HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2017

Between:

Gadikana Murali Krishna @ Murali and three

others

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

* * * * *

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21.11.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

Page 2 of 25

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K .SURESH REDDY

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2017

% 21.11.2024

# Between:

Gadikana Murali Krishna @ Murali and three

others

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

!

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri H.Prahalada Reddy

^

Counsel for the Respondent/

State

:

Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2023) 10 SCR 1033.

2. Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011,

dated 02.11.2016.

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 25

APHC010429592017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

A N D

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 513/2017

Between:

Gadikana Murali Krishna @ Murali and three

Others

...APPELLANT(S)

A N D

The State of AP

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.

H PRAHALADA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

Page 4 of 25

J U D G M E N T: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)

Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2015 on the

file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati,

(hereinafter referred to, as „the learned Additional Sessions Judge‟)

are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge tried the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟) and 201 read with 34 IPC and

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section

120B IPC.

2. Vide Judgment, dated 20.03.2017, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 of

the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, and also convicted

the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 of the offence punishable under Section

302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced the accused Nos.1 and 2 to

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees one thousand only) each, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each, for the offence

punishable under Section 120B IPC; accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each, in default to undergo

Page 5 of 25

simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months each for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Both the

substantial sentences, imposed against accused No.1, were

directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge

found the accused No.5 not guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 IPC and also accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 not

guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 IPC

and they were acquitted in terms of Section 235 (1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „CrPC‟).

3. The substance of the charges as against the accused

Nos.1 to 5 is that between 30.07.2014 at 7.30 p.m., and 31.07.2014

to 6.30 a.m., near A.M.Puthur, beside Srikalahasti-Naidupet Bypass

road, Srikalahasti Town, accused No.2, being the concubine of

accused No.1, conspired together to kill one V.Gopi (hereinafter

referred to, as „the deceased‟), husband of accused No.2, so as to

lead extramarital life with accused No.1 and that, accused No.1

administered pesticide pills in the water bottle and liquor bottle

given to the deceased and accused No.5 supplied the pesticide pills

on the directions of accused No.1 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 hit

on the head of the deceased one by one and killed him. In the

course of same transaction, accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 screened off the

Page 6 of 25

evidence of murder of the deceased and picturized it as suicidal

death.

4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:

(a) Accused Nos.1 to 5 and all the material prosecution

witnesses are residents of Srikalahasti. Accused No.2 is concubine

of accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 to 5 are close associates of

accused No.1. Accused No.2 was the wife of the deceased.

(b) On 30.07.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., near A.M.Puthur,

beside Srikalahati-Naidupet Bypass road, Srikalahasti town, the

deceased left his house by the red colour motorcycle bearing

registration No.AP03 AY 9047 belonged to one Mani after informing

to accused No.2 that he was going out and would return at about

9.00 p.m., for dinner; but the deceased did not return home and

found brutally murdered by unknown persons and lying with

bleeding injury on the left side of head. It was also found that he

was forcibly swallowed some pesticide.

(c) On 31.07.2014 at 8.00 a.m., accused No.2 reporting

the death of the deceased, presented Ex.P13-Report; basing on the

report, P.W.16/Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti II Town PS

registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2014 of II Town Police

Page 7 of 25

Station, Srikalahasthi, for the offence punishable under Section 302

IPC and issued Ex.P14-FIR.

(d) P.W.16, during the course of investigation, secured the

presence of inquest panchayathdars viz. L.W.20/Theegala

Harikrishna and L.W.21/Gudipati Munaiah @ Chinna and in the

presence of P.Ws.1, 2, L.W3/Parvathala Mani and

L.W.4/V.Munirathnam Naidu, conducted inquest over the dead body

of the and got drafted Ex.P4-Inquest Report and sent the dead body

of the deceased Government Area Hospital, Srikalahasti for

conducting Post-Mortem Examination. He examined P.Ws.3, 4, 5,

L.W.8/B.Sunitha and P.W6/Maddineni Mallikarjuna and recorded

their statements. His investigation revealed that accused No.1 was

frequently visiting the house of the deceased and was moving

closely with accused No.2.

