HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2017

Between:

Sayaboina Venkatanarayana, Guntur Dst. &

another

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

* * * * *

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 14.10.2024

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 30

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.277 OF 2017

% 14.10.2024

# Between:

Sayaboina Venkatanarayana, Guntur Dst. &

another

… Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of AP Rep. by PP

...Respondent

!

Counsel for the Appellant(s) : Sri Raja Reddy Koneti

^

Counsel for the Respondent/

State

:

Public Prosecutor

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2023) 10 SCR 1033.

2. (2016) 4 SCC 96 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 211.

This Court made the following:

Page 3 of 30

APHC010185982017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3486]

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 277/2017

Between:

Sayaboina Venkatanaryana, Guntur Dst. & Anr.,

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

The State of AP Rep PP

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1.

RAJA REDDY KONETI

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

Page 4 of 30

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

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 on the

file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur at

Narasaraopet, (hereinafter referred to, as „the learned Additional

Sessions Judge‟) are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity „IPC‟).

2. Vide Judgment, dated 19.12.2016, the learned Additional

Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 and sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

(Rupees five hundred only) each, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each

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

Further, accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two (02) years each and to pay a fine

of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) each, in default of payment

of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15)

days each for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with

Page 5 of 30

34 IPC. Both the substantial sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

3. The substance of the charges as against the accused Nos.1

and 2 is that on 31.08.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., in the fields of Yarla

Seethamma of Sangineedupalem village, while accused No.2

caught hold the legs of one Gorre Ramanjaneyulu (hereinafter

referred to, as „the deceased‟), accused No.1 caused the death of

the deceased by squeezing the neck of the deceased. In the course

of the same transaction, the accused threw the dead body of the

deceased into NSP Canal to screen the evidence.

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

(i) The accused and the deceased are residents of

Sangineedupalem village of Bollapalli Mandal. P.W.1 is the father,

and P.W.2 is the brother, of the deceased. The deceased

discontinued his studies after X class and used to attend

agricultural works; the deceased used to drink alcohol.

(ii) On 31.08.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased

informed P.W.1 that one Amarason Balu called him on phone and

suggested to raise chilly seed links (&#204344383;రప నారు); thereafter, he went

Page 6 of 30

into the washroom to take bath; even, while the deceased was

taking bath, his mobile rang and the deceased attended the same

and said „వస్తు నాా అన్ా‟ („coming brother‟); the deceased was

wearing black pant, red colour banian; he did not come back for the

dinner; P.W.1 waited for the arrival of the deceased till 11.00 p.m.,

thereafter, they slept in their house; on the next day morning, P.W.1

went to the fields, as usual, to attend the works; they were there in

the fields till 12.00 noon; around 12.00 noon, P.W.1 returned home

for lunch and after having lunch at home, P.W.1 took food for

others, who were working in the field; in the field, P.W.1 told the

workers that the deceased did not come back; thereafter, P.W.1

returned home and enquired his relatives over phone with regard to

whereabouts of the deceased but, no one gave information about

the deceased.

(iii) About 7.00 or 8.00 p.m., P.W.1 proceeded to the house

of accused No.1 to know the whereabouts of the deceased; by the

time P.W.1 reached the house of accused No.1, the family

members of accused No.1 were taking him to the hospital, as he

consumed pesticide; P.W.1 returned home; on the next day

morning, he proceeded to the Vellaturu Hospital, where accused

Page 7 of 30

No.1 was taking treatment; P.W.1 enquired accused No.1 about the

deceased, for which, accused No.1 and his father uttered as “&#204344384;

వాడికి మేము ఏమ ైనా కావలి ఉనాామా?” („Are we security guards to your

son?‟).

