IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT

AMARAVATI

* * * *

Criminal Appeal No.1113 of 2007

Between

Vonumu Appayyamma and others

.… Appellants

And

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

…. Respondent

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 05.03.2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY :

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers : YES/NO

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : YES/NO

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to : YES/NO

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

2

* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

+ Criminal Appeal No.1113 of 2007

% 05.03.2025

# Vonumu Appayyamma and others

…Appellants

Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

… Respondent

!Counsel for the Appellants : Sri A. Ravi Shankar

^Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

<Gist :

>Head Note :

? Cases referred:

----

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

3

APHC010158282007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K . SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO .1113 OF 2007

Between:

Vonumu Appayyamma and others ...APELLANTS

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

...RESPODENT

Counsel for the Appellants:

1. A RAVI SHANKAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

A1 to A4 and A6 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2004 on the

file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), Srikakulam are the appellants in the present

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

4

Criminal Appeal. As A5 and A7 died pending trial, the case

against them was abated.

2. The appellants/A1 to A4 and A6 were tried by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

3. Substance of the charge is that, on the intervening night of

21/22

nd

August, 2003, at about 01.00 hours, at Yathapeta village,

A1 to A4 and A6 along with A5 and A7 caused the death of one

Alupana Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and

threw the dead body of the deceased in the casuarinas tope of

one Alupana Laxmana Rao with an intention to screen the

evidence, thereby committed the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge

convicted A1 of the offence punishable under Section 304-Part I

read with 109 IPC and sentenced her to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. A2 to A4

and A6 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section

304-Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

5

for a period of ten (10) years each and also to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each.

A1 to A4 and A6 were further convicted of the offence punishable

under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each. The

substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was

further directed that out of the total fine amount, an amount of

Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to PW.2 Alupana Suryam, the wife of

the deceased, as compensation in terms of Section 357 of

Cr.P.C. A1 to A4 and A6 were found not guilty of the offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were acquitted of the

said offence.

5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows.

i) A1 is the mother of A2 and other accused are the

neighbours and supporters of A1 and A2. It is alleged that the

deceased had got illicit intimacy with the wife of A2 and he used

to visit her house now and then in the absence of A2. Likewise,

on the intervening night of 21/22

nd

August 2023, at about 01.00

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

6

hours, the deceased took PW.4 and LW.8 along with him to his

coconut topes for watching and from there, at about 02.00 hours,

he went to the house of A2. In the absence of A2, the deceased

entered into the house of A2 and met the wife of A2. At that time,

PW.4 and LW8 were waiting outside the house. After sometime,

A1, the mother of A2, woke up and noticed the deceased and

wife of A2 in a compromising mood on a cot and then she caught

hold of hair of the deceased and dragged him out and quarrelled.

Meanwhile, A2 to A7 also reached there after rabbit hunting and

all the accused beat the deceased with sticks and iron rods

indiscriminately and caused his instantaneous death. PW.4 and

LW.8 saw the beatings of the accused and out of fear they ran

away. A2 to A7 are alleged to have thrown the dead body of the

deceased in the casuarinas tope of one Alupana Laxmana Rao

with an intention to screen the evidence.

ii) On 22.08.2003, at about 06.00 AM, one Talayari of Kuppili

village went to the office of PW.1 and informed that one dead

body was lying in casuarinas tope of one Alupana Laxmana Rao.

Then, he proceeded to the said tope along with Talayari and

found the dead body with injuries all over the body. They

identified him as the deceased. PW.1 kept the Talayari at the

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

7

scene of offence and went to the Police Station at Etcherla and

submitted a report. Ex.P1 is the report submitted to the police.

iii) On 22.08.2003, at about 15.50 hours, PW.9 – the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Etcherla Police Station, received Ex.P1 report

from PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.88 of

2003, under Section 174 Cr.P.C., as the cause of death was not

known. Ex.P16 is the original FIR submitted to the jurisdictional

Magistrate. Thereafter, PW.9 left the Police Station along with

PW.1 and visited the scene of offence. They secured PWs.1 and

7 and others and observed the scene of offence in their presence

under cover of a mediators report Ex.P2 drafted by PW.1. PW.9

prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P17.