(e) On 05.08.2014 at 11.00 a.m., near Kasa Garden, AMC

Check-post, on Srikalahasti-Naidupeta Bypass road, Srikalahasti

town, P.W16 arrested accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. They confessed

that accused No.1 criminally conspired with accused No.2, wife of

the deceased, exercised the plan of killing the deceased and took

the assistance of accused Nos.3 to 5 and as per the directions of

accused No.2, killed the deceased by mixing pesticide pills in the

Page 8 of 25

liquor and water bottles and made him to consume and to screen

the evidence, accused No.1 disturbed the scene by throwing the

motorcycle of the deceased, concealed the keys of the said vehicle

nearby thorny bushes under a stone and accused No.1 kept two

pawn broker shop receipts, containing pledging of gold jewels given

by accused No.2; accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 hit on the head of the

deceased and killed him. The said confessional statements of the

accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 were recorded and the police seized M.Os.1

to 19 and Ex.P3/broker slips, under the cover of Ex.P16 -

Mahazarnama and sent the material objects for analysis.

(f) On 05.08.2014 at 5.15 p.m., in front of the house of

accused No.2, P.W.16 arrested accused No.2. Accused No.2

confessed about conspiring together with accused No.2 in

commission of offence through accused Nos.3 to 5.

(g) On 31.07.2014 at 3.50 p.m., P.W.15/Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Srikalahasthi conducted

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P10-

Post-Mortem Certificate opining that the cause of death is due to

Intracranial Haemorrhage due to head injury associated with

carbamate, an insecticide poison.

Page 9 of 25

(h) P.W16 got remanded the accused to judicial custody.

After completion of investigation and after receipt of all reports,

P.W.16 filed charge sheet. Hence, the Charge Sheet.

5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to

16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and M.Os.1 to 19 on behalf of the

prosecution.

6. When the accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under

Section 313 of CrPC, they denied the incriminating evidence,

brought on record, against them. The plea of accused Nos.1 to 5 is

one of denial. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on

behalf of defence.

7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, 10 to 13

coupled with the medical evidence P.W15/Doctor , learned

Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused No.5, but

convicted the accused Nos.1 to 4 and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by

accused Nos.1 to 4.

8. Ms. Aishwarya Nagulla, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants submitted that the entire case rests on the

circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the

occurrence. The entire case of prosecution is silent with regard to

Page 10 of 25

seizure of insecticide poison, administered to commit murder of the

deceased. Further, there is no evidence to establish the presence

of the accused at the scene of offence on the date of the incident,

therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory.

According to learned counsel, the Investigating Officer did not

conduct investigation on correct lines and concluded the same by

foisting a false case against the accused without there being any

proof that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit intimacy and in

that connection, they conspired together and through accused

Nos.3 to 5 killed the deceased.

9. On the other hand, Sri M.Venkata Ramana, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State, contended that the version

spoken by the material prosecution witnesses is consistent with

regard to the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company

of the accused. The investigation revealed that there is extra-marital

affair in between accused Nos.1 and 2 and they together hatched a

plan to do away the life of the deceased, who was the husband of

accused No.2. On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence goes

to show that it is the accused and accused alone and none else that

had caused the death of the deceased. According to him, learned

Page 11 of 25

Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned Judgment and it

calls for no interference of this Court.

10. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt

of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B IPC against accused

Nos.1 and 2, Section 302 read with 34 IPC against

accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, beyond all reasonable doubt

and whether the conviction and sentence recorded by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be

set aside or modified?

11. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. In a

case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be

fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.

Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there

should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.

12. In a decision reported in Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v.

The State of Punjab

1

, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held thus.

“Undisputedly, the present case is a case which

rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to

conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence is very

1

(2023) 10 SCR 1033

Page 12 of 25

well crystalised in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda

v. State of Maharashtra, ((1984) 4 SCC 116).

We may gainfully refer to the following observations

of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda

(supra):

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show

that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case

against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that

the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not

“may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a

legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or

should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji

Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC

793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the

observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)

p. 1047]

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused

must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can

convict and the mental distance between „may be‟ and

„must be‟ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure

conclusions.”

(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,

Page 13 of 25

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis

except the one to be proved, 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.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,

constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on

circumstantial evidence.”

13. In the light of these guiding principles, the present

appeal has to be considered.

14. This Court perused the record.

15. In order to connect the links to form a chain, it has to

be examined whether the accused have motive to cause the death

of the deceased?

M O T I V E:

16. As regards motive, motive is not an integral part of

crime. It is an aid in assessment of criminality. To prove the motive,

prosecution examined P.W3, who was the mother of the deceased.

