APHC010689122018 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 AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2533/2018 Between: 1. POOLA GANGADHAR, R/O. BUGGAMADARAM VILLAGE, MELLACHERUVU MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, C.T.NO. 6785. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTENAPALLI RURAL CIRCLE, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SRINIVASA RAO G CH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI Friday, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2533/2018 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.602 of 2014 on the file of the Court of V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Guntur, is the appellant. The appellant/A1 along with A2 was tried by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur under the following charges. 1) First charge was under Section 302 IPC against appellant/A1. 2) Second charge was under Section 302 read with 109 IPC against A2. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 15.08.2013, after 9:00 A.M., Accused No.1, with the abetment of Accused No.2, committed murder of Nagamalla Veeranjaneyulu (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) near Sundara Thanda, causing his death thereby 3 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, convicted the accused No.1/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur acquitted Accused No.2 under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: A1 is a resident of Buggamadaram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. A2 is a resident of Muktyala Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. The deceased was also a resident of the same village and was the husband of A2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the father and mother of the deceased respectively, while P.Ws.3 and 4 are his relatives. Initially, the deceased was eking out his livelihood by plying an auto-rickshaw and subsequently started working on lorries as a driver/cleaner. It is alleged that A2 developed illicit relationship with A1, and as the deceased became an obstacle to their relationship, A1 and A2 decided to eliminate him. (ii) On the morning of 15.08.2013, the deceased left his house informing P.W.1 and A2 that he was going for work and that he would not return for about ten days. While matters stood thus, on 17.08.2013, 4 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 P.W.5 telephoned A2 and informed her that the dead body of the deceased was found near Sattemmatalli Temple at Madipadu Village. Upon receiving the said information, A2, along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and other relatives, proceeded to the scene of offence, where they found the dead body of the deceased. (iii) On the same day, at about 5:00 P.M., A2 went to the Police Station and lodged a report. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station, received the said report, which was marked as Ex.P10, and registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P11. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence along with mediators- P.W.9 and another, where he found the dead body of the deceased. He prepared a rough sketch at the scene of offence- Ex.P12, and also prepared an observation report- Ex.P3. He got the scene of offence photographed, and the photographs were marked as Ex.P13. He also recorded statement of A2. Thereafter he sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Sattenapalli. (iv) P.W.11, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted the autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was cardio- respiratory failure due to pressure over the neck, suggestive of throttling. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P6, and the final opinion- Ex.P9. 5 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 (v) On 18.08.2013, P.W.12 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators- P.Ws.9 and 10 at Area Hospital, Sattenapalli. During the course of inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 and others. On the same day, he proceeded to Sattemmatalli Temple and conducted enquiries. (vi) On 20.08.2013, P.W.12 recorded statements of P.Ws.6 and 7. Subsequently, on 01.09.2013, he secured the presence of L.W.8 and P.W.8 and recorded their statements. Basing on the statements made by them, the section of law was altered from Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Section 302 IPC, and the alteration memo was marked as Ex.P14. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by P.W.13, the Inspector of Police. On 01.09.2013, P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 7 and L.W.8 – Sri Banavath Srinu Naik (who later died). (vii) On 06.09.2013, on the information furnished by P.W.8, P.W.13 apprehended A1 at the Auto Stand, Madipadu Village, in the presence of mediators-P.Ws.9 and 10. On the basis of confessional statement made by A1, P.W.13 apprehended A2 at her residence. After collecting all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P15. 6. When A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 6 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 Accepting the evidence of PW8 alone, the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur convicted the Appellant herein/A1 and acquitted A2 as aforesaid. 7. Heard Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 9. P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the parents and P.Ws.3 and 4 are relatives of the deceased respectively. A perusal of their evidence show that they have not stated anything regarding the alleged extra-marital relationship between A1 and A2, which is said to be the motive for the commission of the offence. Their evidence is confined to stating that the deceased was initially eking out his livelihood by plying an auto-rickshaw and subsequently used to work on lorries as a driver/cleaner. They further stated in their evidence that on 15.08.2013, at about 9:00 A.M., the deceased left the house after informing them that he was going on lorry work and that he would return after a period of ten days. They also stated that A2 received a phone call from P.W.5, who informed her that the dead body of the deceased was found at the scene of offence. On receiving the said information, P.Ws.1 to 4 went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. Except for the above facts, P.Ws.1 to 4 have not attributed any incriminating circumstance either against A1 or A2. Significantly, they 7 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 have not even referred to the alleged extra-marital relationship between A1 and A2, which forms the basis of the prosecution case. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is not helpful to the prosecution. 10. Coming to the next circumstance, i.e. “last seen” theory, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7. P.W.5, in his evidence, stated that on the fateful day, at about 1:00 P.M., he saw the deceased going along with another person who was holding a rope. However, P.W.5 neither identified the said person nor furnished any descriptive particulars of the individual who was accompanying the deceased. Though P.W.5 stated that he knew the deceased, he categorically deposed that he was not aware of the identity of the other person who was in the company of the deceased at the relevant point of time. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 is not at all helpful to the prosecution. 11. The other two (2) witnesses relied on by the prosecution in this regard, namely P.Ws.6 and 7, did not support the prosecution and were declared as hostile. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the “last seen” circumstance through the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7. 12. Coming to the next circumstance, i.e. the evidence relating to the eyewitness, the prosecution examined P.W.8 as an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.8, in his evidence, deposed that on 15.08.2013, while he was present at Sattemmatalli Temple at about 11:00 A.M., A1 and the deceased came there and enquired with him whether there were 8 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 any animal offerings on that day. P.W.8 informed them that there were no such offerings on that day. He further stated that A1 handed over a liquor packet to him and to the deceased, and thereafter both of them proceeded towards Sundara Thanda. According to P.W.8, after a while he followed them and noticed A1 tightening a rope around the neck of the deceased. On witnessing the same, out of fear he returned to the village. He further stated that he informed the said incident to L.W.8 – Sri Banavath Srinu Naik (who later died). According to P.W.8, he witnessed the incident on 15.08.2013 at about 11:00 A.M. However, during the cross-examination, he stated that he had informed about the incident to P.W.9 and one Sri Mada Venkata Rao. However, P.W.9, in his evidence, did not state that P.W.8 informed him about the incident. As far as Sri Mada Venkata Rao is concerned, he was not examined by the prosecution. 13. It is also pertinent to note that though P.W.8 allegedly witnessed the incident on 15.08.2013, he did not inform the same to the police. Further, he did not even inform A2, the wife of the deceased, though he was acquainted with her. Even though he knew P.Ws.1 to 4, he did not inform anyone of them about the alleged incident. 14. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, in his evidence stated that on 01.09.2013 he secured the presence of L.W.8 – Sri Banavath Srinu Naik and P.W.8 and recorded their statements. It was only thereafter the section of law was altered to Section 302 IPC. Significantly, P.W.8 9 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 did not voluntarily approached the police even by that date to disclose the incident, and it was P.W.12 who secured his presence and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 15. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 alone remains on record as the alleged eyewitness to the occurrence. Insofar as P.Ws.9 and 10 are concerned, they are only mediators for the observation report and inquest report, while P.W.11 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.12 and 13 are the Investigating Officers. 16. Having analysed the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the only witness relied upon by the prosecution in the present case is P.W.8, who claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. However, though P.W.8 allegedly witnessed the incident on 15.08.2013, he remained silent till 01.09.2013. In such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.8 does not inspire confidence of this Court, particularly when he kept quiet for a period of about fifteen days without informing the incident even to the relatives of the deceased. 17. As already noticed, the last seen theory sought to be established by the prosecution through P.Ws.5 to 7 does not advance the case of the prosecution, as none of them stated that they had seen the appellant in the company of the deceased at the relevant point of time. 18. Further, the motive alleged by the prosecution has also not been established, inasmuch as P.Ws.1 to 4 did not depose anything 10 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 regarding the alleged extra-marital relationship between A1 and A2, which is said to be the motive for the commission of offence. 19. It is also relevant to note that A2 was acquitted by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, and admittedly no appeal has been filed by the prosecution against the said acquittal. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, against A1 is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Guntur under Section 302 IPC against the appellant/A1 in Sessions Case No.602 of 2014 vide judgment dated 02.08.2018 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. 22. As the appellant was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 15.03.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023, he is directed to appear before the concerned to complete the formalities in terms of the order of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the 11 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 State of Andhra Pradesh in ‘Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.1,. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Dt.06.03.2026 ASR 1 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP) 12 Crl.A.No.2533 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.2533 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 06.03.2026 ASR