APHC010487222016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3566] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 959/2016 Between: STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYD, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND 1.VUSIRIKAYALA RAMACHANDRA CHITTOOR DT 2 OTHERS, S/O SIDDALINGAM 2.VUSIRIKAYALA RAMESH, S/O SIDDALINGAM 3.GOWRAM ANJANEYULU, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH (ALL RE R/O KADIRAYACHERUVU VILLAGE, KALAKADA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.) ...RESPODENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.B PARAMESEWARA RAO 2.LEGAL AID 2 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 04.01.2008, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle in S.C. No.253 of 2004, insofar as A.3 is concerned, the present appeal is preferred by the State. 2. Originally, A.1 to A.3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges :- The 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1, the 2nd charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.2 and the 3rd charge was under Section 302 read with 114 IPC against A.3. 3. Substance of the charge is that at about 10.00 A.M. on 24.10.2003, A.1 and A.2 hacked one Mallaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with a sickle on his head near Neelam Anjaneyulu house, Kadireya Chruvu village, causing his death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section. 302 and 302 read with 114 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and A.2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted A.3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of A.3, the appellant-State filed the present appeal. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:- (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kadirayacheruvu village, Kalakada Mandal, Chittoor 3 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 District. The deceased was also residents of the same village. P.W.1 is nephew, P.W.2 is wife, P.W.3 is younger brother of the deceased respectively. A.1 and A.2 are brothers, A.3 is their relative. About seven months prior to the date of incident, A.1 outraged modesty of P.W.10 which is the subject matter of Crime No.15 of 2003 of Kalakada Police Station. In the said crime, A.1 was remanded to judicial custody. The deceased supported the case of P.W.10 and her husband who is examined as P.W.8 regarding Crime No.15 of 2003. As such, A.1 bore grudge against the deceased and P.W.8 and was waiting for an opportunity to do away with their lives. (ii) While so, on 24.10.2003 at about 10.00 A.M., A.1 and A.2 quarreled with P.W.8 and the deceased which was pacified by P.Ws.1 to 4 and others. The accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Thereafter, the deceased along with P.W.1 was proceeding towards his house and when they reached near the house of P.W.7, A.1 and A.2 hacked the deceased with a sickle on his head at the instigation of A.3. Having received the injuries, the deceased died on the spot and the accused escaped from the scene. Having witnessed the incident, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. (iii) P.W.15-Sub Inspector of police, Kalakada Police Station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.44 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P10. (iv) Having received the information, P.W.16-Inspector of Police, Vayalpad circle, took up investigation. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence and received copy of FIR from P.W.15. He secured 4 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 the presence of P.Ws.1 to 8 and held inquest over the dead body. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. He prepared a rough sketch- Ex.P11 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. (v) P.W.14-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pileru, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury caused by a sharp edged weapon”. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P9. (vi) On 25.03.2003 P.W.16 recorded statements of P.Ws.9 to 12. On 29.12.2003 P.W.16 arrested A.2 at Guttapalli village in the presence of mediators. On the same day, A.1 surrendered before the committal court. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.16 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. On behalf of defence, Exs.D1 to D.6 were marked. 8. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and A.2 and acquitted A.3 who is the respondent herein. 9. Heard Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent/A.3. 5 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, A.3 did not participate in the attack. It is only A.1 and A.2 who hacked the deceased on his head with a sickle. P.W.1 in his earliest report-Ex.P1 has specifically stated that while he along with the deceased were going to him, A.1 came from behind and hacked on the head of the deceased with a sickle. He further stated that A.2 also came there, took out sickle from the hands of A.1 and dealt another blow on the head of the deceased who fell down and died instantaneously. It is also stated in the evidence that after the attack of A.1 and A.2 on the deceased, the respondent/A.3 said to have uttered stating that the deceased came in support of P.W.8 and he should be killed. But after the respondent/A.3 uttering the said words, A.1 and A.2 did not attack the deceased. By the time the respondent/A.3 said to have uttered saying that the deceased should be killed, he was already dead. But curiously, P.W.8 against whom A.1 and A.2 were having grudge, deposed stating that the respondent/A.3 took out the sickle from A.2 and prevented them to attack further. As such, the evidence of P.W.8 show that it is A.3 who intervened and took out the sickle from the hands of A.2. As such, the respondent/A.3 is responsible for preventing A.1 and A.2 in further attacking the deceased. Except the utterances said by P.W.1 stating that the deceased should be killed, absolutely there is no allegation against the respondent/A.3 in the attack made on the deceased. Admittedly, all the witnesses did not attribute any specific overt act to the respondent/A.3. As such, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the respondent/A.3 also participated in the attack. 6 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the judgment of acquittal recorded against the respondent/A.3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 13. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent/A.3 in the judgment dated 04.01.2008 in Sessions Case No.253 of 2004, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Madanapalle. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dt. 07.04.2026 SAB / MVA 7 Crl.A.No.959 of 2016 200 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2016 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 07.04.2026 SAB / MVA