He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the

presence of PWs.1, 2, 3 and others. During the course of

inquest, PW.9 recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of

PWs.1, 2, 3 and others. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the

deceased to the Government Hospital, Srikakulam for post-

mortem examination.

iv) PW.12, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased on 23.08.2003 and issued

Ex.P21 post-mortem certificate. According to PW.12, the cause

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

8

of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of

ribs on both sides of chest, precipitated by remaining injuries.

v) On 25.08.2003, at about 10.30 PM, PW.11, the Inspector of

Police, was informed by PW.9 about the alteration of FIR in Crime

No.88 of 2003 from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 302 IPC. On

26.08.2003, PW.11 commenced his investigation, proceeded to

Etcherla Police Station and collected express FIR and verified the

investigation done by PW.9. Then, PW.11 left Etcherla Police

Station along with PW.9 to the scene of offence. PW.11 secured

the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and others and recorded their

statements. On 27.08.2003, PW.11 proceeded to the scene of

offence and secured the mediators and prepared scene of

observation report under Ex.P4. PW.11 further prepared rough

sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P19. He also examined

PWs.5, 6 and others and recorded their statements. On

31.08.2003, PW.11 along with PW.9, other staff and mediators

PWs.8 and 10, proceeded to Ananthapuram road junction in two

jeeps and arrested the accused. The accused are alleged to

have made a confessional statement before PW.11. After seizing

the weapons, PW.11 filed charge sheet and the same was taken

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

9

on file as PRC No.30 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam.

6. By an order, dated 21.01.2004, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Court of Session and later the same

was numbered as SC No.10 of 2004 and made over the case to

the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the Court

of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), Srikakulam, for disposal.

7. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6, charges

under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed, read over the

contents and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

12, marked Exs.P1 to P21 and exhibited MOs.1 to 7.

9. When A1 to A4 and A6 were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against

them and reported no defence evidence, except marking Exs.D1

to D3.

10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of

entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

10

sentenced A1 to A4 and A6 as aforesaid, vide impugned

judgment dated 21.08.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the

present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that entire

prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony of PW.4, who is

none other than the person worked under the deceased. He

submitted that PW.4 was examined by the police at a belated

stage i.e. four days after the incident, and his evidence is not

corroborated by any independent evidence. He further submitted

that PWs.2 and 3, who are the wife and father of the deceased,

did not state anything with regard to the alleged incident. He

further submitted that the evidence of PW.4 is not trustworthy and

his evidence cannot be taken into consideration, conviction

cannot be based on the same. He submits that if the evidence of

PW.4 is excluded from consideration, there is no other evidence

to connect the accused to the alleged crime.

12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submitted that PW.4

is the sole eye witness to the incident in question. According to

him, out of fear, PW.4 left the place and he could not inform

anyone about the incident immediately, but after lapse of four

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

11

days he came back and stated about the alleged incident that had

taken place. He further emphasised that there is corroboration to

the evidence of PW.4 in the form of evidence of PW.2, who stated

that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in front of the

house of A2. He further submitted that the judgment passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct and does not

call for any interference by this Court.

13. The point that arises for determination is whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt.

14. Heard. Perused the record.

15. PW.1 is a retired Village Panchayat Secretary and basing

on the information given by Talayari of Kuppili village he went to

the Police Station and lodged a report Ex.P1. PWs.2 and 3 are

the wife and father of the deceased. According to PW.2, on the

fateful day, the deceased had taken his dinner and slept in the

house and in the midnight, at about 01.00 AM, she saw the

deceased leaving the house and she thought that the deceased

was going to the cattle shed to tie the cattle. At about 04.00 AM,

she woke up and asked her mother-in-law (LW.4) about the

deceased and LW.4 replied that the deceased might have gone

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

12

to the fields as usual and he would come back. The evidence of

PW.3 is only to the effect that he came to know about the death

of the deceased on the next day through his wife. In view of the

same, much credence cannot be given to the evidence of PWs.2

and 3 for the reason that they only speak to the fact that the

deceased left the house in the night.

