H ■
<i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 932 OF 2ni.q
Between:
Nandyala Arundhalhi, W/o. late Ramamohan Reddy
Occ; Housewife,
Pandillapalh Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District
...Appellant/PW3
AND
1. Syed Mahaboob Shareef @ Sahreef, S/o. Sardar Mohiddin,
Age: 28
years R/o. D. No.4/254-B, Near Chowdamma Temple, Muddanur
Road
Yerratuntia Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.
2. Nalamala Siva Santosh Kumar Reddy @ Santosh, S/o.
Nageswara
Reddy, Age. 28 years, R/o. D.N0.2/294-B.6, Vempalll
Road, Yerraguntia
Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. ^
n^Mo Q® 31 years, R/o.
Distdcf^^^'^’ Yerraguntia Town and Mandal, Kadapa
M A P- rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature
at
PralTesh^*^ Telangana and the State of Andhra
...Respodents
Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C
praying that the High Court may
be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds
of Criminal Appeal to
this Hon ble Court against the Judgment in S.C.No.216
of 2012
on the file
of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur,
dated 31.07.2015.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. O. KAILASHNATH
REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
i (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.932 OF 2015
Between:
Nandyala Arundhathi, W/o.Late Ramamohan Reddy
Aged about 33 years, House wife,
R/o.Pandillapalli Village, Kamalapuram Mandal,
Kadapa District.
Appellant
AND
1. Syed Mahaboob Shareef @ Shareef,
S/o.SardarMohiddin,Muslim,
Aged 28 years, R/o.D.No.4/254-B,
Near Chowdamma Temple,
Muddanur Road, Yerraguntia Town,
Kadapa District.
2. Nalamala Siva Santhosh Kumar Reddy @ Santhosh,
S/o.Nageswara Reddy,
Aged 28 years, R/o.D.No.2/294-B.6,
Vempalli Road, Yerraguntia Town,
Kadapa District.
3. Shaik Jilani @ Basha, S/o.Masthan Vali,
Muslim,Aged 31 years, R/o.D.No.3/117-A,
Sreeramulupeta, Yerraguntia Town,
Kadapa District.
2
4. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
Respondents
High Court at Hyderabad.
Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy
Counsel for the Appellant(s)
Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent(s):
JUDGMENT:
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.V.LN.Chakravarthi)
{Per
Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the
1. Heard Sri O.
Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned Addl.Public
appellantand
Prosecutor for State.
of the deceased. The respondents No.1
The appellant is wife
2.
the file of II Addl.District &
to 3 are the accused in S.C.216/2012 on
Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur.
tried and acquitted of the
The respondents No.1 to 3 were
3.
charge U/s.302 I.P.C.
of deceased
4, Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the wife
present appeal U/s.372 Code of Criminal Procedure,
preferred the
1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’).
of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
5. The case
Ramamohana Reddy (hereinafter
One Nandyala
(i)
resident of Pandillapalli village of
referred to as ‘deceased’) is
Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District; hewas doing money lending
3
business; A-1 was a cement dealer; A-3 was working
as clerk under
A-1; A-2 was resident of Yerraguntia Town; A-2was running
transport business in the name and style of ‘Navata
Transport’.
(ii) A-1 incurred debt of Rs.3,00,000/- arranged by the
deceased; A-1 also borrowed several amounts from the
deceased;
inspite of demands made by the deceased, A-1 was postponing
discharge of the debt amounts; A-1 decided to commit
murder of the
deceased to evade the debts; A-2 also indebted to the
deceased;
A-1 promised to pay Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-
to A-2 and A-3
respectively to assist him in committing murder of the deceased.
(iii) On 21.03.2012 P.W-5 who is the son of the elder
brother of deceased and working as Software Engineer
at
Hyderabad received a phone call stating that one of their relation
suffered heart attack and admitted in hospital; P.W-5 was intending
to leave for Hyderabad; the deceased took P.W-5 on his motor cycle
to Yerraguntia at about 06.30 p.m.; they were waiting for bus; the
deceased received a phone call from A-1 asking the deceased to
come to a daba; P.W-5 boarded a bus at about 09.00 p.m. and left
for Hyderabad.
