1 APHC010690012018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3570] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2532/2018 Between: 1. RAMASWAMY SHANKAR, R/O. D.NO. 19/49, AMUDAPADI STREET, CHINNA KANCHIPURAM, TAMILNADU. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, THROUGH S.H.O., II TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUMALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.267 of 2015, dt.31-10-2017 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi, and consequently acquit the appellant/accused 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, 2 the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of (255) days in filing criminal Appeal in this Hon’ble Court and pass IA NO: 2 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 enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C.No.267 of 2015, dt.31-10-2017 on the file of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupathi, pending disposal of the main criminal appeal, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2532 OF 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.267 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. The appellant along with A1 was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) against A1 and A2. The second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A2. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 24.09.2014 at about 8:30 AM, both the accused caused the death of one D.Subramanyam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in room No.420 of Sapthagiri Guest House, Tirumala, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 and Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in 4 default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each. 4. Questioning the conviction and sentence, A2 filed the present criminal appeal. So far as A1 is concerned, she filed a separate appeal vide Crl.A.No.2240 of 2018. The said appeal filed by A1 was closed, as she was released on 15.08.2022 by granting remission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.121, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: i) Both the accused are residents of Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu State. The deceased also was a resident of Kanchipuram. PW-5 is the wife, PW-6 and 7 are brothers and PW-12 is a relative of deceased respectively. They said that the deceased developed extra marital relationship with A1. The deceased was doing business in sarees. As the children of A1 had grown up to the age of discretion, she requested the deceased to stop the extra marital relationship, but the deceased refused for the same. A1 also developed an extra marital relationship with A2. A1 sought the help of A2 to eliminate the deceased. Both of them hatched a plan to kill the deceased at Tirumala. A1 asked the deceased to go to Tirumala. 5 ii) On 23.09.2014, A1 and the deceased went to Tirumala by bus. A2 is said to have followed them. After their arrival at Tirumala on 23.09.2024, the deceased went to CRO office and took Room No.420 in Sapthagiri Guest House at about 7:11 PM. PW-8, the computer operator, allotted the said room. PW-2, attender working in TTD, handed over keys to the deceased. The name of the deceased was entered in the records. iii) As Room No.420 was not vacated till 27.09.2014. PW-1 along with Manager of Sapthagiri Guest House followed by PW-2, proceeded to Room No.420 and found the same locked from outside. They opened the window from backside of the room and noticed a male dead body lying in supine position in a decomposed state. Then PW-1 informed the same to PW-4, who was working in Vigilance Department, TTD. On the advice of PW-4, the Manager, PW-1 went to the police station and lodged a report. iv) PW-17, Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Tirumala received Ex.P1-report from PW-1 and registered a case in Crime No.86 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R to all the concerned. F.I.R is marked as Ex.P15. PW-17 proceeded to the scene of offence and found the room was locked. He opened a window and found the dead body in a decomposed 6 state. PW-17 got the door opened with the help of PW-3, Carpenter, in the presence of PW-13 and another. He observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW-13. Ex.P5 is the Observation Report. He also seized MOs.1 to 11 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PWs.1 to 4. He also held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW-13 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. He contacted the brother of the deceased, as the said number was available in the room, and informed him about the death of the deceased. After completion of inquest, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. v) PW-15, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, SV Medical College, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to smothering. He issued post-mortem certificate marked as Ex.P8. vi) Having received the information, PWs.5, 6 and other relatives of the deceased went to the Police Station. On 29.09.2014, PW-17 visited CRO Office and recorded the statement of PW-9. He also collected the room allotment registers marked as Exs.P17 and P18. He tried to apprehend A1, but she was absconding till 15.10.2014. The rough sketch prepared by PW-17 was marked as Ex.P20. On 