Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18659

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.Suresh Reddy, J
A.1 – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2022 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.2977 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri N.Ravi Prasad (for A.1), Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy (for A.2), Sri B.Parameswara Rao (for A.3)
For the Respondents: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor

A conviction for murder based on consistent testimony of interested witnesses can be sustained; but conspiracy or explosive substances charges require independent evidence or mandatory sanction, otherwise they cannot stand.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B r/w 34 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 5, 7 - Conviction for murder, conspiracy and explosive substances - Appeal against conviction - Validity of evidence of interested witnesses - Requirement of sanction under Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act - Necessity of Test Identification Parade where names not given in FIR - Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter confirmed for A.1 based on consistent testimony of eye-witnesses; conviction under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC cannot be sustained as only confessional statement before police, which is inadmissible, was relied upon; conviction under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act cannot be sustained as no evidence as to who hurled bombs and mandatory sanction order under Section 7 was not produced; A.2 and A.3 acquitted as their participation was not established. (Paras 18, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
A.1 to A.3 were convicted for murder of Madasu Sambasiva Rao by stabbing and hurling bombs, based on evidence of PWs 1 to 6 (wife, daughters, brother and relatives of deceased). The prosecution alleged conspiracy and use of explosive substances. The trial court sentenced each accused to life imprisonment under various charges.

Findings of Court:
The court found that evidence of PWs 1 to 6 was consistent regarding A.1 stabbing the deceased, and was corroborated by medical evidence. However, for A.2 and A.3, no independent evidence of their participation was adduced, and the Test Identification Parade was not conducted despite PW.1 stating in FIR that she could identify them. For conspiracy, only confessional statements before police were relied on, which are inadmissible. For explosive substances, there was no evidence of who hurled bombs, no injuries from explosion, and mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Act was not produced.

Issues: 1. Whether the conviction of A.1 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable based on testimony of interested witnesses? (Para 15) 2. Whether the conviction under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC is sustainable without independent evidence of conspiracy? (Para 18) 3. Whether the conviction under Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act is sustainable without sanction order and evidence? (Para 19) 4. Whether conviction of A.2 and A.3 is sustainable in absence of identification and evidence? (Paras 11, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon if consistent and corroborated, for A.1 the evidence was sufficient. However, for conspiracy, only confessional statements before police (inadmissible) were available, hence conviction cannot stand. For explosive substances, absence of sanction under Section 7 and lack of evidence to connect accused mandates acquittal. A.2 and A.3 cannot be convicted without proper identification and evidence.

Result: Criminal Appeal No.2022 of 2018 allowed in part - conviction of A.1 under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 5 of Explosive Substances Act set aside; conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter confirmed with life sentence. Criminal Appeal Nos.2977 of 2018 and 349 of 2019 allowed - A.2 and A.3 acquitted of all charges.

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

As all these three appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case i.e., Sessions Case No.412 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala (for short, ‘learned Additional Sessions Judge’), they are being taken up together, heard and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. A.1 in the above Sessions Case is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2022 of 2018, whereas A.2 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2977 of 2018, and A.3 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019. All the three appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:

(i) 1^st charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3

(ii) 2^nd charge was under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3

(iii) 3^rd charge was under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against A.1 to A.3, and

(iv) 4^th charge was under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against A.1 to A.3

3. Substance of the charge is that prior to 18.05.2012, A.1 to A.3 conspired to do away with the life of one Madasu Sambasiva Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 18.05.2012 at about 10.00 P.M., all the three accused went to the house of deceased hurled bombs, A.1 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately, causing his death instantaneously, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 120-B r/w 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:

(a) All the three accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kancharagunta Village, Durgi Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the wife and PWs 2 & 3 are the daughters of the deceased respectively. PW.4 is the elder brother of the deceased, who is also his neighbour. PW.6 is relative of the deceased, who was also neighbour of the deceased. PW.5 is the wife of PW.6. On 18.05.2012 at about 09.00 P.M., the deceased was sleeping along with PW.3 on a cot, in front of his house, on the road, whereas PWs 1 & 2 were sleeping on the terrace of the house. At about 10.00 P.M., they heard sounds of bomb explosion. Immediately, PWs 1 & 2 came down and saw A.1 stabbing the deceased. When the deceased tried to escape, A.1 stabbed him indiscriminately. Hearing the hue and cry, PWs 4 to 6 also came to the house of the deceased and after seeing PWs 1 to 6, all the three accused went away on a motorcycle towards Mutukuru village side. While the deceased was being taken to hospital situated at Macherla, he succumbed to injuries on the way. Immediately, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18659

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHK.Suresh Reddy, JA.1 – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentCriminal Appeal No.2022 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.2977 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019

A conviction for murder based on consistent testimony of interested witnesses can be sustained; but conspiracy or explosive substances charges require independent evidence or mandatory sanction, otherwise they cannot stand.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.Suresh Reddy, J
A.1 – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2022 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.2977 of 2018 | Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019