JUDGMENT:

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Heard Sri. M.V. Raja Raam, learned Counsel appearing for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 [appellants herein] and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, through Blue Jeans video conferencing APP and with their consent, the appeal is disposed of.

1. A2 and A3 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2013, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, are the Appellants herein. Originally, there were four [04] accused, but, the case against A1 and A4 was separated as they were juveniles on the date of incident vide Order, dated 28.07.2014.

2. The two appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 369, 379, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code [“I.P.C.”]. Vide its Judgment, dated 05.01.2015, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 90 days. They were further directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven [07] years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 369 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 201 I.P.C. respectively, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 90 days each. The two appellants were further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The gravamen of the charges against the accused is that, on 09.11.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., at Thummapala Village, Anakapalle Mandal, the accused with a common intention kidnapped one Gadi Sandhya [“deceased”], aged about 04 years; demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom for the release of said girl and thereafter caused her death after committing theft of gold ear rings from her body.

4. The facts, as culled out, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses are as under :

(i) PW1 is the brother of PW2, while PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of PW1 and PW2. PW4 is the wife of PW1. All of them are residents of Thummapala Village and knew the accused, who were also residents of Thummapala Village. Previously, A1 and A4 committed theft of some money from the house of PW1, in that connection, there were disputes between them. However, since six months prior to the incident, both the families were cordial with each other.

(ii) While things stood thus, on 09.11.2008, while PW4 was at her house, the deceased was playing with one Lokeswari, who is the daughter of A2 and A3. At that point of time, PW4, her mother-in-law and co-sister went to Venugopala Swamy Temple for worship and returned back within one hour. They noticed the deceased [Sandhya] missing, while the elder daughter of PW4 was in the house. PW4 claims to have gone to the house of A2 and A3 and enquired about the deceased, but A2 informed her that the deceased left her house about half an hour back. She searched the surroundings, but to no avail. She, immediately, informed PW1 and PW2, who also returned home and searched for Sandhya, but in vain. Hence, PW1 lodged a report on 9.11.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., before PW18 – Sub- Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 253 of 2008. Ex.P13 is the First Information Report, registered under the head ‘girl missing’.

(iii) On 10.11.2008, while PW1 and his brother [PW2] were going to Munagapaka Village in search of the missing girl, his brother [G. Srinivasa Rao - PW2] received a phone call from an unknown person disclosing that the daughter of PW1 was with him and asked them to come to Nursery situated near Gundala Veedhi. PW1 and his brother went to the said Nursery at Gundala Veedhi, but could not trace the missing girl. They returned back the call to the n