15.10.2014, the Inspector of Police, PW-18, took up 7 further investigation. He verified the investigation conducted by PW-17 and found it on correct lines. He secured the presence of PWs-1 to 7 and recorded their detailed statements. They repeated the same version as spoken before PW-17. vii) On 15.10.2014, PW-10, VRO, Tirumala produced A1 and A2 stating that both the accused made extra judicial confession before him, admitting the commission of offence. The statement recorded by PW-10 was marked as Ex.P2. On the basis of Ex.P2, PW-18 altered the Section of law from Section 174 of Cr.P.C. to Section 302 of IPC. He issued copies of altered F.I.R to all the concerned. Altered F.I.R was marked as Ex.P21. Thereafter, PW-18 recorded statements of PWs-10 and 11. He arrested both the accused in the presence of PW-10 and another under a panchanama marked as Ex.P3. He also seized the keys of the room produced by them under Ex.P3. A1 and A2 confessed about the commission of offence in Tamil language, which was translated by PW-11 into Telugu. viii). On 16.10.2014, PW-18 conducted identification proceedings to identify the keys (MO-10). PW-1 identified the keys in the presence of PW-14 under a panchanama. On 18.10.2014, PW-18 recorded statement of PW-12. He visited the house of A1 8 and seized her mobile phone under police proceedings Ex.P22 dated 18.10.2014. He obtained CDRs from the service provider, and PW-16, the Nodal Officer was examined to confirm the same. He sent the material objects to RFSL and the RFSL report was marked as Ex.P24. After receiving all the documents, and after completion of investigation, PW-18 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18 marked Exs.P1 to P24 and exhibited MOs.1 to 11. 7. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 8. Accepting the evidence of PWs-10 and 11 i.e., the extra judicial confession made by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 9. Heard Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. PWs-1 to 4 and 8 to 10 are the employees of TTD. Their evidence disclose that A1 and the deceased took Room No.420 in Sapthagiri Guest House on 23.09.2014. Their evidence further 9 disclose that the said room was not vacated till 27.09.2014. It is only thereafter they entertained suspicion and went to the said room and saw the dead body through the window. It was only thereafter the criminal law was set into motion. 12. The evidence of PWs-1 to 4, 8 & 9 only show that A1 and the deceased occupied the room on 23.09.2014. However, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that A2 also went to Tirumala on the fateful day. Absolutely, nothing is available on record to show that A2 entered into Room No.420 at the relevant point of time. 13. The wife and brothers of the deceased were examined as PWs-5 to 7 and 12. They also did not say that the deceased visited Tirumala on the fateful day. So far as the appellant/A2 is concerned, the only evidence adduced by the prosecution is the so called extra judicial confession. 14. The prosecution examined PW-11, who is a resident of Kanchipuram. PW-11 in his evidence, stated that he knows the deceased very well. He also knows the entire family of the deceased. PW-11 deposed that on 15.10.2014, at about 7:30 AM, both the accused approached him and confessed about the commission of offence. PW-11 further stated that he took both of 10 them to PW-10, who was working as VRO at Tirumala, and produced them along with his statement marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter, PW-10 produced both the accused before the Investigating Officer, PW-18. 15. PW-11 in his evidence did not say anything as to why the accused approached him and confessed about the commission of offence. PW-11 is a stranger to the accused. PW-11 in his evidence also did not state how he became acquainted with the accused. Absolutely, there is no reason explained by PW-11 as to why both the accused confessed before him. Further, PW-11 acted as a mediator and translated the statement of the accused from Tamil language into Telugu language. Having analysed the evidence of PWs-10 and 11, their evidence does not inspire confidence to rely upon the so called extra judicial confession made by both the accused. 16. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions held that the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence, and the same cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Further, absolutely there is no corroboration to the so called extra judicial confession. As such, no reliance can be placed on the so called extra judicial confession. 11 17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law, and the same is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati, in Sessions Case No.267 of 2015, vide judgment dated 31.10.2017, for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against the Appellant/Accused, is hereby set aside, and the Appellant/Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The fine amount, if any, paid by the Appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. 19. The Appellant/Accused is directed to set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date:06.03.2026 Pmk 12 116 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Criminal Appeal No.2532 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 06.03.2026 Pmk