(iv) The deceased did not return to home even by 09.30
p.m.; P.W-1, who is younger brother of the deceased called him over
, but did not give any response;
phone; the deceased lifted the phone
not lifted; P.W-1 and
P,W-1 again made a caii; this time phone was
deceased; P.W-3 also tried to
his brother went in search of the
connect the deceased over phone, but in-vain.
P.W-2 a resident of
day at about 11.00 p.
m
(v) On the same
to P.W-1 and
of Kamalapuram Mandal came
Pandillapalli village
of accused at
the deceased in the company
intimated that he saw
. and 09.30 p.m.; P.W-1 and
Tippaluru Birdge in between 09.00 p.m
deceased; A-2
P,W-4 went to the house of A-2 to enquire about the
the deceased;
informed that he is not aware of the whereabouts of
and P.W
and P.W-4 noticed injury on the hand of A-2, P.\A/-1
P.W-1
not present in the
the house of A-1 and A-3; they were
4 went to
house.
m. P.W-1 and P.W-4
22.03.2012 at about 06.00 a.
(vi) On
Tippaluru Bridge; they
the motor cycle of the deceased near
found
deceased at some distance; they
also found the dead body of the
of beer bottle and a clutch wire near the dead
found broken pieces
deceased also informed that he
related to the
body; P.W-6, who is
the last night in
the deceased in the company of accused on
saw
and 09.30 p.m. near the bridge.
between 09.00 p.m
5
(vii) P.W-1 went to Yerraguntia Police Station at about
10.30
a.m. and submitted Ex.P-1 a written report to the Sub
Inspector of
Police; he also registered a case in Cr.No.44/2012
for the offence
U/S.302 r/w.34 I.P.C. and issued Ex.P-15 FIR and submitted
copies
of all concerned; Inspector of Police (P.W-15) on receiving
copy of
FIR at 11.30 a.m., visited the scene of offence and
observed the
same, prepared Ex.P-16 rough sketch, conducted inquest
over the
dead body of the deceased (Ex.P-17) in the presence
of P.W-10 and
recorded the statements of P.Ws-1 to 3, seized M.Os-15
to 20; he
also seized M.Os-1 to 9 from the person of the deceased;
he found
one small pocket notebook from the person of deceased
(Ex.P-4);
thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem
examination.
(viii) P.W-15 came to now that A-1 was taking treatment
in a
hospital at Proddutur; on 25.03.2012 on information
P.W-15 visited
Railway Station, Yerraguntia, and arrested A-1 to A-3;
on
interrogation, the accused confessed the commission
of offence in
the presence of mediator (P.W-13), seized M.Os-11 to
14, thereafter
seized motor cycle bearing No.AP 04 AF 4255 from A-2
under the
cover of Ex.P-12, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14 respectively;
the doctor
(P.W-12) conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-11 post
mortem
certificate and opined that death was due to multiple
injuries and
6
death was occurred 10 to 14 hours prior to post mortem
examination; P.W-15 also examined the other doctor (P.W-11) about
the injuries of accused; after receipt of RFSL Report (Ex.P-18)
P.W-15 filed police report (charge sheet) against the accused.
6. During trial, 15 witnesses were examinedfor the prosecution
as P.Ws-1 to 15 and 18 documents were marked as Ex.P-1 to
Ex.P-18 respectively, apart from M.Os-1 to 20.The accused
were
examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them.They denied the
same as
false. No defence witnesses were examined.
7. We perused the entire evidence on record with the assistance
of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl.Public
Prosecutor.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the case is rested on
circumstantial evidence. The evidence of P.W-12, who conducted
autopsy over dead body of the deceased on 22.03.2012 at 04.00
p.m., would show that the deceased would appear to have diedof
multiple injuries with haemorrhage, and the time of death is 10-14
hours prior to his examination. It means, the deceased would have
died in between 02.00 a.m. to 06.00 a.m. on the night of
21/22.03.2012. The evidence of P.W-2 and P.W-6 would show that
>v>’ ^
7
they saw the deceased in the company of accused in
between 09.00
p.m. to 09.30 p.m. on 21.03.2012. Therefore, the proximity
of time
gap between the last seen of deceased in the company
of accused
and his death was more than 6 to 10 hours.
9. The evidence of P.W-1 would show that they visited
the house
of accused in the night of 21.03.2012 at about 11.30
p.m. or 12-00
mid night. P.W-1 evidence would show that A-2 was present
in the
house at that time.
10. The evidence of doctor would show that the deceased
died
after attending the calls of nature, as the bladder
and rectum is
empty, and there is no pressure on the neck of deceased.
He also
did not find any cut injury on the neck of deceased.
11. P.W-1 and P.W-4 deposed that they found the dead body
of
the deceased at scene of offence at about 06.00 a.m.
on
22.03.2012. The doctor did not find any glass pieces
in the wounds.
He also deposed that the injuries No.4 and 5 are not
possible with
knife.
12. The evidence of P.W-1 as aforesaid would show that
A-2
present in his house at about 11.30 p.m. A-1 and A-3 were in the
hospital at Proddutur. Therefore, the presence of A-1 and A-3 at the
between 02.00 a.m. to 06.00 a.m.
time of death of deceased i.e. in
21/22.03.2012 is ruled out.
on
A-1 and A-3, the doctor
When coming to the injuries found on
13.
of A-1 may be
(P,W-11) evidence would show that injury No.2 and 3
contention of the accused is that
caused by beating with a stick. The
alleged offence, police detained them illegally
the next day of the
on
. The medical evidence of P.W-11
in the police station and beat them
probable the plea of the accused.
mobile of the deceased, P.W-1 or
Police did not seize the
14.
P.W-3 and the accused A1 made
P.W-3 to establish that P.W-1 and
between 09.30 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on
calls to the deceased in
lifted the call of P.W-1. The call
21.03.2012, and the deceased once
mobile phones used by the deceased,
data records relating to the
placed before the Court. As rightly pointed
P.W-1 and P.W-3 are not
the Investigation Officer did not seize
out by the learned Trial Judge
corroborate the evidence of
motor cycle of the deceased, to
the
21.03.2012 the deceased
P.W-5 and P.W-5 to show that on
P.W-2,
Yerraguntla. Later the deceased along with
along with P.W-5 went to
of accused at Tippaluru Bridge.
his motorcycle found in the company
9
15. Exs.P-5 and P-6 i.e., plaint copies in O.S.355/2012
and
356/2012 would show that the suits were filed subsequent
to the
incident in the case.Therefore, there is no reliable
evidence available
on record to establish the motive alleged by the prosecution.
16. In the light of above circumstances, which create reasonable
doubt about the last seen theory and in the absence
of evidence
establishing the motive, we are of the considered opinion
that there
i
is no credible and trustworthy evidence available on
record to
1
i
connect A-1 to A-3 with the death of the deceased.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh &Ors
Vs. State of M.P''he\6 as unde.r
7. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal case is that
if two views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. Such
is not a jurisdiction limitation on the appellate court,
but a Judge made guidelines for circumspection.
The paramount consideration of the court is to
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided."
(2002) 4 see 85.
10
In that view of the mater, we do not find any grounds
to interfere with
the findings of the learned Trial Court.
18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming
the
judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed in S.C.216/2012 on
the file of
learned II Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at
Proddutur.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
SD/- V DIWAKAR
1
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. One CC to SRI. O. KAILASHNATH REDDY Advocate [OPUCl
2. Two CCS to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of
A.P. [kOUT]
3. ^e II Additional District Sessions Judge, Kadapa
at Proddatur
(Records if Any)
4. The Sect^n Officer, Criminal Section. High Court
of A.P, at Amaravati
5. Three CD Copies
Chp
PRK
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/04/2024
ORDER
CRLA.No.932 of 2015
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS