Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pesangi Srinu Chinnababu vs State Of Ap., on 23 September, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010193352018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 906/2018
Between:
1. PESANGI SRINU @ CHINNABABU, R/O.C/O.AGNIKULAKSHATRIYA,
VALANDALAPETA, 58
58-9-17,
17, NEAR DORASANI DODDI, J.K.PURAM,
KAKINADA, WG.
...AP
...APPELLANT
AND
1. STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor (AP) High Court at
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
...RESPO Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present the memorandum of criminal appeal questioning his conviction and sentence in the judgment da dated 13--07-2017 in SC.No. 259 of 2016 on the file of the court of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, AP., for the following and among other.
IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circum circumstances stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 181 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 13-07-2017 2017 in SC.No. 259 of 2016 on the file of the court of the IV Additional nal District and Sessions Judge at Kakinada, West Godavari District, AP., 2 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. S DUSHYANTH REDDY
2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.259/2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada (for short, 'the Additional Sessions Judge") is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under
Section 376 IPC and second charge was under Section 302 IPC.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 13.01.2013 at about 03.00 P.M., the accused committed rape on Sangani Govindamma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') at the house of PW.1 situated at Paradesammapeta, Kakinada. In the same process, he caused the death of the deceased by placing a pillow on her face and pressed forcibly, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 376 & 302 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:
(a) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kakinada town. The deceased was also resident of the same town. The accused is distantly related to PW.1. The deceased is the mother of PW.1 aged about 65 years suffering from breast cancer. The deceased is confined to bed and she is not able to move. PWs 2 to 4, 6 & 7 are the neighbours of PW.1. PW.1 was working as Auto Driver and he is looking after the welfare of the deceased. On 13.01.2013 at about 03.00 P.M., PW.1 along with his family visited the house of PW.5 who is his elder sister. At that time, 4 before leaving the house, the accused came to the house of PW.1 and the wife of PW.1 asked the accused to leave the house. In spite of the same, the accused remained in the house. Thereafter, PW.1 and his family visited the house of PW.5, who is his elder sister. At about 04.00 P.M., PW.2, who is the immediate neighbour, was going to fetch water from municipal tap. As the doors of the house of PW.1 were closed, PW.2 pushed the doors and opened.
She found the accused inside the house having blood stains on his hands. She also found blood oozing out from the nose of the deceased. Then, she raised huge cries. Hearing her cries, PWs 3, 4, 6 & 7 rushed there and found the deceased died. PW.2 informed PW.7 to call PW.1. Immediately, PW.7 visited the house of PW.5 and informed about the same to PW.1. Immediately, PW.1 returned home and found the deceased lying dead. He observed blood oozing from the nose of the deceased. He also found the accused in the house. When he questioned the accused about the situation, the latter stated that he killed the deceased. Immediately, the accused went away. PW.1 informed the incident to his relatives.
(b) On 14.01.2013 at about 07.00 A.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1. PW.12 received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.7/2013 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P11. Having received the copy of F.I.R, PW.13 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.9 and another. He also seized MOs.1 and 2 at the scene of offence under a 5 Panchanama. He also prepared a Rough sketch Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW.8. Photographs were marked as Ex.P2. He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 6. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination.
(c) PW.11 Associate Professor, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P8 and Final Opinion Ex.P10.
(d) On 14.01.2013 itself, PW.13 recorded the statements of PWs 7 & 8. On 15.01.2013, PW.13 received saree of the deceased through a Constable which was handed over by the Doctor after Postmortem examination. M.O.3 is said saree containing blood stains.
(e) On 17.01.2013 at about 1.30 P.M., PW.9 V.R.O. came to the Police Station and handed over the accused along with confessional statement Ex.P5 along with his report Ex.P6. PW.13 secured the presence of PW.10 and arrested the accused at about 03.00 P.M. under Ex.P7. He seized the clothes of the accused M.Os.4 and 5 in the presence of the mediators. On the confession made by the accused, PW.13 added Section 376 IPC along with Section 302 IPC. Alteration memo is marked as Ex.P13. On 21.01.2013, he filed a requisition before III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada to send the accused for Potency test. Said requisition is marked as Ex.P14. 6 But, the Doctor, who examined the accused, was not examined by the prosecution. PW.13 sent the preserved material objects to the F.S.L, Hyderabad for chemical examination under a Letter of advice Ex.P15. F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P9. After completion of investigation, PW.13 filed charge sheet on 15.08.2013 and he was transferred on 23.10.2013.
(f) On 23.10.2013, PW.14, successor of PW.13, verified the charge sheet and found that the Potency certificate of the accused was not there. On 06.12.2013, he filed a petition under Section 53(A) Cr.P.C., requesting the Court to send the accused for Potency test, which was allowed on the same day.
(g) On 24.12.2013, PW.14 sent the accused to Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada for conducting Potency test. He received a letter Ex.P16 from the hospital stating no opinion can be given.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P.1 to P.17 and exhibited MOs.1 to 5.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7
7. Heard Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
9. As seen from the material on record, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The prosecution rests its case on the circumstantial evidence.
10. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory. The second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. The third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the extra judicial confession said to have been made before the V.R.O. PW.9. The fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to the Potency test of the accused. The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the medical evidence adduced through PW.11.
(a) So far as the first circumstance is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 6. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that at about 03.00 P.M. on 13.01.2013, the accused, who is distantly related to PW.1, visited their house. The wife of PW.1 asked the accused to leave the house. In spite of the same, the accused did not leave the house. He remained at the house. At that time, PW.1 along with his family members went out to visit the house of his elder sister PW.5. While leaving the house, 8 the accused was found at their house. It is further stated by PW.1 that his mother, who is the deceased, was sleeping on the cot. PW.2, who is the immediate neighbor to PW.1, in her evidence has stated that at about 03.00 or 4.00 P.M. she was going to fetch municipal water. She further stated that usually the doors of the house of PW.1 will not be closed. As the doors were closed, she pushed the doors and found the accused sitting in the house with blood stains on his hand. She also found the deceased lying on the cot. She further stated that the blood was oozing out from the nose of the deceased. Immediately, she raised cries. Hearing her cries, the neighbours PWs 3, 4, 6 & 7 came to the scene of offence. PW.2 further stated that she sent PW.7 to the house of PW.5 to inform PW.1. Immediately, PW.7 went to the house of PW.5 and PW.1 returned home and found the deceased lying dead on the cot. It is the further evidence of PWs 1 to 4, 6 & 7 that when PW.1 questioned the accused about what happened, he replied stating that he killed the deceased. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the last seen theory.
(b) So far as the second circumstance i.e., motive is concerned, the prosecution alleged that the accused killed the deceased as the deceased may inform PW.1 about he committed rape on the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused placed pillow on the face of the deceased and pressed with force. None of the witnesses have deposed stating that the accused committee rape on the deceased. The successor of PW.13, who verified the charge sheet on 23.10.2013, did not file the Potency test pertaining to the accused. As such, he filed a petition under Section 9 53(A) Cr.P.C., which was allowed on 06.12.2013. When the accused was sent to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada for Potency test, the Doctors gave a reply stating that no opinion can be given. Said letter was marked as Ex.P16. Once again the Hospital authorities furnished another letter Ex.P17 stating that no opinion can be given with regard to the Potency of the accused. In view of the same, the prosecution could not able to prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. Further, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC.