She, in her evidence deposed that on 31.07.2014 at about 7.00

a.m., her grandson viz. Pavan telephoned and informed her that his

father i.e. the deceased was murdered. It is her further evidence

that she stayed in the house of the deceased for four days, when he

Page 14 of 25

joined as tenant in the house of P.W.5. She deposed that she

observed accused No.1 was closely moving with accused No.2. As

per her version, accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with

accused no.2 and due to that they conspired and killed the

deceased, who was her son. In cross-examination, it is elicited that

she stated to the police that P.W3 got suspicion that accused Nos.1

and 2 killed the deceased as they were having illicit intimacy.

17. From a plain reading of the evidence of P.W3, it is

evident that as the father of the deceased was suffering from ill-

health, the deceased along with his father viz. V.Munirathnam

Naidu and P.W3 went to Tirupati on 30.07.2014. Nothing could be

elicited in the evidence of P.W3 to substantiate that accused Nos.1

and 2 were having illicit intimacy and that was the motive to do

away the life of the deceased.

18. In order to prove the motive, the prosecution examined

another crucial witness as P.W4, who was the son of the deceased

and accused No.2 and grandson of P.W3. He deposed that he

along with accused No.2 and his younger brother viz. Charan, was

residing in the upstairs portion of the house of the house of P.W5 at

B.P.Agraharam area of Srikalahasthi town. His father i.e. the

deceased used to visit now and then. He further deposed that

Page 15 of 25

accused No.1 used to visit his house in the absence of the

deceased, during night times and at that time, accused No.1 and

her mother i.e. accused No.2, used to sleep on the bed, and they

used to sleep by the side of the bed on floor and accused No.1

used to leave the house at 5.30 a.m. He further deposed that he

was asked by accused Nos.1 and 2 to go downstairs to see as to

whether any person is available and if no person was there,

accused No.1 used to go out from their house. His evidence is also

to the effect that when he was studying VI standard, himself, his

brother, accused Nos.1 and 2 went to Madras during evening hours

and stayed in a lodge and returned to Srikalahasthi on the next day

evening.

19. In the cross-examination of P.W4, it is elicited that

since the death of his father i.e. the deceased, he was residing in

the house of P.W1; one Anitha is the wife of P.W1. He conceded

that Anitha is the elder sister of accused No.2 and both were having

misunderstandings since long time. He further deposed that he did

not state before police that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together

and killed the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he was

deposing false as per the instructions of his aunt viz. Anitha, wife of

P.W1.

Page 16 of 25

20. A plain reading of the evidence of P.W.4, son of the

deceased and accused No.2, he was aged 13 years at the time of

his examination before the Court and since the death of the

deceased, he was residing with P.W1, whose wife is elder sister to

accused No.2. Though he deposed in his evidence that accused

No.1 used to visit his house in the absence of the deceased, during

night times and accused Nos.1 and 2 used to sleep on the bed, the

same witness, in his cross-examination deposed that he did not

state before police that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together

and killed the deceased. Apparently, as per the evidence of P.W4,

there are disputes in between accused No.2 and wife of P.W1, who

was looking after the welfare of P.W4 and under whose shelter he

was residing. Therefore, it can be inferred that P.W4, who was at

tender age, appears to have been briefed by P.W1 and his wife viz.

Anitha to depose as against accused No.2 that accused Nos.1 and

2 used to sleep on bed during the absence of the deceased.

Admittedly, P.W3, mother of the deceased and grandmother of

P.W4, deposed that accused No.1 was moving closely with

accused No.2 and she got suspicion over them that they developed

illegal intimacy and killed the deceased. But, such suspicion is not

substantiated by any oral evidence, for the reason that except

Page 17 of 25

P.Ws.3 and 4, none of the prosecution witnesses expressed

suspicion over accused Nos.1 and 2 with regard to illicit intimacy.

21. Except the version given by P.Ws.3 and 4, there is no

corroborative evidence to show that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had

illegal intimacy and in order to live happily, they both conspired

together to kill the deceased. The said aspect of motive appears to

be quite artificial and the same was brought into existence by the

prosecution after due deliberations and confabulations. On a

perusal of entire evidence on record, we are of the opinion that

even the motive is not conclusive as per the prosecution case.

