APHC010758412018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2678/2018 Between: 1. SAMPATHI SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER, N/O.SARANGAPALLI AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, NOW AT IRIKEPALLI BODU, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. GUMMA ATCHAIAH, R/O. ATCHALAGADDA VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, GUTNTUR DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C p Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.115 of 2016 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala 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 suspend the execution of sentence Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2678/2018 SAMPATHI SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER, N/O.SARANGAPALLI AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, NOW AT IRIKEPALLI BODU, GUNTUR GUMMA ATCHAIAH, R/O. ATCHALAGADDA VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI MANDAL, GUTNTUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh ...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 Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.115 of 2016 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, 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 execution of sentence Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3566] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY HARANADHA SARMA SAMPATHI SRINIVASA RAO AND ANOTHER, N/O.SARANGAPALLI AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, NOW AT IRIKEPALLI BODU, GUNTUR GUMMA ATCHAIAH, R/O. ATCHALAGADDA VILLAGE, DACHEPALLI ELLANT(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and ...RESPONDENT raying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.115 of 2016 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, 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 execution of sentence Dt. 11.09.2018 passed in Sessions Case 2 No.115 of 2016 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal, in the interest of justice 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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 2678/2018 before this Hon'ble Court by suspending the judgment passed in S.C.No. 115 of 2016 by the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, dated 11-09¬2018, pending disposal of CrI.A before this Hon,court 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 release the petitioner on ail for a period of three months in CrI.A.No. 2678/2018 before this Hon'ble Court which filed against the judgment passed in S.C.No. 115 of 2016 by the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, dated 11- 09¬2018 and pass IA NO: 2 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 release the petitioner on bail for a period of three months in CrI.A.No. 2678/2018 before this Hon'ble Court which filed against the judgment passed in S.C.No. 115 of 2016 by the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, dated 11- 09-2018 and pass such order or other orders in the IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 release the petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 2678/2018 before this Hon'ble Court which filed a against the judgment passed in S.C.No. 115 of 2016 by the Court of X Additional I District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, dated 11-09- 2018, pending disposal of the appeal before this Hon'ble Court and pass 3 IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pass an order to release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No. 2678/2018 on the file of this Hon’ble Court filed against the judgment dated 11-09-2018 passed in SC.No. 115 of 2016 by the Courtmf X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurajala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh by suspending the sentence of imprisonment for life and other sentences imposed by the court pending disposal of appeal before this Honble Court and be further pleased to pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. Y KOTESWARA RAO 2. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 4 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Both the accused in Sessions Case No.115 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’) are the appellants. 2. On 03.02.2026, when the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant No.2 / A.2 reported that A.2 died during pendency of the present appeal. On the said representation, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought time to get instructions in that regard. 3. Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor confirms the factum of death of the appellant No.2 / A.2 on 08.04.2024. He also produced the Death Certificate of A.2 to that effect. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact, the present appeal is dismissed as abated insofar as appellant No.2 / A.2 is concerned. As such, the present appeal is taken up with regard to the appellant No.1 / A.1 alone. 5. A.1, along with A.2, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: (i) 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 & A.2 (iii) 2nd charge was under Section 120-B IPC against A.1 & A.2, and (iii) 3rd charge was under Section 201 IPC against A.1 & A.2 6. Substance of the charge is that both the accused having conspired together in order to eliminate one Sanneboina Saidarangarao (hereinafter 5 referred to as ‘the deceased’) and in the same process at about 11.30 P.M. on 20.05.2014, caused the death of the deceased at Rajendranagar Road, Irekepalli by squeezing his neck with a rope and thrown the dead body into thorny bushes to screen the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 & 201 IPC. 7. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted both the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs. Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted both the accused under Section 201 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 8. Case of the prosecution, as per the allegations in the charge sheet, briefly, is as follows: (a) Both the accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Gurazala. The deceased was also resident of Gurazala. PW.3 is 6 the elder brother, PW.4 is the father and PW.5 is the mother of the deceased respectively. PW.6 is the relative of the deceased. Initially, the deceased married one Lakshmi, r/o. Daida village and out of their wedlock, they begot a male child. The deceased subjected her to cruelty and he also killed his son. Due to mental and physical harassment, the first wife obtained divorce from the deceased. Thereafter, A.2 performed the marriage of his daughter with the deceased. But, the deceased also used to harass the daughter of A.2. On one occasion, the deceased attacked the wife of A.2 with an Axe and a case was registered against him. Subsequently, the daughter of A.2 also obtained divorce from the deceased. A criminal case was registered against the deceased at Gurazala Police Station for causing injuries to the wife of A.2. The deceased also subjected his parents to harassment and beat them. Thereafter, both the accused advised the deceased to change his attitude. But, he did not mend his ways. While so, on 20.05.2014, both the accused, having come to know that the deceased was at his house, went there, took the deceased in an Auto Rickshaw - M.O.3 and consumed liquor. At about 09.00 P.M., all the three left the restaurant and went to the house of A.1, which was under construction. There also they consumed liquor. At about 11.30 P.M., once again they purchased liquor at a hotel and went near Cross-roads of Gamalapadu Village, where both the accused offered liquor to the deceased. While the deceased was in an inebriated condition, A.1 made the deceased to fell down on the ground and squeezed the neck of the deceased with his hands. Meanwhile, A.2 supplied a rope to A.1 and both of them strangulated 7 the neck of the deceased, as a result the deceased died instantaneously. Thereafter, they removed the shirt of the deceased, along with rope, and threw the dead body into thorny bushes. (b) While so, on 21.05.2014 at about 12.30 noon, one Sayyad Mohammad Saida (LW.2) informed the V.R.O. – PW.1 that he found a dead body at the scene of offence. Immediately, PW.1 went to the scene of offence and found a male dead body. At about 02.30 P.M. on the same day, PW.14 Inspector of Police, Gurazala Rural Circle received information from Sub- Inspector of Police, Dachepalli about registration of crime, vide Cr.No.130/2014 under Section 302 IPC. Immediately, he visited Dachepalli and collected copy of F.I.R. and proceeded to the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW.7. Photographs were marked as Ex.P13. He also prepared an Observation Report Ex.P2 in the presence of mediators PW.2 and another. He also prepared a Rough Sketch Ex.P25 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (c) PW.10 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Gurazala conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He deposed that he cannot issue any Final opinion with regard to the cause of death. Ex.P18 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P19 is the A.P.F.S.L. report. Ex.P20 is the Expert Opinion and Ex.P21 is the Final opinion. (d) During the course of investigation, PW.14 recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. On 22.05.2014, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital in the presence of PW.9 and another. 8 Inquest report is marked as Ex.P17. On 01.06.2014, PWs 3 to 5 identified the dead body as that of the deceased. (e) While so, on 14.06.2014, both the accused approached PW.8 – V.R.O., Ramapuram and confessed about the commission of offence. He recorded statements of A.1 & A.2 separately under Exs.P14 & P15. He also prepared a Report Ex.P16. PW.8 produced the accused before PW.14 and handed over them along with Exs.P14 to P16. He secured presence of PW.1 and another and recorded the confession statements said to have been made by both the accused. M.Os. 1 & 2 were recovered from the scene of offence and M.O.3 was recovered from the house of A.1. Further investigation was taken over by PW.13. On 21.04.2015, PW.13 took up further investigation. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.13 filed charge sheet. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P27 and exhibited M.Os 1 to 3. 10. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 11. Accepting the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW.8, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 9 12. Heard Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant No.1 / A.1, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 14. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.1 is the V.R.O. who set the criminal law into motion. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that on 21.05.2014 at about 12.30 noon, having received information from LW.2, he went to the scene of offence and found a dead body. Immediately, he went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1. Except to that extent, the evidence of PW.1 is not at all helpful in any manner to the prosecution. So far as PW.2 is concerned, he is a resident of the same village. He also, in his evidence, has stated that he found the dead body at the scene of offence. 15. Coming to the evidence of PWs 3 to 6, PW.3 is the elder brother, PW.4 is the father and PW.5 is the mother of the deceased respectively. PW.6 is the relative of the deceased. All these witnesses PWs 3 to 6 did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. PWs 3 to 6 in their evidence have stated as under: “The deceased died about 4 years back. I don’t know how he died. I did not observe the dead body of the deceased. The police did not examine me with regard to the death of the deceased. Basing on the news item in Television, we identified the dead body shown in the video to be that of the deceased” 10 Except the above version, PWs 3 to 6 did not state anything. 16. So far as PW.7 – Photographer is concerned, he took the photographs at the scene of offence, which were marked as Ex.P13. PW.9 is the Inquest Panch and PW.10 is the Doctor who conducted Postmortem. PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. PWs.13 & 14 are the Investigating Officers. PW.12 did not support the prosecution. 17. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only evidence available on record is the so-called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW.8. 18. PW.8, in his evidence in chief, has stated that at about 07.00 A.M. on 14.06.2014, both the accused approached him and confessed about the commission of offence on 21.05.2014. PW.8 further stated that he recorded the statements of A.1 & A.2 under Exs.P14 & P15 and handed over both the accused to PW.14 along with his report Ex.P16. But, PW.8 in his cross- examination has stated as under: “Prior to the date of recording Exs.P14 and P15, I never had acquaintance with both the accused. I cannot identify them now. On the dictation of Inspector of Police, I scribed Exs.P14 to P16.” In his cross-examination, PW.8 has completely stated good-bye to the so- called extra-judicial confession. 19. As already pointed out, except the extra-judicial confession, there is no other material incriminating the appellant with the alleged offence. Further, 11 the brother and parents of the deceased, who were examined as PWs 3 to 5, did not support the prosecution. 20. Having analyzed the evidence of PW.8 carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable under law. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed insofar as appellant No.1 / A.1 is concerned, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala in Sessions Case No.115 of 2016 under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B IPC vide judgment dt. 11.09.2018, are hereby set aside. As the appellant No.1 / A.1 was released on bail by order dated 14.03.2024 in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 in terms of the order of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Rangarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, he is directed to appear before the concerned Court and complete the formalities in terms of Batchu Rangarao (supra). The bail bonds pertaining to appellant No.1 / A.1 shall stand cancelled. 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) 12 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J 01.04.2026 MVA