Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Boya Hothuru Alliswamy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 2026
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
1
Date of reserved for orders :16.04.2026
Date of pronouncement :15.07.2026
Date of uploading : 15.07.2026
APHC010702812018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3566]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2593/2018
Between:
1. BOYA HOTHURU ALLISWAMY, R/O. BODASANIPALLI VILLAGE,
VAJRAKARURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
2. DAYYALA THIMMAIAH, R/O. DEGULAPADU VILLAGE, CHIPPAGIRI
MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
3. YERURU MANJUNATH, R/O. DEGULAPADU VILLAGE, CHIPPAGIRI
MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
4. KURUBA LAKSHMI DEVI, R/O. D.NO.7/27-A, BHAGYANAGAR,
GUNTAKAL TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.
...APELLANT(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPODENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High
Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal
Appeal to this Honorable Court against the Judgment of the VI Addl. Sessions
2
Judge, Anantapur at Gooty passed in S.C.No. 492 of 2016, dt.10-7-2018, for
the following among other grounds.
IA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
condone the delay of 9 days in filing the Appeal against the Judgment passed
in S.C.No. 492 of 2016, dt.10-7-2018 on the file of the VI Addl. Sessions
Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty in the interest of justice.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
Pleased to release Petitioner/Appellant No.1 on bail for a period of Twenty
days for the purpose of attending his father death ceremony pending appeal in
Crl.A NO 2593 of 2018 against the Judgment Dated 10.07.2018 in SC No 492
of 2016 passed by the VI Addl.Sessions Judge Anantapur At Gooty and to
pass
Counsel for the Apellant(S):
1. C VASUNDHARA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
And
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2593 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)
Introductory:-
1. [i] This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by Accused
Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.492 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions
Judge, Anantapuramu at Gooty, questioning the conviction and sentence
imposed on them under the judgment dated 10.07.2018, whereunder A1 to A3
were found guilty for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 379 IPC
and A4 was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC. A1 to
A3 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine directed to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 302
IPC. They are also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one month for the offence under Section 364 IPC. Further, they are
directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and also
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of one month for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Further, they
4are also to sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 379
IPC. A4 is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
month for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 IPC. The sentences of
imprisonment imposed for the said offences were directed to run concurrently.
Case of the Prosecution:-
2. [i] The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Bhusetty
Susheelamma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), aged about 62
years, was living in Door No.7/25-1, Bhagyanagar, Guntakal Town. Accused
No.4 is her elder daughter. P.W.1-Sura Sujatha is her younger daughter.
Sura Nagaraju (L.W.2) is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.2-Dasari Sreenivasulu
and P.W.4-Shaik Habeeb are neighbors of the deceased. A1 was a tenant of
the deceased. A4, being the daughter of the deceased, used to come to the
house of the deceased and got acquaintance with A1. The acquaintance
between A1 and A4 developed into a physical relationship, on account of
which the deceased used admonish A4. For which, A4 developed a grudge
against her mother (the deceased) and also for the reason that the deceased
was showing difference between P.W.1 and A4. A4 offered to give money to
A1 to get rid of deceased and A1 has discussed the same with his friends i.e.
A2 and A3 and they also agreed to aid in the commission of the offence.
Accordingly, they made a plan and went to the house of the deceased
5
informing her that her absconded second son is present in Bellary and
assured that they will take her to see him. Believing their words, the
deceased boarded the motorcycle of A2 and he took her to Gummanuru
Vanka near Chippagiri Mandal, Kurnool District on 15.05.2015. A1 and A3
followed them to the said place and all of them had opened the food packets
at one place. After serving food, A2 took a stick and beat the deceased on
her head, whereupon she fell on the ground. Then, A3 also beat her on the
head with a stone. Thereafter, A1 took the same stone and struck the
deceased on her face. Consequently, the deceased died. After confirming the
death of the deceased, they took the gold ear studs, gold chain and gold
bangles worn by the deceased. They dug a pit at a nearby place, buried the
dead body of the deceased and left the place.
[ii] When Shaik Habeeb-P.W.4 informed P.W.1 that the deceased is
not seen since 16.05.2015, P.W.1 along with A4 and the daughter of A4,
rushed to the house of deceased. They found that the main door of the house
was locked from both inside and outside and the back door of the house was
locked from outside. On enquiry, they were informed that A1 was also found
missing from that day. The mobile number of the deceased, bearing
No.81258 03273, was also switched off. Thereafter, P.W.1 submitted
complaint dated 12.06.2015, marked as Ex.P1 to the Police-P.W.9. and on
the strength of the same, Crime No.49 of 2015 under the head of “Woman
Missing” was registered vide Ex.P16.
