Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Vonumu Appayyamma and Others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1113 of 2007
Decided On : 05-03-2025
For the Appellants : Sri A. Ravi Shankar.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on a sole eyewitness whose credibility is questionable is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357 - Conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and for causing disappearance of evidence - Appellants convicted under Section 304-Part I IPC and sentenced to ten years imprisonment, while acquitted of Section 302 IPC - Prosecution's case relied on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, whose credibility was questioned due to delayed reporting and lack of corroboration - Court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4, 11, 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of causing the death of Alupana Ramu and disposing of his body. The incident occurred on the night of 21/22 August 2003, following an altercation related to an alleged illicit relationship. The deceased was beaten to death by the accused, who then concealed the body. (Paras 3, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the evidence of the sole eyewitness, PW.4, was unreliable due to inconsistencies and delayed reporting, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the reliability of the eyewitness testimony. (Paras 13, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the absence of corroborative evidence undermined the credibility of the sole eyewitness, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 17, 18)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted and set at liberty. (Paras 19)
JUDGMENT :
A1 to A4 and A6 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam are the appellants in the present Criminal Appeal. As A5 and A7 died pending trial, the case against them was abated.
2. The appellants/A1 to A4 and A6 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. Substance of the charge is that, on the intervening night of 21/22nd August, 2003, at about 01.00 hours, at Yathapeta village, A1 to A4 and A6 along with A5 and A7 caused the death of one Alupana Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and threw the dead body of the deceased in the casuarinas tope of one Alupana Laxmana Rao with an intention to screen the evidence, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A1 of the offence punishable under Section 304-Part I read with 109 IPC and sentenced her to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. A2 to A4 and A6 were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 304-Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years each and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each. A1 to A4 and A6 were further convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that out of the total fine amount, an amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to PW.2 Alupana Suryam, the wife of the deceased, as compensation in terms of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. A1 to A4 and A6 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and they were acquitted of the said offence.
5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows.
i) A1 is the mother of A2 and other accused are the neighbours and supporters of A1 and A2. It is alleged that the deceased had got illicit intimacy with the wife of A2 and he used to visit her house now and then in the absence of A2. Likewise, on the intervening night of 21/22nd August 2023, at about 01.00 hours, the deceased took PW.4 and LW.8 along with him to his coconut topes for watching and from there, at about 02.00 hours, he went to the house of A2. In the absence of A2, the deceased entered into the house of A2 and met the wife of A2. At that time, PW.4 and LW8 were waiting outside the house. After sometime, A1, the mother of A2, woke up and noticed the deceased and wife of A2 in a compromising mood on a cot and then she caught hold of hair of the deceased and dragged him out and quarrelled. Meanwhile, A2 to A7 also reached there after rabbit hunting and all the accused beat the deceased with sticks and iron rods indiscriminately and caused his instantaneous death. PW.4 and LW.8 saw the beatings of the accused and out of fear they ran away. A2 to A7 are alleged to have thrown the dead body of the deceased in the casuarinas tope of one Alupana Laxmana Rao with an intention to screen the evidence.
ii) On 22.08.2003, at about 06.00 AM, one Talayari of Kuppili village went to the office of PW.1 and informed that one dead body was lying in casuarinas tope of one Alupana Laxmana Rao. Then, he proceeded to the said tope along with Talayari and found the dead body with injuries all over the body. They identified him as the deceased. PW.1 kept the Talayari at the scene of offence and went to the Police Station at Etcherla and submitted a report. Ex.P1 is the report submitte
