Allowed

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, Kurnool Dist. and 2 Othrs v. P.P., Hyd

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2024CRLA/727/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on three appellants convicted of murder. The court Held that conflicting prosecution witness versions, lack of medical correlation, and insufficient call data evidence warranted acquittal on the ground of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set-aside; accused acquitted; directed to surrender to Central Prison, Kadapa.

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, Kurnool Dist. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.727 of 2016

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment made In SC No.331/2014 dated 20.07.2016 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, S/o. Sunkanna, Aged 41 years, R/o.Paramatur Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (A-1)

¶10

Boya Chilakala Vijayudu @ Vijay, S/o.Ramudu, aged 21 years, R/o.Paramatur Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (A-2)

¶11

Boya Chilakala Subbarayudu, S/o.Sunkanna, Aged 50 years, R/o.Paramatur Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (A-3)

¶12

...Appellants/Accused

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Amaravathi.

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition filed under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C praying^that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed on 2"^ appellant Boya Chilakala Vijayudu @ Vijay, S/o. Ramudu, aged 21 years, R/o. Paramatur Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District in SC No. 331 of 2014 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, Kurnool District and direct release the petitioner on Bail between 27.2.2020 to 07.3.2020.

¶18

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel representing Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶22

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH

¶23

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶24

PRESENT:

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶26

AND

¶27

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

¶28

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.727 OF 2016

¶29

Between:

¶30

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, S/o.Sunkanna, 41 years, R/o.Paramatur village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (Al)

¶31

Boya Chilakala Vijayudu @ Vijay, S/o.Ramudu, 21 years, R/o.Paramatur village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (A2)

¶32

Boya Chilakala Subbarayudu, S/o.Sunkanna, 50 years, R/o.Paramatur village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. (A3)

¶33

... Appellants/Accused

¶34

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶35

... Respondent

¶36

Counsel for the Appellant(s) Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/State : Sri Y.Nagi Reddy FYiblic Prosecutor This Court made the following:

¶37

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 Dt: 05.03.2024

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

Page 2 of 10

JUDGMENT

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

¶42

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by^the learned III Additional Sessions Court, Kurnool at Nandyal vide Sessions Case No.331 of 2014, dated 20.07.2016, all the three accused in the said sessions case filed the present criminal appeal before this Court.

¶43

The appellants herein/accused were tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

¶44

Substance of the charge is that, on 02.03.2013 at about 12.30 noon, A1 to A3 with a common intention, caused^thedeath of one Telugu Manohar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in Komati Ramanamma Ralla Gadda Chenu at Paramatur village^and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.

¶45

Brief facts of the case of prosecution, is as follows:

¶46

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 KSR, JSiBVLNC, J Dt: 05.03.2024 Page 3 of 10

¶47

P.W.l is the father, P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is working as labour under P.W.l. All the accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Paramatur village of Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. P.W.l was having two sons and one daughter. A1 and A3 are brothers^and A2 is son of Al.

¶48

About four months prior to the date of incident, wife^ofA3 warned the wife of de/acto-complainant that her son i.e., the deceased was having illegal intimacy with daughter of Al and asked to control the deceased; on that, the wife of the defactocomplainant reprimanded the deceased; as the daughter of Al was missing, the accused kept watch on the house of the deceased.

¶49

While so, on 02.03.2013, the deceased received a phone^call from Al and A3 around 11.30 am, who asked the deceased to come to their agricultural field to discuss about the harvesting machine; on that, the deceased went to the agricultural^fieldson motorcycle by informing his father, P.W.l. After sometime, between 11.30 am and 12.00 noon, having suspicion,^P.W.lwent to the fields of Ramana Reddy, where P.W.2 was working^with harvesting machine; P.W.l asked P.W.2 to call the deceased; P.W.2 called the deceased by mobile telephone, but his cellphone

¶50

¶51

¶52

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 Dt; 05.03.2024 KSR. J&BVLNC, J Page 4 of 10 was switched off; due to suspicion, P.Ws 1 to 3 went to the fields of Komati Ramanamma Ralla Gadda chenu on a tractor; at that time, P.Ws 1 to 3 found A1 and A3 pulling the neck of the deceased with a towel and were trying to strangulate him; while A2 was holding the hands and legs of the deceased; on seeing P.Ws 1 to 3, all the three accused fled away; P.Ws 1 to 3 observed the deceased in critical condition and found rupture around his neck and ear. Immediately, P.Ws 1 to 3 took the deceased on the tractor to the hospital, but, on the way, the deceased died; then, the deceased was brought back to the house; P.W.l telephoned^to Bandi Atmakur Police and informed about the incident.