6
[iii] On 10.07.2015, A1 to A3 approached P.W.5, V.R.O. Guntakal
Town and confessed that A1 had taken the hut of the deceased for rent and
also about the development of an illegal relationship between A1 and A4, the
deceased admonishing A4, A4 abetting A1 to get rid of the deceased and A1,
in turn, taking the aid of A2 and A3. They further confessed that A2 brought
the deceased along with him making her to believe that her missing son will
be shown to her if she accompanies him and also about all of them together
eliminating the deceased.
[iv] Ex.P6 is the extra-judicial confessional statement of the accused
Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, P.W.5 took A1 to A3 and handed them over to the S.I.
of Police along with their statements and his requisition Ex.P7.
[v] On the strength of Ex.P7, Ex.P17 was registered altering the
Sections from “Woman Missing” to Sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 109 r/w. 34
IPC. The altered FIR-Ex.P17 is dated 10.07.2015.
[vi] Further, investigation was taken up by P.W.10. In the presence
of Angadi Petaiah Ravi Kumar-L.W.7 and P. Kedaranath Reddy-P.W.5, the
accused were examined. They stated that the gold ornaments of the
deceased and the red-coloured Pulser 150 CC mortorcycle involved in the
offence are with A4. The accused then led P.W.10 to the scene of offence
where they had buried the dead body of the deceased. Thereupon, a
requisition was made by P.W.10 to P.W.7-M. Akbar Hussain, Tahsildar to visit
7
the scene of offence for exhumation of the dead body and for holding an
inquest thereon.
[vii] On 11.07.2015, a further requisition was sent to the Area
Hospital, Guntakal, for conducting exhumation and autopsy. Thereupon,
P.W.8-Dr.Kalyan Chakravarthi and L.W.13-Dr. Arshad Parwez came to the
scene of offence, where summons were served on the blood relatives of the
deceased, witnesses and inquest panchayatdars. Inquest was conducted
over the dead body. The blood relatives identified the dead body of the
deceased based on the wearing apparels, chappals and pieces of gold
ornaments i.e. M.O.Nos.1 and 6 to 9. Observation of the scene of offence
was made. A1 to A3 shown a stone stained with blood, which is used by them
for beating the deceased. P.W.7 has seized the earth in the pit and its control
earth recovered for sending the same to the RFSL and the skull of the
deceased was also preserved for sending into RFSL examination.
[viii] During the inquest, the statements of P.W.1, Sura Nagaraju-
L.W.2, L.W.3-Chinthala Anantha Setty and P.W.4-Shaik Habib were recorded.
The implements used for digging the pit were thorny bushes and they were
also recovered at the instance of accused vide Crowbar-M.O.No.11, Plastic
bucket-M.O.No.14 and Stick-M.O.No.13 used for beating the deceased. All
the said articles were seized under cover of mahazarnama. A1 to A3 showed
the house of A4 to P.W.10 and on enquiry conducted in the presence of a
Home Guard and mediators, A4 produced one gold chain, one portion of gold
chain, two gold bangles, two ear studs i.e. M.O.Nos.2 to 5 and also showed
8
the motorcycle parked in the verandah-M.O.No.15, which is an unregistered
motorcycle bearing No.DHZCCJZ58441.
[ix] Further, P.W.1 identified M.O.Nos.2 to 5 as belonging to her
mother (the deceased) when the identification parade was conducted by
P.W.6. The identification proceedings are marked as Ex.P8.
[x] Apart from the confession, the material collected during the
investigation clearly indicates the guilt of all the accused for the offences
under which they are charged.
3. On plea of innocence, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the
trial in respect of the charges under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 379 IPC
against A1 to A3 and under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC against A4.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 11 and
marked Ex.P1 to P19 and M.O.Nos.1 to 15. After the closure of prosecution
evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they
denied the incriminating material.
5. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences
with which they are charged and imposed the conviction and sentence
mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
9
Arguments in the appeal:
For the appellants / accused:
6. [i] This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There is no
sufficient and legally acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the
alleged commission of the offence. The extra-judicial confession allegedly
made by the accused is not admissible in evidence. There is an inordinate
delay in giving the complaint to the Police. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are strangers
to P.W.5. There is no justification as to why they shall make a confession
before P.W.5 when he is in no way helpful to them. No reliance can be placed
on such a weak and doubtful evidence.
[ii] The motive alleged by the prosecution is very weak and there is
no consistency in the motive stated. The initial complaint, Ex.P1, is silent
about the alleged motive, particularly the illicit affair between A1 and A4. The
recovery of M.O.Nos.2 to 5 from the possession of A4 is unbelievable and
cannot be accepted. The identification of M.O.Nos.2 to 5 by P.W.1 is also not
acceptable, particularly for the reason that the said items are common in
nature. The exhumation of the dead body and its identification by the family
members also suffer from inherent improbabilities. Therefore, the same
cannot be accepted.
[iii] The confession leading to the recovery of the material objects
and the dead body of the deceased also suffers from improbabilities.
[iv] In view of time gap between the alleged offence and the
confession, the recovery is highly doubtful and the same is not natural. There
10
is an inordinate delay in giving the complaint. The witnesses MRO and VRO
are stock witnesses. The confession allegedly made before such stock
witnesses shall not inspire the confidence of the Court. A retracted extra-
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless there is
corroboration cannot be believed. There is no evidence proving all the links in
the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution. The recovery of the
dead body and the articles / material belonging to the deceased pursuant to
the confession of the accused cannot be believed in the facts of the present
case. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.
For the Prosecution:
7. [i] The evidence of P.W.1 is clear and categorical as to the access
of A1 and A4 to the deceased. A4, being the daughter of the deceased, had
sufficient access to her. A1, being a tenant of the deceased and got affair with
A4 can have motive to eliminate the deceased as the deceased is objecting
the illicit affair between A1 & A4 and that A4 is also having displeasure for
deceased treating P.W.1 more cordially and giving monies to P.W.1. The
conduct of A4, who accompanied P.W.1 while giving Ex.P1 report and the
recovery of the gold jewellery from her after the discovery of the dead body
etc. would clearly indicate the involvement of the A4 and her abetment and the
motive for A1.
[ii] The confession made by A1 and A2 along with A3 before P.W.5
is sufficient to connect all the accused with the commission of the offence.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution and the reasoning of the learned
11
Sessions Judge in convicting the accused are sound and sufficient. The
prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
and that they are no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed by confirming the
conviction and sentence.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is
given to the arguments advanced by both sides
9. Now, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:
1) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the
appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 364,
302, 201 and 379 IPC against A1 to A3 and under Section 302 r/w 109
IPC against A4 under which they are charged and whether the
conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Sessions
Judge under the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed in
Sessions Case No.492 of 2016 are sustainable in law and on facts or
require any interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent?
2) What is the result of the appeal?
Point No.1:
Identity of corpus of Susheelamma and nature of death of the deceased:
10. [i] Learned counsel for the appellants / accused would submit that
the identity of the corpus itself is highly doubtful and that the prosecution failed
to establish that the dead body exhumed was that of the deceased,
12
B. Susheelamma. The evidence of P.W.7, Tahsildar, Chippagiri Mandal,
Kurnool District would show that on 10.07.2015, the C.I. of Police, I Town
Police Station made a request to conduct an inquest over the dead body of
the deceased Suseelamma. Accordingly, he along with the V.R.O proceeded
to the fields at Gummanuru Village, by which time accused Nos.1 to 3 and the
Police were present and they found one tomb. Thereafter requisition was sent
to the Forensic Professor, Medical College, Kurnool to exhume the dead body
of Suseelamma from the tomb shown by accused and conduct a post-mortem
examination. The help of the doctors from the local medical college,
Anantapur and the Government Area Hospital, Guntakal was taken while
exhuming the dead body in the presence of P.W.7 and in the presence of
blood relatives, the body was exhumed. M.O.Nos.1, 6, 8 to 10 were found on
the dead body under Ex.P3 and he has examined P.W.1, L.W.2-Sura
Nagaraju, L.W.3-Chinthala Anantha Setty and P.W.4 vide Ex.P9 and Ex.P10
and all the inquestdars opined that A4 got killed Suseelamma (deceased) with
the help of A1 to A3.
[ii] During the cross-examination of P.W.7, the identity of the
deceased Suseelamma (deceased) is not disputed.
[iii] P.W.8, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy on
the exhumed body along with his team stated about the saree, blouse and
inner petticoat, gold colour dollar having face of Lord Venkateswara, a cut
piece of gold colour chain and a pair of sky-blue colour chappals vide
M.O.Nos.1 and 6 to 10 articles recovered from the dead body. His evidence is
13
clear that P.W.1 identified those articles and stated that the dead body
belongs to her mother. Basing on his external and internal examination of the
corpus, he has opined that the cause of death is due to severe head injury.
This suggests that the death of the deceased is not natural but homicidal.
[iv] P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased deposed that she identified
all the belongings of her mother at the time of exhumation viz. Saree, blouse,
petticoat, slippers, gold colour dollar having face of Lord Venkateswara, a cut
piece of gold colour chain and a pair of sky blue colour chappals in the
presence of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the other witnesses etc.
Therefore, the identity of the deceased and nature of death of the deceased
being homicidal are clear. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge to that
extent are fit for concurrence.
Motive:
11. [i] In cases where there are no direct witnesses for any crime and
where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence motive plays an
important role. In the present case, the motive attributed to the accused is
that A1 and A4 were having an illicit affair and the deceased used to
admonish A4 (daughter of the deceased), for which the A4 developed grudge.
