Allowed

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2024CRLA/2263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for drowning a man in PABR dam appealed their life sentences. Finding motive unproven and relying only on a weak extra-judicial confession to a stranger, this court set aside the conviction and ordered release and refund of fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 set aside; they to be set at liberty forthwith and any fine paid refunded.

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy Vs The State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2263 & 2310 OF ?ni«

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2263 OF 2018

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy, R/o Malla Kaluva Village, Aged about 30 years, R/o Malla Kaluva Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Anantapuramu. Now residing at Jayanagar Colony, SRO Building, Kalyandurgam Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶11

...Appellant/Accused No.1 AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO Uravakonda P.S., Anantapuramu district, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

...Respondent / Complainant

¶14

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.NO. 152/2016, dated 27.07.2018 on the file of the court of Sessions Division of Anantapuramu at Anantapuramu (Before the Judge, Family Court-Cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu)

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2310 OF 2018

¶18

Between:

¶19

■ f

¶20

Vadde Sree Ramulu, S/o Vadde Ramanjineyulu, Aged about 27 years, R/o Mangalakunta Village, Kalyandurgam Mandal, Anantapuramu.

¶21

...Appellant / Accused No.2

¶22

AND

¶23

The State Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO Uravakonda P.S., Anantapuramu district, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶24

...RESPODENTS

¶25

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. V NITESH

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

Court made by the following : Common Order

¶29

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶35

AND

¶36

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶37

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2263 6b 2310 OF 2018

¶38

CrLA.No.2263 of 2018

¶39

Between:

¶40

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy, S/o. Shiva Reddy, Aged about 30 years, R/o Malla Kaluva Village, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapuram District, Now residing at Jayanagar Colony, SRO Building, Kalyandurgam Mandal, Ananthapuram District

¶41

Appellant/Accused No. 1

¶42

And

¶43

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶44

Respondent/Complainant

¶45

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava,

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶47

Crl.A.No.2310 of 2018

¶48

Vadde Sree Ramulu, S/o Vadde Ramanjineyulu, Aged about 27 years, R/o Mangalakunta Village, Kalyandurgam Mandal, Anantliapuram.

¶49

Appellant/Accused No.2

¶50

¶51

And

¶52

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶53

Respondent/Complainant

¶54

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Sri V. Nitesh Counsel for the Respondent(s): Public Prosecutor (AP)

¶55

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶56

[Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

¶57

As both the Criminal Appeals arise out of the same

¶58

Sessions Case i.e.. Sessions Case No. 152 of 2016 on^thefileof Judge, Family Court-cum-Vll Additional District and^Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, they are being disposed of by^wayof this common judgment.

¶59

Accused No.l in the above Sessions Case is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2263 of 2018; whereas Accused^No.2is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2301 of 2018. They were tried^and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 r/w 34 l.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,05,000/each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. Out^ofthe total fine amount, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was directed

¶60

¶61

to be paid to PW.l towards compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C.

¶62

Substance of the charge is that on 15.03.2015 A.l and A.2 with a common intention, caused the death of one Sivapuram Koteswaraiah @ Koti (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by forcibly drowning him into Penna Ahobilam Balancing Reservoir (PABR) Dam and also by beating^onhis head with a stick, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 l.P.C.

¶63

Case of the prosecution succinctly is thus:

¶64

PW.l is the wife, PW.2 is the father-in-law and PWs.3 and 4 are brothers of the deceased respectively, The deceased, PWs.l and 2 are residents of Borampalli Village. Originally, the deceased was resident of Mangalakunta Village and as PW.l is the only daughter of PW.2, the deceased^also used to live along with PW.l and 2 at Borampalli Village. The deceased was working as Micro Irrigation Officer in Drip Irrigation Project at Kambaduru Mandal. A. 1 was doing business in Drip Irrigation material in Kalyandurgam. A.2 is friend of deceased as well as A. 1.

¶65

¶66

(a) On the morning of 15.03.2015, A. 1 telephoned to PW. 1, who handed over the phone to the deceased. Thereafter,^the deceased informed PW. 1 stating that he along with^A.1 were going to Kasapuram to attend his younger brother’s marriage in a temple. Accordingly, the deceased left with A.l on a motor bike at about 7.00 a.m. At about 2.00 p.m., the deceased telephoned to PW.l and informed her that after attending the marriage, he was returning to home. When PW.l enquired the deceased, he informed that he is coming along with A.l 8& A.2 who were also with him.

¶67

(b) In the evening, when PW.l telephoned to the deceased, his mobile phone was switched off. At about 10.30 p.m., on the same day, she received a phone call from PW.7,^andwas informed that the deceased fell into Korakolla dam waters. Immediately, PW. 1 along with her parents and relatives^went to Korakolla dam where they searched for the deceased on that night, on 16.03.2015 and on 17.03.2015 also, but^the deceased was not traced. On the morning of 18.03.2015,^the dead body of the deceased was found floating in the^dam waters. They identified the dead body of the deceased^and noticed injuries on the right side above the right eye, left

¶68

¶69

cheek and over his chin on the left side. They also found injuries on the chest and on the neck of the deceased.

¶70

(c) Immediately, PWs.l and 2 went to Uravakonda Police Station and expressed their suspicion against A. 1^8&A.2. She gave a report Ex.Pl to the police. PW.18, Assistant^Sub- Inspector of Police (ASl) of Uravakonda Police Station^received Ex.Pl from PW.l and registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2015 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.PlO is the copy of^F.I.R. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence and got^liftedthe body from the water, He conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators, who were not examined^by the prosecution, He summoned the blood relatives of the deceased i.e., PWs.l to 3 and recorded their statements. He seized gold chain, gold ring, mobile phone and M.Os 1 to 4 at the scene. After registering the crime, no investigation was taken up by PWs.18, 19 86 20 except sending the dead^bodyof the deceased for post-mortem examination.

¶71

PW.17, Assistant Professor, Government Medical College, Ananthapuram, conducted autopsy over the dead body between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 18.03.2015. He found seven external injuries over the dead body. He^opined

¶72

¶73

that the cause of death was due to “asphyxia resulting^from antimortem drowning, associate with intra cranial bleeding He issued final opinion under resulting from head injury”. Ex.P8 and preliminary report under Ex.P.9.

¶74

After receiving the final opinion-Ex.P.8, PW.19, Sub-Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Police Station^alteredthe FIR to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.ll is the copy^ofaltered FIR. On the same day, PW.20, Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Police Station received the altered FIR and visited^Borampalli Village on 20.08.2015 and examined PWs.l to 4. He visited PABR dam and recorded the statements of PWs.5, 9 and others. He visited Hamsayapalli Village and Korrakodu Village and recorded statements of PWs.6 & 10. Then, he went to the house of accused and found them absconding. On 21.08.2015, PW.20 visited Mangalakunta Village and recorded statements of PWs.7, 8, 11 86 12.

¶75

While so, on 10.10.2015 both the accused approached PW.15-V.R.O. and made a confession stating that they^killed the deceased. Immediately, PW.15 went to the police^station both of them to PW.20 along with A. 1 86 A.2 and handed over PW.20 recorded confession along with Ex.P.5 statement.

¶76

¶77

statements of A. 1 86 A.2 separately. On their confession, PW.20 recovered M.0.9 paddle at PABR dam. He seized^the same under a cover of panchanama Ex.P.7. He prepared rough sketch-Ex.P.7 at the scene of offence. On 29.10.2015 he visited Kuderu Police Station and recorded the statement of A.S.l and another. After completion of investigation,^PW.20 laid the charge sheet.

¶78

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 21 and marked Exs.Pl to P15, apart from marking^M.Os.l to 9.

¶79

When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them. Of course, they did not choose to examine any defence witness, except marking Exs.Dl 86 D2-portion^of161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

¶80

Heard Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/A. 1 in Crl.A.No.2263 of 2018 and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the appellant/A.2 in Crl.A.No.2310 of 2018 and Sri S.Dusyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

¶81

¶82

We have perused the entire material on record. As seen from the evidence of PWs.l to 4, the motive for the^accusedto kill the deceased is that A. 1 borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the deceased for the purpose of^hisdrip material business. The deceased said to have pledged the gold belonging to PW.l and also borrowed money from^PW.2 and others and paid to A.l. Only to avoid the said repayment, A.l and A.2 hatched a plan to kill the deceased. But, as seen from the evidence of PWs.l to 4, no material^has been placed to show that the deceased lent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to A.l, though the prosecution witnesses in their evidence has stated that the deceased obtained loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Kalyandurgam Branch, But the prosecution did not produce any material evidencing^the loan obtained by the deceased, Further, PW.2 went to the extent of saying that after selling his house, he gave^moneyto the deceased, who lent the same to A. 1. Even with^regardto the sale of the said house, no material has been placed^bythe prosecution. As such, the prosecution is unable to^provethe said loan theory, so as to establish the motive on^thepartof A.l and A.2 to kill the deceased.

¶83

¶84

So far as the actual incident is concerned, according^to PWs.l to 4, the deceased went to Kasapuram on the fateful day to attend the marriage of his younger brother,^whichwas scheduled at 9.30 a.m. on 15.03.2015.

¶85

The bridegroom, who was examined as PW.4 has stated that though the marriage was scheduled at 9.30 a.m., the deceased could not attend the marriage in-time, The deceased came to the marriage at about 10.00 a.m. along^with A.l and A.2. P.W.4 in his evidence has categorically^admitted that there are no photographs available to show that^A.l,A.2 and the deceased attended the marriage on that day. If really the deceased, who is none other than elder brother^ofPW.4, attended the marriage, certainly they would have taken photographs in the marriage. PW.4, in his evidence,^hasalso admitted that PWs.2 to 4 are not having cordial terms^with the deceased. They are not having talking terms with^the deceased. PW.4 also admitted in his cross-examination stating that the deceased, A. 1 86 A.2 are not seen^inanyofthe photographs taken at the time of his marriage. As such,^the prosecution is not able to produce any material to^showthat

¶86

¶87

the marriage of PW.4 was performed on 15.03.2015 and^the deceased along with the accused attended the said marriage.

¶88

Coming to the actual incident, though PWs.l to 4 came to know about the drowning of the deceased in the dam^on the same day i.e., on 15.03.2015 at about 10.30 p.m.,^they did not choose to give any report to the police till^18.03.2015, the day on which body was floated in the waters of^PABR dam. In the charge sheet it is alleged that PWs.l to^3wentto PABR dam on the night of 15.03.2015, in search of the deceased and in the meanwhile, PW.l went to Kuderu^Police Station and presented a report to the police on 16.03.2015 about the missing of the deceased. LW.18, the ASl said to have registered a case, but curiously though LW.18^wascited as one of the list of witnesses, the prosecution deliberately withhold him and he was not examined. If only LW.18^was examined, the earliest version of PW.l ought to have^been revealed. As such, the prosecution withhold LW.18 without examining him, suppressing the earliest version of the prosecution.

¶89

Right from the beginning, PWs.l to 4 were under the impression that the deceased fell down in the waters^ofPABR

¶90

¶91

dam. But, nobody ventured to present a report to the police till 18.03.2015, on which date, the body floated in^thewaters of PABR dam. Further, the evidence of the doctor-PW. 17, who conducted post-mortem shows that the deceased received several injuries. According to PW.17, the cause of^deathwas due to asphyxia resulting from antimortem drowning, associate with intra cranial bleeding resulting from head injury .

¶92

Further, the prosecution is relying on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by A. 1 and A.2 before PW.15, who was working as VRO of Lathavaram. According to PW.15, A.l and A.2 approached him on 10.10.2015^when he was in his office. Immediately, PW.15 took A.l §6^A.2 to PW.20, Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Police Station, and handed over both of them along with a statement Ex.P.5. In his evidence, PW.15 has specifically admitted that^A.l and A.2 are strangers to him and they are not residents of Lathavaram Village and they hail from a different village. PW.15 also stated that he has not recorded any statement from A.l 86 A.2. He simply handed over A.l 86 A.2 to^PW.20 along with his statement. Further, the said extra judicial

¶93

¶94

confession was made nearly after 7 months from the^dateof incident.

¶95

It is trite that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in Pawan Kumar Chourasia Vs. State of Bihar^ has held that the extra judicial confession^isavery weak piece of evidence and it can be used as a corroborative piece to the other circumstantial evidence. But, in^thecaseon hand, the prosecution has neither proved motive nor^lastseen theory, and as such, the extra judicial confession alone cannot be used against the accused, which was made to a stranger. As such, the prosecution neither able to prove motive, nor killing of the deceased by A.l & A.2. Not^asingle circumstance has been established by the prosecution^beyond reasonable doubt to connect A.l & A.2 with alleged^offence.

¶96

In view of the above reasons, we have no other go, except to set-aside the conviction and sentence recorded^by the trial Court.

¶97

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the

¶98

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

¶99

¶100

Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section appellants / accused 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., mde judgment, dated 27.07.2018 passed in .152 of 2016 by the learned Judge, Family Sessions Case No Court-cumAdditional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, IS hereby set-aside.

¶101

Nos.l and 2 shall be set at 20. The appellants/accused not required to be detained in any liberty forthwith, if they are other case or crime. The fine amount if any, paid by the appellants / accused Nos.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. shall be refunded to them.

¶102

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶103

sheill stand closed.

¶104

//TRUE COPY//

¶105

SDI- P. VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR ^^ -o^ V SECTION OFFICER

¶106

¶107

Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu 1. The Family Court-cum-VII Anantapuramu District

¶108

The Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu Anantapuramu District

¶109

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda, Anantapuramu District

¶110

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

¶111

The Superintendent, Open Air Jail, Prisoner Agriculture Colony, Ananthapuram District.

¶112

The Station House Officer, Uravakonda Police Station, Anantapuramu district.

¶113

One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Advocate [OPUC]

¶114

One CC to Sri. V. Nitesh Advocate [OPUC]

¶115

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT]

¶116

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

11.Three CD Copies

PRK

HIGH COURT .f f

DATED;19/03/2024 > 1

ORDER

CRLA.No.2263 of 2018

ALLOWING THE CRLA’S 1

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamireddy Suresh Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Jalaluddin, Spsr Nellore Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Martha Yogamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Narkedimilli Srinu at Chepala Srinu, Wg.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Vadde Sree Ramulu Vs The State Andhra Pradesh

C.Sivappa at Siva, Chittoor Dt and Anr., Vs the State, Rep Pp.

Muragadas Balaji, Thiruvannamalai Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd