APHC010523232018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2094/2018 Between: 1. BONDA PANDU, N/O. ULLAMPRRU VILLAGE, PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW AT KOTHA GORLEVANIPALEM, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 21.10.2016 passed in Sessions case No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge IV Adddl. District and Sessions Judge, Vis 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 572 days in filing the Crim Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2094/2018 BONDA PANDU, N/O. ULLAMPRRU VILLAGE, PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW AT KOTHA GORLEVANIPALEM, PARAWADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...AP 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 be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 21.10.2016 passed in Sessions case No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge IV Adddl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District 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 572 days in filing the Criminal Appeal before this Honble IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3514] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY BONDA PANDU, N/O. ULLAMPRRU VILLAGE, PALAKOL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, NOW AT KOTHA GORLEVANIPALEM, ...APPELLANT THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 21.10.2016 passed in Sessions case No. 182 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- akhapatnam Visakhapatnam District 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 inal Appeal before this Honble 2 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 suspend the execution of sentence passed against the petitioner in S.C.No. 182/2012 on the file of IInd Additional Metropolitan Seessions Judge- Cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No. 2094 of 2018, pending before this Hon'ble Court and to pass such other order or 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 passed against the petitioner in S.C.No. 182/2012 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- Cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 2094 of 2018, pending before this Honible Court Counsel for the Appellant: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3057/2018 Between: 1. KUNDRAPU RAMANAMMA, R/O KOTHA GORLEVANIPALEM, PARAVADA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 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 ...RESPONDENT 3 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.21/10/2016 passed in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 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 may be pleased to dispense with the fling of the certified copy of the judgment dt.21/10/2016 passed in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 707 days in filing the Criminal Appeal before this Honble Court and pass 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 suspend the execution of sentence passed against the petitioner in S.C.No. 182/2012 on the file of IInd Additional Metropolitan Seessions Judge- Cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and release the petitioner on bail in Crl.A.No. 3057 of 2018, pending before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. C VASUNDHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 4 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) A.1 in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge–cum–IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge’), is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2094 of 2018, whereas A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.3057 of 2018. They were tried by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge under the following two charges: (i) 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1 & A.2; and (ii) 2nd charge was under Section 201 IPC against A.1 & A.2 2. Substance of the charge is that on the night of 10.04.2008, A.1 handed over sleeping pills to A.2, who administered to her husband by name Kundrapu Ramakrishna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and subsequently A.1 came to their house and strangulated the deceased with an electrical wire and in the same process, they carried the dead body to a Casuarina Garden and burnt the dead body in order to screen the evidence, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months each. 5 Learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge further convicted both the accused under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) A.2 and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kotha Gorlevanipalem Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.2 is the father and PW.4 is the brother of the deceased respectively. A.2 is none other than the wife of the deceased. A.1 was living in his native village Ullamparru, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. Whileso, at about 04.30 P.M. on 11.04.2008, PWs 3 & 5 went to attend the calls of nature at Sarugudu Topu (Casuarina), where they found half-burnt dead body of a male person. Immediately, PWs 3 & 5 informed the Sarpanch of the village PW.1. Thereafter, PW.1 went to the scene of offence and found half-burnt dead body. He informed the same to the police over phone. Police came to the scene of offence and shifted the dead body to K.G. Hospital for Postmortem. On the same day, at about 05.30 P.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.15 Sub- Inspector of Police received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.39/2008 under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P9. PW.16 Inspector of Police took 6 up investigation and visited the scene of offence. He prepared an Observation report Ex.P11 at the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 9 & 10. He also prepared a Rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PWs 1 & 3. On 12.04.2008 at about 11.00 A.M., after establishing the identity of the deceased as that of Kundrapu Ramakrishna of Kotha Gorlevanipalem Village, PW.16 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PWs 11 & 12 and the blood relatives of the deceased. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. During the course of inquest, PW.16 recorded statements of A.2 and PWs 4 to 6. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for Postmortem examination. Postmortem report is marked as Ex.P13 through Investigating Officer PW.16. Of course, the Doctor, who conducted Postmortem, was not examined as he is no more. But, the colleague of the Doctor, who conducted Postmortem, also was not examined to identify the signature of the Doctor who conducted Postmortem. While so, on 15.04.2008 at about 06.00 A.M., both the accused went to the house of V.R.O., Parawada Mandal, who was examined as PW.13, and confessed before him stating that they killed the deceased and burnt the dead body at Casuarina Tope. Immediately, PW.13 took both the accused to PW.16 where he recorded confession statement Ex.P4 from both the accused. PW.16 arrested both the accused in the presence of PW.14 and recorded their confession statement. On the confession made by A.1, M.Os 1 to 6 were recovered in the presence of PW.14 and another under a cover of Panchanama Exs.P5 to P8. PW.16 prepared a letter of advice for conducting D.N.A. examination and 7 Superimposition test. But, no material was placed to show that D.N.A. was conducted and also Superimposition test was held over the dead body. F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P14. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.16 laid charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and exhibited MOs.1 to 6. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 7. Accepting the evidence of PWs 4, 6, 7, 13 & 14, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A.1 in Criminal Appeal No.2094/2018 and also representing Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant / A.2 in Criminal Appeal No.3057/2018; and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent / State. 9. We have perused the entire material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is ‘motive’. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the “extra- judicial confession” made by both the accused before PW.13. The third 8 circumstance relied on by the prosecution is recovery of M.Os 1 to 6 at the instance of A.1. 11. So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 4, 6 & 7. PW.4 is the younger brother of the deceased. PW.4 in his evidence has stated that A.2 was having extra-marital relationship with A.1. He further stated that at one stage A.2 went along with A.1 along with children and stayed with him for a period of 20 days at Palakolu. Subsequently, the father of A.2 brought her back to Kotha Gorlevanipalem Village and joined the deceased. He further stated in his evidence that the Sarpanch of the Village PW.6 has also conducted mediation between A.2 and deceased. PW.6 also in his evidence has stated that he conducted Panchayat between A.2 and deceased. But, curiously in the Inquest report Ex.P3, there was no reference of PW.6 conducting Panchayat between the deceased and A.2. So far as PW.7 is concerned, he was working as Coolie under A.1. He did not attribute anything between A.2 and deceased. Having analyzed the evidence of PWs 4, 6 & 7, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not established the so-called motive for the accused to kill the deceased. 12. Coming to the second circumstance i.e., extra-judicial confession, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW.13. PW.13 in her evidence has stated that she was working as V.R.O. of E.Bhonangi Village, Paravada Mandal. PW.13 in her evidence has also stated that at about 06.00 A.M. on 15.04.2008, both the accused approached her and confessed stating that both 9 of them killed the deceased. PW.13 in her evidence further stated that at about 03.00 P.M. on the same day, she took both the accused to the police station and handed over them to the Investigating Officer PW.16. PW.13 in her cross-examination has stated that there is no friendship between her and the accused. The accused are residents of Kotha Gorlevanipalem Village, whereas PW.13 is the V.R.O. of E.Bhonangi Village. As such, there is no necessity for both the accused to go to the V.R.O. of different village and confess about the commission of offence. PW.13 in her evidence further stated that she recorded statements of the accused under Ex.P4 in the police station. She also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not obtain the signatures of the accused on Ex.P4 statement. Further, PW.16 Investigating Officer in his evidence has stated that at about 07.00 A.M. on 15.04.2008, PW.13 produced both the accused before him, whereas PW.13 in her evidence stated that she produced both the accused before PW.16 at about 03.00 P.M. on 15.04.2008. As such, there are number of inconsistencies between the evidence of PW.13 and PW.16 and as such, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the so-called extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused before PW.13. As such, the prosecution could not able to prove the so-called extra-judicial confession, particularly when there is no necessity for the accused to go to the V.R.O. of different village. 13. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of M.Os 1 to 6 at the instance of A.1. PWs 14 & 16 in their evidence have stated 10 that M.Os 1 to 6 are available in the open market. Further, these M.Os 1 to 6 do not incriminate the accused in any manner. The Postmortem report Ex.P13, which was marked through the Investigating Officer PW.16, does not indicate the cause of death of the deceased. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact as to whether the deceased was met with homicidal death or not. 14. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge–cum–IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam under Sections 302 & 201 IPC in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012 vide judgment dt. 21.10.2016 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to them. As the appellant / A.1 in Criminal Appeal No.2094/2018 was released on bail by order in I.A.No.1/2023 dt. 09.05.2023 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 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.) 11 appear before the concerned Court and complete the formalities in terms of Batchu Rangarao (supra). As the appellant / A.2 in Criminal Appeal No.3057/2018 was already released by the Jail authorities by granting remission by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.142, Home (Paroles & HRC) Department dt. 26.11.2020, no orders are required to release her. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J ______________ HARINATH. N, J 16.02.2026 MVA