Further, the deceased was giving priority and monies to P.W.1 and for that
reason, A4 developed jealous against the P.W.1 and hatred against the
deceased. Hence, she prompted A1 to eliminate the deceased by assuring
that money will be given to him and that the deceased will not be an
obstruction to their illicit intimacy. A1, in turn, has taken the assistance of A2
14
and A3 to eliminate the deceased. This version of the prosecution is traceable
to the confession made by the accused to P.W.5. The argument of the
learned counsel for the accused is that the confession of the accused cannot
be the basis to implicate them, particularly when the same is retracted and not
properly proved. For the illicit affair between A1 and A4, the prosecution would
rely on the evidence that A1 was the tenant of the deceased and that A4 was
also living with the deceased for some time and that A4 is having access to
the deceased quite often. Whether there is any evidence of the neighbours or
the other family members of the deceased to indicate the instances of such an
illicit relationship and the objection of the deceased in that regard is an
important question. P.W.1, who is the daughter of the deceased and sister of
A4 has set the criminal law into motion. As per her evidence, she received
information about the missing of her mother (the deceased) and such missing
was from 16.05.2015. The information was received from one Shaik Habeeb-
L.W.4. On receiving such information, she went to the house of her mother
and noticed that the main door was locked from both inside and outside,
whereas back door was locked from outside. She has submitted report to the
Police on 12.06.2015 vide Ex.P1. On 11.07.2015, she got information about
the tracing of dead body. It is relevant to note that when she went to the
house of the deceased on the information from Shaik Habeeb-L.W.4, A4 was
also with her and accompanied her to the Police station also. P.W.1 did not
speak anything about relationship between A1 & A4.
15
[ii] P.W.2, neighbour of the deceased stated that A1 and A4 were
residing in the sheds of the deceased as tenants and they were moving
closely. The deceased used to chastise A4 for moving closely with A1 and
thereafter demanded A1 and A4 to vacate the house. Thereafter, she asked
him (P.W.2, being a good tenant) look for tenants as they (A1 & A4) will
vacate it within 10 to 15 days. Thereafter, A4 vacated the same and after
such vacating of the house he has seen two other persons approaching the
house of A1 and also A4 coming out of house of A1. At that time, P.W.2
asked A4 whether A4 is going to her mother’s house or not, for which A4 said
that there is no such necessity and that the problem with deceased will come
to an end “Dani Peeda Viragada Aitundi”.
[iii] A2 and A3 are strangers to P.W.2 and he (P.W.2) has seen them
on one day when they were going to house of A1 and thereafter before the
Court on the day of his evidence. It is not case that there was any test
identification parade. P.W.2 admits that A4 vacated her shed two months
before the missing of deceased and that he do not know where A4 shifted. He
is unable to give the details as to when A4 went to the house of A1 and when
the two strangers went to the house of A1.
[iv] The succession of events are as follows: (1) deceased found
missing from 16.05.2015, (2) report was given to the Police on 12.06.2015
and (3) the dead body was recovered on 11.07.2015.
16
[v] P.W.4 is one S. Habib, who is said to have informed P.W.1 about
the missing of the deceased. As per his evidence he do not know who are the
tenants of the deceased. None were living in the entire sheds of Suseelamma
since her missing. The deceased alone was residing in her house.
[vi] P.W.2 is an independent witness and an outsider. No specific
motive is attributed to him to speak against the accused. P.W.2 during his
cross-examination, states that he stated before the Police that he came to
know that A4 was closely moving with A1 and that Suseelamma demanded
A1 and A4 to vacate their respective shares. This suggests that A1 and A4
moving closely is not his personal knowledge, but he had it.
[vii] The exact statement of P.W.2 during cross examination is as
follows:
“It is true that I stated before the Police that I came to know that A4
was closely moving with A1 and Suseelamma demanded A1 and
A4 to vacate their respective sheds, but they have not
vacated. A4 vacated her shed two months before the missing of
Suseelamma (deceased).”
[viii] The motive with regard to the close movement between A1 and
A4 and the same being illicit relationship is not found from the evidence of
P.W.1, the sister of A4 and the evidence of P.W.2 is admittedly hearsay and
as there is no other independent evidence except the alleged confession
made by the accused before P.W.5. There exists a reasonable doubt against
the motive relied on by the prosecution in that regard.