(c) So far as the third circumstance is concerned, the prosecution set up PW.9 with extra judicial confession. PW.9 is the Panch witness for observation report Ex.P3 and Inquest Report Ex.P4. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that on 17.01.2013 at about 12.30 P.M., the accused came to his office and confessed about the commission of offence. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that he recorded the statement of the accused under Ex.P5 and he also prepared his report Ex.P6. PW.9 in his evidence has stated that he called PW.13 Investigating Officer to his office and handed over the accused to him along with Exs.P5 and P6. Curiously, PW.13 in his evidence has stated that PW.9 produced the accused at Police station along with Exs.P5 and P6. The evidence of PWs 9 & 13 is inconsistent with each other. PW.9 stated that he called PW.13 to his office and handed over the accused, whereas PW.13 stated that PW.9 produced the accused along with Exs.P5 and P6 at Police Station. Further, as seen from the evidence of PW.9, he is a stranger to the accused and the accused was not acquainted with him. As such, the evidence 10 of PW.9 does not inspire confidence to the effect that the accused made extra judicial confession before him.
(d) The fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is with regard to the Potency test of the accused. As already pointed out, the prosecution could not able to prove the Potency test as the Doctors could not give any opinion under Exs.P16 and P17.
(e) The last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the Doctor who conducted Postmortem i.e., PW.11. PW.11, who conducted Postmortem, in his evidence, has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to Asphyxia as a result of throttling, but not smothering. He issued a Postmortem certificate Ex.P8 and Final opinion Ex.P10. He also stated that there are no symptoms of rape on the deceased. He gave his opinion under Ex.P10 on the basis of the F.S.L. report Ex.P9. The prosecution could not able to prove the last circumstance also.
11. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only circumstance that was established by the prosecution was the accused found at the house of PW.1 at the relevant point of time. Further, as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, 6 & 7, the accused was very much present when PW.1 returned from the house of PW.5. They did not try to handover the accused to the police. Further, though PW.1 came to know about the incident at 05.00 P.M. on 13.01.2013, he did not give any report to the police. It is only on the next day at about 07.00 A.M. he went to the Police Station and gave a report. 11 Though the said report was given at 07.00 A.M. on 14.01.2013, the said F.I.R. reached the Court at about 01.30 P.M. Police Station and Magistrate Court are situated in the same town. As such, there is abnormal delay in giving report to the police by PW.1.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution could not able to prove the motive, the accused cannot be convicted. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra1. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
24. In the subsequent decision in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 5 SCC 626], this Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali and observed as under:-
"27. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The motive......"
More recently, in Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) [(2020) 10 SCC 166], the position was reiterated by this Court in the following words:
"10. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of Prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused."
25. Thus, a complete absence of motive, although not conclusive, is a relevant factor which weighs in favour of the accused. No doubt, the final effect of such absence on the outcome of the case shall depend upon the quality and weight of surrounding evidence. In the present case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have invariably revealed that the appellant and the deceased were friends and there was no ill-will between them. Even the father of the deceased has testified to that effect. The relevance of motive in a case of homicide has been a subject of prolonged discussion. Ordinarily, in cases involving direct evidence of the commission of crime, motive has little role to play as presence or absence of motive is immaterial if the commission of the crime stands proved 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1304 12 through other evidence. Even otherwise, motiveless crimes are not unknown to the society. However, in cases purely based on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive could raise serious questions and might even render the chain of evidence as doubtful. It is so because the presence of motive does the job of explaining the circumstantial evidence. For instance, in the facts of the present case, any evidence of enmity between the appellant and the deceased would have made suspicious the act of the appellant of taking the deceased to his home prior to his death. However, since the evidence suggests that they were friends, the fact that the appellant brought him home could not be termed as per-se incriminating. Therefore, motive explains the circumstances on record and enables the Court to draw better inference in a case based on circumstantial evidence."
13. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution could not able to prove the motive, extrajudicial confession, Potency of the accused and the cause of death. As already pointed out, PW.1 in his evidence has stated that the cause of death was due to throttling and not smothering.
14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Sessions Case No.259/2016 vide judgment dt. 13.07.2017 is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant / Accused by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, in Sessions Case No.259 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, vide judgment dated 13.07.2017, are hereby set aside. Appellant / Accused is acquitted for the charges leveled against him. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other crime or cases. 13
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 23.09.2025 MVA