Coming to the second circumstance, namely the alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been made by both the appellants/A1 and A2, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1, who was working as the Village Revenue Officer of Puttaparthi stated, in his evidence, that on 24.10.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was present in his office, P.W.11 along with the appellants approached him and sought protection to their lives. According to P.W.1, on enquiry, the appellants stated in Hindi language that they had killed the deceased. As P.W.1 was not conversant with Hindi language and the appellants did not know Telugu language, he took the assistance of P.W.11 for translating statements of the appellants into Telugu. Thereafter, he recorded confessional statements of both the appellants/A1 and A2 under Exs.P2 and P3 respectively and prepared a report under Ex.P4, and subsequently produced both the appellants before the Investigating Officer-P.W.14. 11. At the outset, it is to be noted that admittedly the appellants were strangers to P.W.1 and had no prior acquaintance with him. In the absence of any material explaining why the appellants would repose confidence in P.W.1, who was a stranger, and voluntarily confess the commission of a grave 8 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 offence before him, the version put forth by the prosecution appears inherently improbable. 12. Further, both the appellants did not know Telugu language, whereas P.W.1 did not know Hindi language. P.W.1, in his evidence, stated that he took the assistance of P.W.11 for translating statements of both the appellants into Telugu. However, P.W.11, in his evidence, did not state that the appellants confessed about the commission of offence before him. 13. On the contrary, P.W.11, in his evidence, stated that on 24.10.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., both the appellants/A1 and A2 approached him and informed him that the dead body of the deceased was traced there and that they were afraid of the police. But, P.W.11 did not record any statement from both the appellants/ A1 and A2. 14. P.W.11 further stated in his evidence that he immediately produced both the appellants before P.W.1. Except for the said circumstance, there is absolutely no explanation as to why the appellants would approach P.W.11. In the absence of any clear, voluntary and reliable confession, and in view of the language barrier between the appellants and P.W.1, the alleged extra-judicial confession becomes highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the alleged extra-judicial confession, and the learned trial Judge erred in placing reliance on such a weak and unreliable piece of evidence. 9 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 15. It is well settled that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Courts ordinarily seek independent corroboration before placing reliance upon it. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in BALBIR SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB reiterated that unless the Court is satisfied that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary, truthful and inspires confidence, it would be unsafe to base a conviction solely on such evidence. 16. In the present case, in view of the inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version, the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 11, the language barrier between the parties, and the absence of any corroborative circumstance, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged extra-judicial confession. Consequently, the second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution also fails. 17. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the false explanation given by both the appellants/accused. In order to establish the same, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 9. 18. P.W.4, in his evidence, stated that he was working as a Civil Contractor and that both the appellants were working in his project. He further stated that on 16.09.2016 at about 11.00 p.m. both the appellants approached him stating that their father had expired and that they intended to go to their native place. He further stated that before leaving, the appellants collected their salaries from him. P.W.9, who was working as a Supervisor in the said project, also stated the same facts as spoken to by P.W.4. 10 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 19. Except stating the above fact, P.Ws.4 and 9 did not speak about any other incriminating circumstance against the appellants. More importantly, the Investigating Officer-P.W.14 did not conduct any investigation whatsoever to ascertain whether the statement made by the appellants regarding the death of the father of the appellants was true or false. In the absence of any investigation in that regard, it cannot be conclusively held that the explanation given by the appellants was false. It is well settled that merely because the appellants/accused offered an explanation, the prosecution must first establish that such explanation is demonstrably false through acceptable evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to place any material to show that the explanation given by the appellants was in fact false. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the third circumstance relied on by the prosecution does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution nor does it establish any incriminating circumstance against the appellants. 20. The fourth circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged recovery of M.Os.4 to 7 at the instance of the appellants/accused. According to the prosecution, on 24.10.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.14 apprehended both the appellants. It is further stated that at the instance of the appellants, P.W.14 recovered M.Os.4 to 7 under a panchanama marked as Ex.P3. However, though M.Os.4 to 7 were allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellants, the Investigating Officer did not send the said material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain whether they contain human blood or not. In the absence of such scientific examination, the alleged 11 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 recovery does not in any manner connect the appellants with the commission of the offence. Therefore, the recovery of M.Os.4 to 7 is also not helpful to the prosecution. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish this circumstance as well. 21. Apart from the above circumstances, the prosecution has also relied on the circumstance of motive. According to the prosecution, there were ill-feelings between A1 and the deceased with regard to the sharing of property in their native village. However, the prosecution has not produced any reliable material to substantiate the existence of such dispute immediately prior to the occurrence. No independent witness has been examined nor has any documentary evidence been placed on record to establish that there was any such property dispute between A1 and the deceased. On the other hand, P.Ws.12 and 13 stated that there were no land disputes between the appellant No.1/A1 and the deceased. In the absence of any convincing evidence in that regard, the alleged motive projected by the prosecution remains unsubstantiated. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the motive attributed to the appellants. 22. Therefore, having scrutinized the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution is not able to prove single circumstance to connect both the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 with the alleged offences. 12 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 23. 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 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.” 24. Having analysed the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the light of the above principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt towards the appellants/accused. 25. All the above facts and circumstances indicate that the prosecution failed in proving the guilt of the appellants/accused herein beyond reasonable doubt, as such they are entitled to be acquitted and the conviction and 1 (1981) 4 SCC 116 13 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants/accused is not sustainable and the same is liable to be interfered with. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur in S.C.No.150 of 2017, dated 17.11.2017 under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC.. Accordingly Appellants No.1 and 2 /accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be refunded to them. As appellants /accused Nos.1 and 2 were already enlarged on bail, they are directed to appear before the concerned Court for completing the legal formalities in terms of the judgment rendered by the combined High Court in „Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.2. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 27.01.2026 GR 2 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP) 14 KSR, J & AHHS,J Crl.A.No.2435 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2435 of 2018 Date: 27.01.2026 GR