(iv) On his way back to home, P.W.1 searched for the

deceased in two wells, on suspicion, but, in vain. Then, P.Ws.1 and

2 proceeded to the NSP canal, on bike, in search of the deceased;

at Siddinapalem, they found an old man washing clothes in the

canal; on enquiry, he informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that a dead body was

flowing in the canal; then, P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded further on the

right canal bund up to Chandavaram, where they found the dead

body on the left side of the canal; then, they proceeded further,

crossed the bridge and entered into left side canal bund and

travelled back up to the dead body; P.Ws.1 and 2 got down into the

water and found the dead body is that of the deceased,

consequently, they brought the dead body of the deceased to the

extreme edge to prevent further flow; thereafter, they called the

relatives over phone and informed about the death of the deceased;

with the help of other relatives, L.W.3/Gorre China Anjaneyulu and

Page 8 of 30

L.W.4/Gorre Peda Guravaiah, the dead body was brought to the

bund.

(v) On 03.09.2014 around 11.00 p.m., P.W.9, Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Police, Donakonda Police Station, received report

from P.W.1, basing on which, P.W.9 registered a case in Crime

No.92 of 2014 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „CrPC‟) and issued Ex.P10-FIR to all

the concerned.

(vi) On 04.09.2014, P.W.9 held inquest over the dead body

of the deceased and in the presence of inquestdars vide Ex.P2.

During the course of investigation, P.W.9 examined P.Ws.1, 2 and

others and recorded their statements.

(vii) On 04.09.2014, P.W.6, Medical Officer, Community

Health Centre, Darsi, on requisition, conducted autopsy over the

dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P3-Post-Mortem

Certificate. According to the Doctor, the cause of death is due to

shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries to head and

thorax caused by blunt object under Ex.P6.

Page 9 of 30

(viii) On 05.09.2014, P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Donakonda Police Station took up investigation and visited the

scene of offence situated on the bund of the NSP canal in between

Padamata Lakshmipuram and Chandavaram villages. P.W.11

examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others, but no statements were recorded

by him. On 06.09.2014, on receipt of preliminary Post-Mortem

certificate, P.W.1 sent a questionnaire to P.W.6 to know whether

the injuries noted by him in Ex.P3 were of ante-mortem or post-

mortem in nature and whether those injuries are sufficient to cause

death. Basing on the reply given by the Doctor, P.W.11 altered the

section of law from Section 174 CrPC to Section 302 IPC and

issued altered memo under Ex.P11. P.W.11 addressed a letter to

the Tahsildar, Donakonda to transfer Ex.P10-FIR in Crime No.92 of

2014 and Ex.P2-Inquest Report to the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Darsi.

(ix) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, Darsi, Prakasam District

took up investigation on 10.09.2014 from P.W.11, verified the

investigation made by P.Ws.9 and 11 in the aforesaid crime and

found it on correct lines. P.W.9 prepared Ex.P13-rough sketch of

scene of offence, Ex.P14-positive photographs of the deceased.

Thereafter, P.W.13 visited the scene of offence along with P.W.11.

Page 10 of 30

On 11.09.2014, P.W.13 visited Sangineedupalem village of

Bollapalli Mandal and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others and

recorded their statements. On the next day, P.W.13 put up a note to

the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam to transfer the case file i.e.

Crime No.92 of 2014 to Bollapalli Police Station, Guntur District.

(x) On 11.10.2014, P.W.14, Inspector of Police, Vinukonda

Rural Circle, on receipt of case diary file in Crime No.92 of 2014, in

turn, sent the said record to the Station House Officer, Bandlamotu

Police Station, reregistered the same as a case in Crime No.79 of

2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC

against the accused and issued Ex.P10-FIR to all the concerned.

Thereafter, P.W.14 took up investigation, proceeded to the NSP

Canal, secured the presence of P.Ws.4 and 10 and recorded their

statements. On 24.10.2014, P.W.14 forwarded the material objects

to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur through

SDPO, Narasaraopet, for analysis.

(xi) On 11.11.2014 around 9.00 a.m., P.W.8 produced both

the accused before P.W.14 along with Report vide Ex.P9.

Thereafter, P.W.14 interrogated and recorded the confessional

statements of the accused vide Ex.P7. Thereafter, the accused led

Page 11 of 30

P.W.14 and others to the NSP canal right side bund situated on

northern side to Sanginetipalem village and showed the place

where they killed the deceased and threw into the canal. Thereafter,

both the accused were remanded to judicial custody. The successor

of P.W.14 filed the charge sheet.