15. PW.4 is the only eye witness, who is alleged to have seen

the incident. According to PW.4, he used to work under the

deceased and cultivate the lands of the deceased. He along with

the deceased and one Vanam Thavitayya (LW.8) used to pluck

coconuts in the coconut topes belonging to owners and used to

sell the same at Visakhapatnam in a Van for profit. On the date

of the incident, in the morning, PW.4, the deceased and LW.8

plucked the coconuts in the coconut topes, loaded the same into

D.B. Cart and sent the same to Visakhapatnam. On that night,

PW.4 and LW.8 slept on the thrashing floor of the deceased. In

the midnight, the deceased came to them and woke them up.

Thereafter, all of them proceeded to the coconut topes and the

deceased went to the house of A2 and asked PW.4 and LW.8 to

wait near the house of A2. Accordingly, they both waited near

Banyan tree. Within 15 minutes, PW.4 noticed an altercation

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

13

between A1 and the deceased. In the course of said altercation,

other accused A2 to A7 came there, after hunting rabbits. When

A2 enquired with A1 about the altercation, A1 informed that the

deceased came to their house at that night. On hearing the same,

A2 to A7 raised a dispute with the deceased for his visiting their

house at that midnight. On the instigation of A1, A2 to A7 beat

the deceased with crowbars and pushed down the deceased. On

seeing the same, PW.4 along with LW.8 escaped from the scene

due to fear and came back four days thereafter.

16. PWs.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution case and they

were treated hostile by the prosecution. PWs.7 and 8 are the

panch witnesses for the inquest and seizure of weapons.

17. A perusal of the entire evidence on record goes to show

that except the evidence of PW.4, who used to work under the

deceased, there is absolutely no other independent evidence to

connect the accused to the alleged crime. The evidence of PW.4

goes to show that, on the fateful day, he is alleged to have gone

along with the deceased and another in the night at about 01.00

AM to the casuarinas topes. Thereafter, the deceased went to

the house of A2 and asked PW.4 and another to remain near the

house of A2. When a direction was given to PW.4 and another to

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

14

stay at casuarinas topes, it is not known as to why PW.4 and

another went to the house of A2 along with the deceased. There

is any amount of ambiguity as to whether the deceased directed

PW.4 and another to remain at casuarinas topes or not.

Irrespective of the said fact, PW.4, being the worker of the

deceased, is alleged to have witnessed the incident of A2 to A7

attacking the deceased. If really, PW.4 was present at the scene

of offence, he might have gone to the rescue of his master, when

the latter was being attacked. In the absence of that, at least he

might have made hue and cry or raised an alarm to the extent

that making others to wake up and come to the rescue of the

deceased. The behaviour of PW.4, secreting himself behind one

of the trees and not coming forward to rescue the deceased,

appears to be abnormal. Having observed the alleged offence,

no prudent person would go away from the place for a period of

four days out of fear. The statement of PW.4 was recorded by

the police at a belated stage i.e. after four days of the alleged

incident. If PW.4 is an eye witness to the occurrence, he would

have gone to his house and intimated about the incident to the

inmates of the house. Quite surprisingly, none of the things has

been done by PW.4. PW.4 appears to be a planted witness and

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

15

his evidence does not inspire confidence. Since the statement of

PW.4 was recorded by the police at a belated stage i.e., four days

after the alleged incident, it throws doubt on the trustworthiness of

the evidence of PW.4. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this

Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW.4 cannot be

placed in the category of wholly reliable. If the evidence of PW.4

is excluded from consideration, there is no other legal evidence to

connect the appellants herein to the alleged crime.

18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court

is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge is liable to be set aside.

19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the

conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional

District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, in

the judgment in SC No.10 of 2004, dated 21.08.2007 are set

aside. The appellants/A1 to A4 and A6 are acquitted of the

charges levelled against them and they are set at liberty. The bail

bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid

by the appellants shall be refunded to them.

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

16

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________

K. SREENIVASA REDDY , J

Date:05.03.2025

Nsr

SRK, J

Crl.Appeal No.1113 of 2007

17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Criminal Appeal No.1113 of 2007

Date:05.03.2025

Nsr