LAST SEEN THEORY:

22. In order to prove „last seen theory‟, the prosecution

examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5. P.W.1, who accompanied accused

No.2 at the time of giving Ex.P13-report to police, deposed in his

evidence that he along with the deceased jointly did optical

business; as the father of the deceased was suffering from ill-

health, the deceased brought him to Tirupathi on 30.07.2014. It is

his evidence that subsequently the deceased went to Srikalahasthi;

later, on 31.07.2014 at 6.30 a.m., he learnt that the deceased died

and his body was lying by the side of the mud road near A.M.Puttur.

Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination, except putting formal

Page 18 of 25

suggestion. However, P.W11 concedes that he stated before police

that the deceased borrowed amounts from others for his family

expenses and for the last some days, he was staying at his parents‟

house as he borrowed debts from others.

23. P.W.2 was the cousin brother of the deceased. His

evidence is to the effect that on 30.07.2014 the deceased informed

him that his father was not doing well and they were proceeding to

Tirupati from Venkatagiri for medical treatment. His evidence is

further to the effect that he too started from his village and reached

hospital at Tirupati and after treatment, parents of the deceased

went to Venkatagiri and the deceased and P.W2 went to

Srikalahasthi on his motorbike. He further deposed that he dropped

the deceased at his house at B.P.Agraharam on his red colour

Passion Pro motorcycle bearing registration No.AP03 AU 9074 and

the deceased took his motorcycle and P.W2 went to his village on

an auto-rickshaw. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. on

31.07.2014 at 6.45 a.m., he came to know about the death of the

deceased. As per his evidence, some unknown offenders killed the

deceased as he was having financial difficulties.

24. Evidence of P.W3, mother of the deceased is to the

effect that on 30.07.2014 her husband viz. V.Munirathnam Naidu

Page 19 of 25

got chest pain; then, the deceased took him along with P.W3 to

SVIM Hospital, Tirupati; around 5.00 p.m., the parents of the

deceased boarded the bus to go to Venkatagiri and the deceased

went to Srikalahasthi along with P.W2; on the subsequent day i.e.

31.07.2014 around 7.00 a.m., P.W3 was informed that the

deceased died.

25. None of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that they

have lastly seen the deceased in the company of accused in

between 30.07.2014 and 31.07.2014. Indeed, the evidence of P.W1

is only hearsay, because, he did not accompany the deceased to

Tirupathi, he deposed only on coming to know about the incidents

that occurred in between 30.07.2014 and 31.07.2014 through

known persons. Therefore, we do not give much credence to the

evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

26. Coming to the evidence of other witness i.e. P.W5,

house owner of the deceased, she deposed in her evidence that on

15.06.2014, accused No.2, her children and her mother-in-law

joined in her house as tenants in the second upstairs portion. She

further deposed that prior to that, accused Nos.1 and 2 came and

discussed with her with regard to leasing out her house to accused

No.2. With regard to last seen theory, P.W5 deposed that on

Page 20 of 25

30.07.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., she saw the deceased near the gate

of her house, he was in a fully drunken state and was not in a

position to walk properly and was about to fall on the ground. It is

her further evidence that she told the deceased to go to his house

portion carefully. Then, after half-an-hour, again the deceased

came down from his portion and proceeded by his motorcycle. On

the next day, she came to know about the death of the deceased.

27. A perusal of evidence of P.W4, she is the only witness

rather than the accused No.2, who saw the deceased on

30.07.2014 at about 6.30 p.m., and half-an-hour later, she again

witnessed the deceased proceeding on his motorcycle. Apparently,

P.W4 evidence does not disclose that she lastly had seen the

deceased in the company of the accused.

28. Even, the other prosecution witnesses, P.W6, Cashier

in Suresh Wines; P.W7, who is running a petty bunk and P.W8,

owner of Dhana Hotel did not depose that they had lastly seen the

deceased in the company of accused. Their evidence would only

reveal that on 30.07.2014 accused No.2 purchased two quarter

bottles of Mc. Dowell Brandhi from P.W6, accused No.3 purchased

four pickle packets from P.W7 and accused No.4 purchased one

Chilly chicken dry, one egg fried rice and one water bottle. Indeed,

Page 21 of 25

P.Ws.6 to 8 identified accused Nos.2 to 4, respectively when they

were produced before them at the time of investigation and also on

the date of their examination before the Court. None of them has

deposed that they had lastly seen the deceased in the company of

any of the accused. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the

prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION :

29. The other circumstantial evidence relied upon by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge is with regard to the extra-

judicial confession that has been made by the accused to P.W14.