5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15

and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 on behalf of the prosecution. On

behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked.

6. The plea of accused Nos.1 and 2 is one of denial.

7. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the entire

case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no

eyewitnesses to the occurrence. According to him, P.Ws.3, 4 and

10 are the witnesses, who are alleged to have seen the deceased

in the company of the accused and they were examined at a

belated stage i.e. eleven (11) days after the incident. Learned

counsel further submitted that much credence cannot be given to

the evidence of those witnesses, for the reason that, on coming to

know about the aforesaid incident, they did not come out with the

said version, immediately. Learned counsel further submitted that

Page 12 of 30

the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the extra-judicial

confession made by the accused Nos.1 and 2 to P.W.8, Village

Revenue Officer of Vellaturu village. According to him, the Village

Revenue Officer is completely a stranger to the accused Nos.1 and

2, therefore, question of accused Nos.1 and 2 going to other village

and making an extra-judicial confession before the Village Revenue

Officer of Vellaturu village, cannot be accepted, that too, after lapse

of two and half (2½) months.

8. On the other hand, Sri Kochiri Anand Kumar, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State, contended that the version

spoken by P.Ws.3 and 4 is consistent with regard to the fact that

the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. Apart

from it, P.W.10 saw the accused on the date of the incident at about

10.00 p.m., at the scene of offence. Their evidence is in

corroboration with the extra-judicial confession made by the

accused Nos.1 and 2 to P.W.8, Village Revenue Officer. On a close

scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence goes to show that it is the

accused and accused alone that had caused the death of the

deceased, for the reason that, the deceased was moving closely

with the wife and sister-in-law of accused No.1. According to him,

Page 13 of 30

learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a reasoned

Judgment and it calls for no interference of this Court.

9. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt

of the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34

IPC, 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?

10. 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.

11. 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

1

(2023) 10 SCR 1033

Page 14 of 30

conviction in the case of circumstantial evidence is very

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,

Page 15 of 30

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency,

(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.”

12. In the light of these guiding principles, the present appeal has

to be considered.

13. This Court perused the record.

14. 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:

15. P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, deposed that the

deceased had studied X class and was attending to agricultural

works; the deceased was habituated to drinking alcohol; on the date

Page 16 of 30

of the incident i.e. on 31.08.2014 around 6.00 p.m., when the

deceased was taking bath, his mobile rang and the deceased

attended the same and said „వస్తు నాా అన్ా‟ („coming brother‟); after

taking bath, the deceased wore the same dress, black pant, red

colour banian and left the house; the deceased did not turn back for

the dinner; P.Ws.1 and 2 waited for his arrival till 11.00 p.m;

thereafter, they slept in their house; on the next day morning, as

usual, P.W.1 went to the fields and attended to his works; around

12.00 noon, P.W.1 returned home for lunch and after having lunch,

P.W.1 took lunch for others, who are working in the field; in the

field, he told the workers that the deceased did not come back;

thereafter, P.W.1 returned home and enquired with the relatives

over phone with regard to whereabouts of the deceased; no one

gave information about the deceased; at about 7.00 or 8.00 p.m.,

P.W.1 proceeded to the house of accused No.1 and enquired the

whereabouts of the deceased; accused No.1 was admitted into the

hospital on the ground that he consumed pesticide; on enquiry with

accused No.1 in the hospital, accused No.1 and his father uttered

as „&#204344384; వాడికి మేము ఏమ ైనా కావలి ఉనాామా?‟ („Are we security guards to

your son?‟); on his way to home, P.W.1 searched for the deceased

Page 17 of 30

in two wells, on suspicion, but, in vain; then, P.Ws.1 and 2

proceeded to the NSP Canal, in search of the deceased; at

Siddinapalem, they found an old man washing clothes in the canal;

on enquiry, he stated that one dead body was flowing in the canal;

then, P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded further on the right canal bund up to

Chandavaram and found a dead body on the left side of the canal

bund and travelled back up to the dead body; thereafter, P.Ws.1

and 2 went down into the water and found the dead body is that of

the deceased; later, they called their relatives over phone and

informed about the death of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1

lodged a report to the police.

16. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. He reiterated the

version of P.W.1. His evidence is a parrot like version given by

P.W.1. There is absolutely no change in his evidence from that of

P.W.1, which is of no relevance to the case of prosecution.

17. A perusal of Ex.P10-FIR, registered, basing on Ex.P1-report

given by P.W.1, at the earliest point of time i.e. on 03.09.2014 at

11.00 p.m., goes to show that on the date of the incident when the

deceased was taking bath, he received a phone call. Thereafter, he

left the house. There is no mention with regard to the fact that the

Page 18 of 30

deceased uttering a word like „వస్తు నాా అన్ా‟ („coming brother‟).

Except stating that the deceased left the house on receiving phone

call at about 8.00 p.m., there is nothing further mentioned in

Ex.P10-FIR and there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1, as soon

as the mobile of the deceased rang, he attended the same and said

„వస్తు నాా అన్ా‟ („coming brother‟). The said fact is that of an

improvement from that of Ex.P1.

18. The motive that is attributed as against the accused Nos.1

and 2 to cause the death of the deceased is that, the deceased was

alleged to have moving closely with women folk in the village. It is

further alleged that the deceased was visiting the house of accused

No.1 in his absence and he was moving very closely with the wife

and sister-in-law of accused No.1. In connection with that, P.W.1

chastised the deceased.

19. A perusal of Ex.P10-FIR goes to show that none of the said

facts has been mentioned at the earliest point of time.

Subsequently, during the course of evidence, the said aspect of

moving closely with women folk was brought into existence at a

belated stage. Except the version given by P.Ws.1 and 2, there is

Page 19 of 30

no corroborative evidence to show that the accused Nos.1 and 2

had grudge over the deceased in connection with the fact that the

deceased was moving very closely with the women folk. 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. A perusal of entire material on record, we are of

the opinion that even the motive is not conclusive as per the

prosecution case.

LAST SEEN THEORY :

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

P.Ws.3, 4 and 10. P.W.3 is the resident of Sangineedupalem

village. According to him, the deceased used to move closely with

women folk of their village. According to him, on 31.08.2014 at

about 8.00 and 8.15 p.m., he found the deceased in the company of

accused Nos.1 and 2 in NSP Canal bund near their field. At that

time, P.W.3 was checking the water motor for watering the chilly

seed links; on seeing the deceased, accused Nos.1 and 2, P.W.3

asked as to where they were going, for which, accused No.1 replied

that they were going to celebrate party; accused No.1 further asked

him whether P.W.3 was interested to join them in the party, for

Page 20 of 30

which, he refused. P.W.3 further deposed that on the next day

morning, he went to Porumetla village to his in-laws house, where,

he remained for nine days. After P.W.3 returned to the village, he

came to know that the deceased died. P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that

he found the deceased in the company of the accused on the night

of 31.08.2014 at NSP canal bund. Thereafter, the Inspector of

Police, Bollapalli examined P.W.3 on 11.09.2014.

21. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that the said

witness was examined by police after a lapse of eleven (11) days

from the date of the incident, which itself shows the said witness is

not trustworthy. Another aspect that has to be seen is that the

presence of the witness during the relevant point of time appears to

be improbable, for the reason that, in the night of 31.08.2014,

P.W.3 is alleged to have present in his fields, watering the chilly

seed links (&#204344383;రప నారు) at about 8.00 and 8.15 p.m.

22. Case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.1 and 2 intended

to eliminate the deceased as he was moving closely with the

women folk. In such an event, the accused asking P.W.3 whether

he was interested to join them in the party and to which, he refused,

appears to be most unnatural. Even if, P.W.3 went to Porumetla

Page 21 of 30

village to his in-laws house, death of the deceased would have

been known to him after his return, but he did not come forward to

state that the deceased was last seen in the company of the

accused, at the earliest point of time. In the opinion of this Court,

the evidence of P.W.3 appears to be unnatural and much credence

cannot be given to such evidence. Apart from the same, there are

number of improvements in his evidence than that of his statement

made before police.

23. P.W.4 too examined as a witness, who last seen the

deceased in the company of the accused. Even according to him,

on 31.08.2014 he saw the deceased in the company of the accused

at around 7.30 p.m. and on the next day morning he left for Guntur.

Thereafter, he returned to the village from Guntur on the night of

09.09.2014. According to him, on return to the village, he came to

know that the deceased died. Thereafter, even the said witness was

examined by the police on 11.09.2014.

24. In the cross-examination, P.W.4 has categorically stated that

though he returned to his village on 03.09.2014, he does not know

about the death of the deceased till 11.09.2014. P.W.4 appears to

be a planted witness, for the reason that, he was examined at a

Page 22 of 30

belated stage, and hence, much credence cannot be given to the

evidence of the said witness.

25. The other circumstantial witness, on whose evidence the

learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon, is that of P.W.10.

According to P.W.10, about 1½ year back, around 10.00 p.m., on

his way to Nayudupalem from Bollapalli, he found both the accused

near a bridge constructed on NSP Canal. He questioned the

accused as to why they were there and they told that they were

returning after the party. Four days thereafter, P.W.10 came to

know that the deceased was killed and the dead body was thrown

into NSP Canal. One week thereafter, P.W.10 visited

Sangineedupalem village and informed, about his finding the

accused near NSP Canal bridge, to the village elders. Thereafter,

police examined him in the police station.

26. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.10, even the said witness

appears to be a planted witness, for the reason that, the said

witness was examined by police, eleven (11) days after the

incident. There are number of improvements in the evidence of

P.W.10 with that of his statement made to the police. Basing on the

Page 23 of 30

same, the theory put forth by the prosecution that both the accused

and the deceased were last seen going together is unbelievable.

27. In ordinary course of nature, the Investigating Officer is

expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration

of a cognizance offence. An inordinate and unexplained delay of

examining the witnesses may be fatal to the prosecution‟s case but

only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. It is

essential that when the incident is being witnessed by the person,

has to be examined as early as possible. There may be adequate

circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time.

However, non-examination of the said witness at an early stage

casts any amount of doubt in the mind of the Court, which has to be

cleared.

28. In Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2

the Hon‟ble Apex

Court at paragraph No.20, held as under:

“20. The statements of PW 25 Mirza Majid Beg and

PW 24 Mohamed Shakir were recorded after 3 days of the

occurrence. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they were

not examined for 3 days. It is also not known as to how the

police came to know that these witnesses saw the occurrence.

The delay in recording the statements casts a serious doubt

2

(2016) 4 SCC 96 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 211.

Page 24 of 30

about their being eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It may

suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking

time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the

case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced. The

circumstances in this case lend such significance to this delay.

PW25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24 Mohamed Shakir, in view of

their unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police,

do not appear to us to be wholly reliably witnesses. There is no

corroboration of their evidence from any other independent

source either. We find it rather unsafe to rely upon their

evidence only to uphold the conviction and sentence of the

appellants. The High Court has failed to advert to the

contentions raised by the appellants and reappreciate the

evidence thereby resulting to miscarriage of justice. In our

opinion, the case against the appellants has not been proved

beyond reasonable doubt.”

29. In the present case on hand, the alleged witnesses were said

to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused, had not

come forward with the said version. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and

10 are extremely doubtful on their evidence rendered by them.

These witnesses have given their statements under Section 161

CrPC only after lapse of eleven (11) days stating that they are away

from the place. Surprisingly, how the three (03) witnesses are

alleged to have gone out of the place and returned only after nine

(09) days of the incident and thereafter, delay of two (02) days they

are alleged to have examined by the investigating agency.

Page 25 of 30

Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the statements provided

by these witnesses rise suspicion and likely to mislead or, at any

rate, not firm enough to support a seriously contested conclusion.

30. Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied upon the evidence

of P.Ws.3, 4 and 10, as they are the witnesses, who have last seen

the deceased in the company of the accused. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge has also relied upon yet other

circumstance, where the accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have

made extra-judicial confession before P.W.8, Village Revenue

Officer. Except the said circumstances, there is no other material to

connect the accused Nos.1 and 2 to the crime.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION :

31. 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.W.8.

32. P.W.8 is the Village Revenue Officer of Vellaturu village of

Bollapalli Mandal. According to him, on 11.11.2014 in between 8.00

and 9.00 a.m., while he was at his office, both the accused came

there and informed that Bandlamottu Police were searching for

Page 26 of 30

them in connection with the murder of the deceased and that, they

further informed that they killed the deceased and threw his dead

body into NSP Canal and requested him to take them to the police

station and surrender them. P.W.8 recorded the confessional

statement of both the accused. Thereafter, P.W.8 took both the

accused to Bandlamottu police station and surrendered them to the

police along with report under Ex.P9.

33. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and 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 the evidence

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

veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.

34. In the present case on hand, the witness is Village Revenue

Officer belonging to Vellaturu village; whereas, the accused Nos.1

and 2 are ordinarily residents of Sangineedupalem village. The

question of accused making of extra-judicial confession to P.W.8,

who is the Village Revenue Officer of a different village, after a

lapse of 2½ months, appears to be highly improbable.

Page 27 of 30

35. In the cross-examination of P.W.8, he categorically states

that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused. Apart from the

same, he further deposed that he did not obtain any identity proofs

from the accused before taking them to the police station. The

accused, who are strangers to P.W.8, who is Village Revenue

Officer of Vellaturu village, would not have gone to him and made a

confession after a lapse of 2½ months. In the absence of any other

evidence to point the finger to the accused, the said extra-judicial

confession cannot be acted upon.

36. 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 and 2 to

P.W.8, Village Revenue Officer, of a different village, appears to be

improbable.

37. On a conspectus of entire evidence on record goes to show

that in a case of circumstantial evidence of this nature, the evidence

of P.Ws.3 and 4, who have last seen the deceased in the company

of the accused, cannot be believed. The said witnesses appear to

Page 28 of 30

be planted in order to suit the case of the prosecution. Apart from it,

the evidence of P.W.10, who deposed that he has seen the

accused at NSP Canal bridge at about 10.00 p.m. on the date of the

incident, would, by itself, cannot point the finger at the accused.

38. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.10 did not witness the

deceased in the company of the accused. He only deposed that the

accused were seen at the NSP canal and on enquiry, the accused

were alleged to have stated that they had a party. Except the same,

there is no other evidence to connect the accused Nos.1 and 2 to

the aforesaid crime. Since the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 cannot

be believed and at the same time, this Court does not give much

weight to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused Nos.1

and 2 to P.W.8, who is Village Revenue Officer of a different village,

nothing remains on record to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1

and 2.

39. Furthermore, as per the charges framed as against the

accused Nos.1 and 2 goes to show that accused No.2 is alleged to

have caught hold of the legs of the deceased and the accused No.1

is said to have squeezed the neck of the deceased. On the

contrary, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.6, Medical Officer, goes

Page 29 of 30

to show that the deceased is said to have died due to multiple

injuries sustained by him, which, in ordinary course, would have

been beaten with a blunt object. 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.

40. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

we come to a conclusion that there is no trustworthy and reliable

evidence on record to prove the charges, for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC against

the appellants herein/accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, the point is

answered.

41. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2017 is allowed.

The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XIII Additional

Sessions Judge, Guntur at Narasaraopet vide Judgment dated

19.12.2016 in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016 against the appellants

herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC are set-aside. The

appellants herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the

charges levelled against them and are acquitted of the said

Page 30 of 30

charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants herein/

accused Nos.1 and 2, shall be refunded.

42. The appellants herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on

bail as per the Order of this Court dated 14.10.2022 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

3

. Hence, the

appellants herein/accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to appear

before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, East

Godavari 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

14

th

October, 2024.

DNB

Note:

LR Copy to be marked

B/o.

DNB

3

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