¶53

On the same day about 3.00 pm P.W. 11/Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Bandi Atmakur PS received a statement of P.W. 1 from the Sub-Inspector of Police and registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 2013 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Ex.P7 is the FIR. At about 3.30 pm, P.W. 12 having received phone call from the Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation; immediately, he went to the scene of offence. he prepared an Observation Report at the scene of offence,^which was not marked; he also prepared rough sketch under Ex.PS; he did not find the motorcycle in which the deceased went to the scene of offence; from the scene, he came back to the village and

¶54

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 Dt: 05.03.2024 Page 5 of 10

¶55

KSR, J&BVLSC, J

¶56

from there to police station; thereafter, he held inquest^overthe dead body in the presence of mediators P.Ws 8 and 9;^Ex.PSisthe Inquest Report. After inquest, he sent the dead body for conducting Post-Mortem examination; on 03.03.2013, P.W. 10/ Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Nandyal conducted autopsy over the dead body at about 11.15 am; he opined^the cause of death was due to throttling of the neck causing respiratory compromise; he issued Post-Mortem Certificate, Ex.P6; on 01.05.2013, P.W. 12 arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

¶57

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 13, got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.11, apart from exhibiting^MOs.l to 3. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them^from the prosecution witnesses, but they did not choose to examine any witness in their defence.

¶58

Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants^and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶59

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 KSR, J& BVLNC, J Dt: 05.03.2024 Page 6 of 10

¶60

The learned Senior Counsel states that the prosecution^has come up with two different versions. The first version is spoken to by the so called eyewitnesses P.Ws 1 to 3 and the second version is spoken to by P.W.6. As such, the prosecution is^not able to come up with the correct version.

¶61

The first version, as spoken by P.Ws 1 to 3 is that the deceased received phone call from A1 and A3 at about 11.30 am, who asked the deceased to come to their agricultural land to discuss about the harvesting machine. Accordingly,^thedeceased went to the fields of accused on a motorbike. Sometime thereafter, P.W.l asked his another son P.W.2 to telephone to the^deceased asking him to bring lunch for the coolies. Accordingly, P.W.2 telephoned to the deceased, but his cell phone was^switchedoff. On suspicion, P.Ws 1 to 3 went to the fields of the accused on a tractor where they found A1 and A2 pulling the neck of the deceased with a towel and were trying to strangulate him, while A2 was holding the hands and legs of the deceased. On seeing P.Ws 1 to 3, all the accused fled away. When P.Ws 1 to 3 were bringing the deceased to hospital, he died on the way. Thereafter, on the report given by P.W.l, crime was registered by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police vide Crime No. 19 of 2023. But, curiously, the statement recorded from P.W.l was not marked.

¶62

¶63

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 Dt; 05.03.2024 Page 7 of 10

¶64

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶65

His thumb impression on the statement alone was marked as Ex.Pl.

¶66

The second version projected by the prosecution is through P.W.6. According to P.W.6 on 02.03.2013 at about 11.00 am^he went towards Puttachintamanu fields to answer calls of nature. At that time, A1 and A3 approached P.W.6 and enquired^aboutAl’s daughter and immediately A3 called the deceased over phone and P.W.6 enquired with the deceased about the missing of Al’s daughter. The deceased has stated that he is not aware of the daughter of Al. Then, A1 and A3 asked P.W.6 to come to their agricultural fields along with the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.6 along with the deceased went to the fields of the accused on a motorcycle. When P.W.6 and deceased reached near Jammichettu, Al to A3 were present. Al and A3 questioned^the deceased about the daughter of Al, who disclosed that^he is not aware anything. Then, A3 pulled the deceased from the^bike to ground, Al and A3 tied a towel around his neck and pulled the towel on either side, while A2 was holding the hands and legs of the deceased. P.W.6 tried to rescue him, Al and A3^threatened him with dire consequences and asked him to go away along with motorcycle. Due to fear, P.W.6 left the place and went to his friends house at Markapur and stayed there for few days without

¶67

¶68

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Dt: 05.03.2024 Page 8 of 10 informing anyone. Thereafter, P.W.6 threw the motorbike in Bommalabavi and went to Markapur to his friends house and stayed there for some days.

¶69

As per the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, there is no reference to the presence of P.W.6 at the scene of offence. Similarly, as per the evidence of P.W.6, there is no reference of witnessing^theincident by P.Ws 1 to 3. The learned Senior Counsel contends that according to P.W.6, he witnessed the incident and it is he, who took the deceased to A1 to A3, but, curiously P.W.6^didnotinform anyone about the incident, he came to the village after 23 days and his statement was recorded by P.W.13 on 26.03.2013. As such, the learned counsel states that P.W.6 is not a reliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his evidence,^whocame forward with the present version after 23 days from^thedateof incident.

¶70

So far as P.Ws 1 to 3 are concerned, in their earliest version, they have stated before the police stating that the accused might have killed the deceased either by throttling or by strangulating him with a rope. If, really P.Ws 1 to 3 have witnessed the incident, they ought not to have stated before the police expressing their suspicion over the accused stating that the accused might have throttled the deceased or strangulated^him

¶71

Crl.A.No.727 of 2016 Dt: 05.03.2024

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

\ \

Page 9 of 10

with a rope. As such, no reliance can be placed on^{theevidenceof} P.Ws 1 to 3 also.

¶76

Further, the medical evidence also does not corroborate with the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.IO, the Doctor, who conducted Post-Mortem examination, states that the accused died due to throttling^and not by strangulation. As such, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and 6 by the medical evidence.

¶77

According to P.W.6, his statement under Section 164 CrPC is recorded but, the prosecution did not produce such^statement during the course of trial. Further, the Investigating^Officerinhis evidence has specifically stated that he has not conducted investigation to trace out the bike bearing registration^No.AP21K 8652 in which the deceased went to the fields of accused.

¶78

So far as the call data relied on by the trial Court is concerned, there is no certification for the said call data as there is no evidence of service provider to that effect. As such, the call data produced by the prosecution cannot be taken into consideration. In fact, the Investigating Officer did^{notevenbother} to find out the ownership of the mobile phone. He did not produce any material to show that the deceased is the owner of mobile

¶79

¶80

Crl.A.No.727of2016 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Dt: 05 03.2024 Page 10 of 10 phone, which the prosecution alleges. As the prosecution came up with two different versions, which is not corroborated by each other, A1 to A3 are entitled to be given benefit of doubt in the circumstances of the case.

¶81

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is Allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in Sessions Case No.331 of 2014, dated.20.07.2016 is hereby set-aside and they are acquitted for the charges levelled against them. As A1 to A3 were already granted bail by this Court vide Order, dated 02.08.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021, they are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa of YSR Kadapa District and comply the formalities in terms of the Judgment of the Batchu Rangarao and others Vs. State of Andhra PradeshK

¶82

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this criminal

¶83

appeal, shall stand closed. 2016 (3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P)

¶84

//TRUE COPY//

¶85

SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR 6

¶86

SECTION OFFICER

¶87

To 1. The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nandyal, Kurnool District(with records) 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal,^{KurnoolDistrict.} 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Inspector of Police, Nandyal Police Station,^{KurnoolDistrict.} 5. One CC to Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of^{AndhraPradeshatAmaravathi} [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court^{ofA.P.atAmaravati.} 8. Three CD Copies TK ssb D -A P'<

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/03/2024

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.727 of 2016

-p~7
o\
g 0 2 APR 2021, rn
^ o? ••
"K ★ Current Section . 'W

¶93

.4pp

¶94

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, Kurnool Dist. and 2 Othrs v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boya Chilakala Ramudu, Kurnool Dist. and 2 Othrs v. P.P., Hyd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Laxmirajyam and Anr. Vs the State of A.P.

Moganti Siva Kameswara Rao, W.G.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Kamasani Nagaraja Reddy (A-1) Chittoor Dt., Vs the State of Ap., Rep Pp.

A Parameswar Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch Ravindra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kamparaju Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh