A conviction cannot be sustained on the sole testimony of a child witness when there are serious doubts regarding its reliability and the absence of corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K. Suresh Reddy, J.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 06-07-2017 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, 'the trial Court'), accused Nos. 1 and 2 therein filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 794 and 1114 of 2017 respectively before this Court.

2. Since both these criminal appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were tried by the trial Court under the following charges:

I charge was under Section 363 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;

II charge was under Section 364 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;

III charge was under Section 302 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2;

IV charge was under Section 201 IPC against accused Nos. 1 and 2; and

V charge was under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, '1989 Act'), against accused No. 1.

4. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 363 IPC; to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 364 IPC; to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The trial Court also convicted the appellant-accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of 1989 Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5. Substance of the charges is that on 20-02-2009 at about 5 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with one K.Uday Kumar kidnapped one Vulavapati Venkata Ramesh Babu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') along with his son namely Vulavapati Krushi Teja @ Nani @ Satya-P.W.2, who belonged to scheduled caste, from their house and threatened the deceased to sign on a stamp paper on the point of knife and when he refused, they caused the death of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately over his stomach and testicles and in the same process, they threw the dead body of the deceased into Thetteru Vagu, near Mittapalem Village, Dakkili Mandal, to screen away the evidence and left P.W.2 on highway in Tamil Nadu State, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of 1989 Act.

6. Case of the prosecution in brief is thus:

P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and son of the deceased respectively and P.W.3 is younger sister of P.W.1 and they are residents of Nellore Town. The deceased started Flex Board Printing Business under the name and style of 'Mahi Digitals' in Nellore. In the beginning, the deceased was the sole proprietor of the business and later, due to financial problems, he had taken accused No. 1 as partner and gave him 40% share in the said business. In the month of January, 2008, the deceased met with a road accident and he sustained fracture to his leg and could not work properly. During the said period, accused No. 1 looked after the business but he did not maintain the accounts of the business properly, due to which the deceased demanded accused No. 1 to settle the accounts but he failed to do so. Twenty days prior to the date of death of t