17
[ix] It is not the clear case of the prosecution that the deceased
Susheelamma was murdered for committing theft of the jewellery. As per the
prosecution version, one of the accused (A2) approached her informing her
that her missing son is available at Ballari and that if she joins with him, her
son will be shown. On that assurance, she accompanied accused No.2. For
this theory, except the confession of the accused Nos.1 to 3 made under
Ex.P6, before P.W.5, there is no other basis. It cannot be inferred from this
version that the accused had any idea that the deceased will come along with
the jewellery. Therefore, the motive part being an intension to knock away the
gold jewellery of the deceased is highly doubtful. Further theory that, A4 to
knock away the property of the deceased being a successor and she got the
deceased eliminated through A1 to A3 is also unbelievable. A4 resorting to
prompting A1 to A3 to commit murder of the deceased to get the property is
only an imagination, which cannot be accepted particularly in the context of
absence of any earlier disputes or demand by A4 for the property of the
deceased. P.W.1 did not say anything about A4 demanding for any money or
property from the deceased, except stating that “we came to know from the
Police enquiry that my mother was killed by A1 to A3 at the instigation of A4 to
knock away the property”.
[x] In view of the above reasons, it is clear that the prosecution has
failed to show the motive alleged against the accused and theory of
prosecution that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased is doubtful.
18
Confession of the accused and discovery in terms of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act:
12. [i] The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.5 to show that
the accused has made an extra-judicial confession before P.W.5 about their
guilt. As per P.W.5, A1 to A3 came to his house and admitted the guilt and
he has record the statements of A1 to A3 covered by Ex.P6 and thereafter
handed over A1 to A3 to the Inspector of Police.
[ii] As per P.W.5, there are five VRO’s working for the Guntakal
Municipal area and he is one among them. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are strangers
to him and he had never seen them prior to 10.07.2015 (date of confession).
Degulapadu Village is at a distance of 20 K.Ms from Guntakal. Bodisanipalli
Village is at a distance of 30 K.Ms from Guntakal. The accused approached
him at 07:30 A.M. on 10.07.2015. The distance between his house and the
Police Station is half a Kilometer. After examining A1 to A3, he started
recording their statements. One hour time was taken for recording Ex.P6. No
draft was prepared. The statement was recorded based on the answers given
to the questions put by him. He did not record the questions in Ex.P6.
Following facts are clear in respect of P.W.5 :
(a) He is a mediator in several Police Stations pertaining to Guntakal
Police Station.
(b) He is acted as a witness in the preparation of some other extra-
judicial confessions.
19
(c) He deposed as P.W.7 in S.C.No.423 of 2016 on 07.02.2017. He
deposed in the said case that he signed on the report at the request of
Police in Police Station.
(d) He deposed as P.W.3 in C.C.No.196 of 2015 on the file of the
Special J.F.C.M Court, P & E, Anantapuram on 30.01.2017.
(e) He has deposed as P.W.2 in C.C.No.162 of 2014 on the file of
J.F.C.M. Guntakal on 10.07.2017.
[iii] As per prosecution accused No.1 is resident of Bodasanipalli
Village, whereas A2 and A3 are residents of Degulapadu Village of Chippagiri
Mandal. There was no prior acquaintance between the accused and P.W.5.
Therefore, the possibility of the accused making confession before the P.W.5
is highly doubtful.
[iv] P.W.5 produced the accused before the Police along with Ex.P6-
confession statement and Ex.P7-requisition and thereafter the Police said to
have prepared mahazar. Thereafter, the Police altered the FIR under Ex.P17
adding the offences under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 109 r/w 34 IPC on
the strength of Ex.P7-requisition.
[v] The language of Ex.P17 clearly discloses that VRO-P.W.5 has
enclosed the extra-judicial confession statement of the accused and the
endorsement shows that Ex.P7 is altered / registered on 10.07.2015 at about
08:30 A.M.
20
[vi] P.W.5 clearly deposed that A1 to A3 were present before him
between 07:30 to 09:00 A.M. and that he went to the Police Station at 09:30
A.M. Therefore, the receipt of information at 08:30 A.M. and the registration /
alteration of FIR under Ex.P17 at 08:30 A.M. create a doubt against the
prosecution version. Further, the confession covered by Ex.P6 alone appears
to be the basis for recovery of the corpus of the deceased and material
objects relied.
[vii] P.W.10 says that mahazarnama was prepared at 09:30 A.M.
P.W.10 admits during cross-examination that P.W.5 handed over the Ex.P6
along with its copy of Ex.P6 and again he recorded the statements of A1 to A3
and he did not serve summons to the mediators who were present when the
confession statements of A1 to A3 were recorded.
[viii] The prosecution would rely on Ex.P6 for the purpose of
identifying the place of recovery of dead body and also for the confession.
The confession leading to the recovery of certain material objects like
gaddapara, gadaru, plastic gampa M.O.Nos.11 to 15-Crowbar, Spade, Stick
etc. Ex.P11 to P15. Further, the prosecution also relied on the confession of
accused for recovery of gold ornaments, ear studs-M.O.No.2, Gold chains-
M.O.Nos.3 and 4 and one pair of Bangles-M.O.No.5.
[ix] The prosecution claims that on the strength of confession of A1 to
A3, the Police went to the house of A4 along with P.W.3 and one Valmiki
Ranganna-L.W.6 and A4 voluntarily produced the gold jewellery covered by
M.O.Nos.1 to 3 and also the motorcycle-M.O.No.15, which was used at the
21
time of committing of the offence. Ex.P5 is the seizure-cum-arrest
mahazarnama of A4.
[x] Ex.P5 discloses the presence of the Police and the arrest of A4.
Therefore confession part of the Ex.P5 relating to the motive of A4 and her
instigation of the other accused etc. cannot be relied on.
[xi] It is not the case of the prosecution that A1 to A3 made any
statement under Ex.P6 that the Gold jewellery taken away by them from the
body of the deceased was handed over by them to the A4. Therefore, the link
of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased by the accused Nos.1 to 3 to
A4 is not found from Ex.P6.
[xii] From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the
confession of the accused being the only source for the recovery of corpus
and material objects M.O.Nos.1 to 5 of the deceased and the same is
suffering from so many doubts. Hence, it is not acceptable. The confession
of the accused leading to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased is
doubtful for the following reasons:
(A) The specific statements of the accused that they will show the
place where they buried the dead body is not forming part of Ex.P6-confession
statements.
(B) The confession recorded by the investigating officer separately by
the accused whether preceded by any summoning of other witness for the
said recording of such statement is not stated. The said statement is not
proved.
22
13. In the context of evidence stated above, it is relevant to note the
observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases:
[i] In Boby vs. State of Kerala1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
paragraphs 31 and 32, observed as follows:
31. It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this
Court in State of Karnataka v. David Rozario [State of
Karnataka v. David Rozario, (2002) 7 SCC 728 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1852] :
(SCC p. 733, para 5)
“5. … This information which is otherwise admissible becomes
inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come
from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come
from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The
statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one
which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is
admissible being the information, the same has to be proved
and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other
words, the exact information given by the accused while in
custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be
proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and the prosecution that information given should be
recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact
information must be adduced through evidence. The basic
idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is
founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a
search made on the strength of any information obtained from
a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information
might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it
results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information.
It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery
of a fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy
Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor [Pulukuri
Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 : (1946-
47) 74 IA 65 : AIR 1947 PC 67] is the most-quoted authority
for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the
object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it,
but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
(See State of Maharashtra v. Damu [State of
Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
1088] .)”
1
(2023) 15 Supreme Court Cases 760
23
32. A three-Judge Bench of this Court recently in Subramanya v. State
of Karnataka [Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255] ,
has observed thus : (SCC pp. 299-300, paras 76-78)
“76. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to
consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and
establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of
the Evidence Act reads thus:
„27. How much of information received from
accused may be proved.–Provided that, when any
fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession or
not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved.‟
77. The first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of all the
aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have
deposed the exact statement said to have been made by the
appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact
relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the appellant-
accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made
a statement that he would lead to the place where he had
hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead
body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the investigating
officer should have done was to call for two independent
witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent
witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their
presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate
statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place
where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc.
When the accused while in custody makes such statement
before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the
exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the
accused should be incorporated in the first part of the
panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in
accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the
purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at
the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses
so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by
the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and
volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or
any other article used in the commission of the offence had
been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed
thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two
independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the
particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that
particular place anything like the weapon of offence or
bloodstained clothes or any other article is discovered then that
part of the entire process would form the second part of the
24
panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating
officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral
evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the
same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the
matter.”
This Court in Subramanya case [Subramanya v. State of Karnataka,
(2023) 11 SCC 255] , has elaborately considered as to how the law
expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
It is clear from the evidence on record in this case that prosecution is
simply relied on the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer without
there being any clear material indicating such recording of statement in the
presence of such independent witnesses etc. The test of prudence advised
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Boby vs. State of Kerala (1 supra), when
applied to the evidence on record, the evidence is found not acceptable.
[ii] In Moorthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu2, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, observed as follows:
Our view
6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about the extra-judicial
confession. As regards extra-judicial confession, the law has been laid
down by this Court in Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar [Pawan
Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, (2023) 18 SCC 414] . In para 6 it is
held thus: (SCC pp. 415-16)
“6. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well
settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a
conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial
confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary
and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary
value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is
made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a
person would confide about a crime committed by him only with
such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person
would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger
to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of
the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is2
AIR 2023 Supreme Court 3960
25made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However,
if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on
record, it acquires more credibility.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. We have perused the evidence of PW 1 Ganesan who was posted
as the Village Administrative Officer at the time of the commission of the
offence. He was not permanently posted in Village Seekkarajapuram as he
stated that at the time of recording of evidence, he was transferred as
Village Administrative Officer to Ranipet. PW 1 admitted in the cross-
examination that he did not know the appellant before he came to him and
allegedly made the extra-judicial confession.
8. The incident is of 29-5-2006 but the alleged extra-judicial confession
was made on 10-8-2006. It is impossible to understand why would the
appellant meet the Village Administrative Officer, who was a total stranger
to him, more than two months after the incident for making a confession.
PW 1 and the appellant were not known to each other till 10-8-2006.
Normally an accused will confide only with a person in whom he has
implicit faith. He would not go to a stranger to make a confession of guilt.
The fact that the alleged confession was made by him more than two
months after the incident makes it more suspicious.
It was a case similar to the facts of the present case viz. the VRO
(P.W.5) in the present case is a complete stranger to the accused. Therefore,
his evidence is of no help to the prosecution.
[iii] In Ram vs. State of Punjab3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph 5 observed as follows:
5. The trial Judge having observed that retracted extra judicial confession
is a weak piece 45 of evidence, however, held that the same is
corroborated by the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
accused and held that the prosecution case could be accepted and
accordingly convicted the two appellants. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that both the accused have been working under Pal
Singh for the last five or seven years and they have been demanding the
wages due from him and, therefore, both went against him. His further
submission is that the evidence of Pal Singh regarding the retracted extra
judicial confession is highly artificial and at any rate is a weak piece of
evidence and the recovery of the dead body by itself does not in any
manner connect the accused with the murder. He also submitted that there
is not an independent evidence in respect of the alleged recovery of the
dead body and it is not possible that-somebody having committed the
murder has burned the dead body. Having gone through the records and3
1992 Supreme (SC) 985
26the evidence of the witnesses we find it difficult to accept evidence of Pal
Singh regarding the alleged extra judicial confession. Regarding the
same,’ the prosecution case entirely rests on his evidence and we find it
difficult to accept his evidence but the alleged extra judicial confession.
Once it is retracted it become very weak piece of evidence ‘Regarding the
recovery of the dead body, we do not find from the judgment of the trial
Court that any independent witnesses have spoken about the recovery at
the, instance of the accused. Reliance has been placed by the prosecution
on the photographs to show that the accused were seen digging the dead
body from the well at the time of the recovery. This can be explained away
by saying that the two accused as labourers might have helped the Police
to recover the dead body by digging. This by itself is not enough to
establish that the place where the dead body is alleged to have been
concealed was especially within the knowledge of the accused so as to
connect them with the murder. The two circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution, in our view, are insufficient to bring home the guilt of the
accused. In result convictions and sentences are set aside and the
appeals are allowed. If the accused are in jail they shall be set at liberty
forthwith.
[iv] In Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in paragraphs 8 and 12, observed as follows:
8. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.
The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence
has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court
held thus:
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High
Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a criminal case which
rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental
and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of
Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952
SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly
followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later
decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias)
Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970
SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4
SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656]. It may be useful to extract what
Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC
71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]:
“It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is
of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be4
AIR 2024 Supreme Court 2087
27consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.”
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 Cri 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,
(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. The prosecution case basically relies on the circumstance of the
memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (for short “Evidence Act“) and the subsequent recovery of the dead
body from the pond at Bhatgaon. The learned Judges of the High Court
have relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of State (NCT of
28
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru2. The High Court has relied on
the following observations of the said judgment:
“121. The first requisite condition for utilising Section 27 in
support of the prosecution case is that the investigating police
officer should depose that he discovered a fact in
consequence of the information received from an accused
person in police custody. Thus, there must be a discovery of
fact not within the knowledge of police officer as a
consequence of information received. Of course, it is
axiomatic that the information or disclosure should be free
from any element of compulsion. The next component of
Section 27 relates to the nature and extent of information that
can be proved. It is only so much of the information as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered that can be
proved and nothing more. It is explicitly clarified in the section
that there is no taboo against receiving such information in
evidence merely because it amounts to a confession. At the
same time, the last clause makes it clear that it is not the
confessional part that is admissible but it is only such
information or part of it, which relates distinctly to the fact
discovered by means of the information furnished. Thus, the
information conveyed in the statement to the police ought to
be dissected if necessary so as to admit only the information
of the nature mentioned in the section. The rationale behind
this provision is that, if a fact is actually discovered in
consequence of the information supplied, it affords some
guarantee that the information is true and can therefore be
safely allowed to be admitted in evidence as an incriminating
factor against the accused. As pointed out by the Privy Council
in Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : (1946-47)
74 IA 65] : (AIR p. 70, para 10)
“clearly the extent of the information admissible must
depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered”
and the information must distinctly relate to that fact.
Elucidating the scope of this section, the Privy Council
speaking through Sir John Beaumont said : (AIR p. 70, para
10)
“Normally the section is brought into operation when a
person in police custody produces from some place of
concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or
ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the
informant is accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
We have emphasised the word “normally” because the
illustrations given by the learned Judge are not exhaustive.
The next point to be noted is that the Privy Council rejected
the argument of the counsel appearing for the Crown that the
fact discovered is the physical object produced and that any
and every information which relates distinctly to that object can
29
be proved. Upon this view, the information given by a person
that the weapon produced is the one used by him in the
commission of the murder will be admissible in its entirety.
Such contention of the Crown’s counsel was emphatically
rejected with the following words : (AIR p. 70, para 10)
“If this be the effect of Section 27, little substance would
remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on
confessions made to the police, or by persons in police
custody. That ban was presumably inspired by the fear of the
legislature that a person under police influence might be
induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if
all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the
confession of information relating to an object subsequently
produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive
powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that
in practice the ban will lose its effect.”
Then, Their Lordships proceeded to give a lucid exposition
of the expression “fact discovered” in the following passage,
which is quoted time and again by this Court : (AIR p. 70, para
10)
“In Their Lordships‟ view it is fallacious to treat the „fact
discovered‟ within the section as equivalent to the object
produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which
the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to
this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this
fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the
object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in
which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in
custody that „I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my
house‟ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were
discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the
fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to
his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in
the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very
relevant. But if to the statement the words be added „with
which I stabbed A‟ these words are inadmissible since they do
not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the
informant.”
(emphasis supplied)
128. So also in Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2)
SCR 830 : AIR 1962 SC 1116 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 251] J.L.
Kapur, J. after referring to Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48
Cri LJ 533 : (1946-47) 74 IA 65] stated the legal position as
follows : (SCR p. 837)
“A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place
from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused
as to its existence.”
The above statement of law does not run counter to the
contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, that the factum of discovery
30
combines both the physical object as well as the mental
consciousness of the informant accused in relation thereto.
However, what would be the position if the physical object was
not recovered at the instance of the accused was not
discussed in any of these cases.”
14. When the evidence on record is put to the test contemplated under
authorities cited above, the extra-judicial confession said to have been made
by the Accused Nos.1 to 3 found not sufficient to believe their guilt or the
recovery of either the corpus of the deceased or gold jewellery pursuant to the
such confession. As far as confession of Accused No.4 is concerned, since it
is made in the presence of Police, the same is not reliable. When there is no
link as to the accused Nos.1 to 3 handing over the gold jewellery of the
deceased to Accused No.4, the recovery of gold jewellery from A4, if any the
prosecution relies will not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner.
15. Upon analysing the evidence on record particularly relating to the
confession of the accused Nos.1 to 3 made before P.W.5 and covered by
Ex.P6, in the light of the precedential guidance referred to above and the other
improbabilities discussed above, this Court finds that the confession of
accused Nos.1 to 3 is not helpful to accept that the prosecution has proved
the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against them and that the
same is liable to be rejected.
Other Evidence-Circumstantial Evidence
16. [i] The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. The
five golden principles referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravishankar
31
Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh (4 supra), after referring to the earlier
judgments vide paragraph 8 are:
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 Cri 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,
(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.”
[ii] There is substantial delay in giving complaint after the missing of
the deceased. Though the deceased was found missing in May, 2015 the
complaint was given only in June, 2015.
32
[iii] It is not shown that A1 and A4 were living in the sheds of the
deceased as tenants or otherwise and having access to the deceased by the
date of her missing.
[iv] The important links in the chain of circumstances:
(1) Access of the accused to the deceased.
(2) Accused at least one or some was last seen with the
deceased.
(3) The confession of the accused leading to the discovery of the
corpus of the deceased or the gold jewellery of the deceased.
(4) The role or possibility of the accused in the homicidal death of
the deceased.
(5) The motive for the accused to eliminate the deceased.
None of these important links in the chain of circumstances are proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of
doubt.
17. In view of the discussion made above, point framed is answered
concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants
for the offences alleged against them beyond all the reasonable doubt and
that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and consequently to an
acquittal of the charges.
33
18. In the result,
(i). the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii). the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional
Sessions Judge, Anantapuram at Gooty in S.C.No.492 of 2016, under
the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2018 are set-aside.
(iii). Appellant Nos.1 to 3 / accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the
charges under Sections 364, 302, 201 and 379 IPC, and appellant
No.4/ accused No.4 is acquitted under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC.
(iv). Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if
they are not required in connection with any other case or crime.
(v). Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be
refunded to them.
(vi).The property orders, if any, passed by the learned Sessions Judge
shall stand confirmed.
19. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
__________________________________
JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA
Date:15.07.2026
Knr
Whether the order is:
Speaking Reasoned ✓
Reportable ✓ Non-reportable
34
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
And
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2593 of 2018
Date:15.07.2026
Knr