30. P.W14 is working as Panchayat Secretar y,

Thottambedu Mandal. According to him, on 05.08.2014 at 10.45

a.m., on the request made by P.W16, Inspector of Police, II Town

PS, he acted as witness and proceeded to Naidupet Bypass road

area, Srikalahasthi along with police. They caught hold four

persons, and they confessed about commission of offence. Basing

on their confession, police seized the material objects.

31. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and is

made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The

confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of

Page 22 of 25

the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends

upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.

32. In the present case on hand, the witness is Panchayat

Secretary belonging to Thottambedu Mandal but the accused are

residents of Kondamitta and other nearby places of Srikalahasthi. In

fact, the extra-judicial confession made by the accused is not

voluntarily and they confessed about commission of offence only

after their arrest by P.W16. Therefore, question of accused making

of extra-judicial confession to P.W.14, who is the Panchayat

Secretary, appears to be highly improbable.

33. Apart from the same, the said extra-judicial confession

by itself is not trustworthy, as time and again this Court and the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has reiterated that the extra-judicial confession

made by the accused is a weak piece of evidence. Therefore, the

extra-judicial confession that is made by accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 to

P.W14, Panchayat Secretary, appears to be improbable. On a

conspectus of entire evidence on record goes to show that in a

case of circumstantial evidence of this nature, cannot be believed.

34. As per the evidence of P.W15, Civil Assistant Surgeon

(Specialist), on 31.07.2014 from 4.00 p.m., to 5.45 p.m., he

Page 23 of 25

conducted Post-Mortem examination over the body of the

deceased, he found the following external injuries:

(1) Bruise of size 2 x 3 cms over the nose tip and Ala;

(2) Bruise abrasion of size 4 x 4 cms over right cheek bone

region;

(3) Bruise of seized 15 x 5 cms width over lateral side of

left forearm;

(4) Abrasion of size 6 cms width x 15 cms length over right

side of fore head extending onto the scalp parietal

region of right side;

(5) Contusion of size 5 x 4 cm over parietal eminence left

side scalp;

35. On internal examination, P.W15 found hematoma

present, right side scalp and left parietal eminence. P.W15 also

found brain parenchyma congested on cut section. He issued

Ex.P12-Final Opinion stating that the deceased appears to have

died of intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury associated with

Carbamate in an insecticide poisoning. Apparently, P.W16/

Investigating Officer, did not seize the insecticide bottle, which was

said to be administered to the deceased to kill him. Indeed, P.W9,

who is alleged to have given the pesticide pills to accused No.5, did

not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

36. On the contrary, a perusal of evidence of P.W15,

Medical Officer further goes to show that the external injuries

Page 24 of 25

sustained by the deceased are possible when a person fall from

motorcycle. As can be seen from the investigation done by P.W16,

no weapon was seized. Because, the prosecution case is that

accused Nos.1, 3 to 5, after administering poison, beat the

deceased on the head, one by one. It is quite surprising as to how

the prosecution framed the charge quite contrary to the medical

evidence and such ground also goes against the case of

prosecution.

37. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, we come to a conclusion that there is no legal and reliable

evidence on record to prove the charges, for the offences

punishable under Section 120B IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2

and Section 302 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2017 is

allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned V

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, vide Judgment

dated 20.03.2017 in Sessions Case No.137 of 2015 against the

appellants herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

under Section 120B IPC and against appellants herein/accused

Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read

Page 25 of 25

with 34 IPC, are set-aside. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 are

acquitted of the said charge, in terms of Section 235 (1) CrPC. The

fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants herein/accused Nos.1 to

4, shall be refunded.

39. Appellant No.2/accused No.2 was granted remission

and released as per the Order in G.O.Ms.No.121 Home (Paroles &

HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022. In respect of appellant Nos.1,

3 and 4 herein/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, they were released on bail

as per the Order of this Court dated 13.09.2022 vide I.A.No.1 of

2022, in view of the Judgment of the combined High Court in

Batchu Ranga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

2

. Hence, the

appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4 herein/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are

directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison,

Kadapa, Kadapa District, for completing necessary legal formalities.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

21

st

November, 2024.

Note:

LR copy to be marked.

B/o.

DNB

2

Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011, dated 02.11.2016.