APHC010168702018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 803/2018 Between: 1. GUDETI SUBRAMANYAM, R/O.GUNDALAMMAPALEM VILLAGE, KODAVALURU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to prefer this appeal ha conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore dated 11-10-2017 in SC.No. 69 of 2016 imposing punishment of imprison for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ other grounds. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be please condone the delay of 83 days in preferring the appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTH 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: 803/2018 GUDETI SUBRAMANYAM, R/O.GUNDALAMMAPALEM VILLAGE, KODAVALURU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...AP AND THE STATE OF A P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPO Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to prefer this appeal having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore dated 2017 in SC.No. 69 of 2016 imposing punishment of imprison for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 302 of IPC for the following among Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be please condone the delay of 83 days in preferring the appeal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3547] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY SUBBA REDDY SATTI GUDETI SUBRAMANYAM, R/O.GUNDALAMMAPALEM VILLAGE, ...APPELLANT THE STATE OF A P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High ving been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore dated 2017 in SC.No. 69 of 2016 imposing punishment of imprison for life and under section 302 of IPC for the following among Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against the petitioner/accused viz., Gudeti Subramanyam in S.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of Spl. Judge for trial for offences under SC's and ST's (POA) Act - Cum - V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore, dt. 11.10.2017 and release the petitioner on bail and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. LEGAL AID WITHDRAWN 2. G VIJAYA SARADHI 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.69/2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the Additional Sessions Judge”) is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 11.05.2015 at about 10.00 P.M., the accused hacked his younger brother by name Guddeti Nagaraju at Village centre of Gundalammapalem with a sharp knife causing his death instantaneously, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 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 Gundalammapalem village within the limits of Kodavalur Police Station. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the wife and PW.2 is the father of the deceased respectively. Initially, the accused was also residing in the said village and at the time of incident, he is residing at Nellore and eking out his livelihood by plying an Auto rickshaw. The 4 deceased and accused are own brothers. PW.2 was having three sons. Among them, the accused is the eldest. The deceased is the second son and LW.4 Audi Narayana is the third son. PW.2 was having Ac.3.00 cents of agricultural land in the village. One year prior to the date of incident, PW.2 gave Ac.0.50 cents of land to the son-in-law of the deceased at the time of marriage, for which the accused quarreled with PW.2. Subsequently, PW.2 sold the remaining Ac.2.50 cents of land also, for which the accused demanded his share. The matter was placed before the elder PW.3 who settled the issue asking PW.2 to pay an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to the accused. But, PW.2 did not oblige the said advice. While so, about three days prior to the date of incident, the accused returned to the village from Nellore and was quarreling with the deceased and PW.2 with regard to money. On 11.05.2015 at about 07.00 P.M., the deceased went out from the house. On the same day between 9.00 and 10.00 P.M, the deceased was chitchatting with PW.6 near Village centre. At that time, the accused came to the Village centre where both the deceased and accused quarreled with each other for the sake of money. During the said quarrel, the accused hacked the deceased on his neck with M.O.1 sickle. After receiving the said injury, the deceased went upto the house of PW.12 and fell in front of her house on the road. PW.1 received a telephonic call from her sister LW.8 about the incident. Immediately, PW.1 went to the scene of offence. By that time PW.2 and other Villagers were also present at the scene of offence. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Government Hospital in 108 Ambulance. The Doctors who 5 examined the injured at Government Hospital, Nellore, declared brought him as dead. On the next day morning, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. On 12.05.2015 at about 09.00 A.M., PW.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodavalur Police Station received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.60/2015 under Section 302 IPC. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P11. On the same day, PW.11 Inspector of Police, Kovur Circle received information from PW.10. Immediately, he proceeded to Kodavalur Police Station and collected copy of F.I.R. from PW.10. He secured the presence of mediator PW.7 and another and visited the scene of offence situated at Gundalammapalem Village. He prepared an observation Report Ex.P5 in the presence of PW.7 and another. He seized M.Os 2 to 4 at the scene of offence under Ex.P5. He got the scene photographed through a Photographer. Photographs were marked as Ex.P6. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He went to the Mortuary and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.7 and others. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P7. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. PW.11 recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5 and two others at the inquest. (b) PW.9 Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Nellore conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to large vessel injury. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P10. (c) After inquest, PW.11 went to the scene of offence and recorded statements of PWs 6, 12 and others. On 13.05.2015, he apprehended the 6 accused in the presence of PW.8 at NH-16 road. The accused said to have confessed about the commission of offence. He prepared a Panchanama Ex.P8. On the confession made by the accused, PW.11 seized M.Os.1 and 5 under a Panchanama Ex.P9. He arrested the accused who was remanded to Judicial Custody. He sent material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (R.F.S.L). R.F.S.L report is marked as Ex.P13. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked exhibits P.1 to P.14 and exhibited MOs.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, the mother of the accused as well as the deceased was examined as DW.1. 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 PWs 2, 6, 8, 9 and 11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that PWs 2 & 6 were planted by the prosecution and they are not eye witnesses. He further contends that PW.2, during the course of evidence, did not speak about the 7 presence of PW.6. Similarly, PW.6 also did not speak to the presence of PW.2. He further contends that PW.6 did not refer to the second injury in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. It is only during the course of trial PW.6 attributed second injury to the accused which of course is an improvement. If really PW.6 witnessed the attack, he ought to have stated second injury before the Investigating Officer also. As such, learned counsel for the appellant contends that PWs 2 & 6 were planted by the prosecution as eye witnesses at a belated stage. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that if for any reason this Court believes the version of PWs 2 & 6, he pleaded an alternate plea contending that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. The incident was preceded by a quarrel between the accused and deceased and during the course of quarrel the accused inflicted one blow on the neck of the deceased. The accused did not try to inflict more injuries on the deceased. He further contends that the accused did not even try to chase the deceased when he was going away. As such, he states that the offence committed by the accused will not at fall under Section 300 IPC. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that PWs 2 and 6 were shown as eye witnesses. Though they have been cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. He further contends that the presence of PW.6 was stated by PW.1 in the earliest report Ex.P1 itself. He further contends that 8 PW.2 is none other than the father of the accused as well as the deceased and he has nothing to depose falsely against the deceased. (a) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that M.O.1 sickle was recovered at the instance of the accused. As such, said recovery in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible and the mediator PW.8 has corroborated with regard to the recovery of weapon. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. PW.2 in his evidence has categorically stated that at about 10.00 P.M. on 11.05.2015, he received a phone call from his second daughter-in-law about the quarrel between the accused and deceased at Village centre. Immediately, PW.2 went to the scene of offence and found the accused and deceased quarreling with each other. During the said quarrel, the accused hacked the deceased on his neck with M.O.1, who having received the injury, proceeded upto the house of PW.12 and fell down. PW.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, in her evidence has stated that having received phone call from LW.8, she went to the scene of offence and found PW.2 and others already there at the scene of offence. As such, the presence of PW.2, being father of the accused and deceased, at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. PW.6, the other eye witness, is not related either to the accused or to the deceased. He is an independent witness. In his evidence, he has stated 9 that between 9,00 and 10.00 P.M. on 11.05.2015, he along with the deceased was chitchatting near Village centre. At that time, the accused came there and altercated with the deceased. During the course of quarrel, the accused hacked the deceased on his neck with M.O.1. Having received the injury, the deceased went upto the house of PW.12 and collapsed there. He also stated about the presence of PWs 1 and 2. PWs 2 & 6 in their evidence further stated that immediately the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Nellore in 108 Ambulance, where the Doctors declared him dead. Apart from the evidence of PWs 2 & 6, the prosecution could able to prove the recovery of M.Os 1 and 5 sickle and Blood stained colour lungi of the accused at the instance of the accused through the evidence of PW.8. R.F.S.L. report, which was marked as Ex.P13, also confirms that M.Os 1 and 5 were containing human blood. As such, the prosecution could able to prove the attack made by the accused on the deceased on 11.05.2015 at about 10.00 P.M. 12. Coming to the nature of offence, admittedly the incident was preceded by a quarrel and during the course of quarrel, the accused dealt one blow on the neck of the deceased with M.O.1. Admittedly, the accused did not try to inflict few more blows on the deceased. Admittedly, the accused never tried to chase the deceased while he was going towards the house of PW.12. If at all the accused was having pre-meditation to kill the deceased, he ought to have inflicted few more blows on the deceased. As such, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the accused was having intention to kill the deceased. 10 13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, instead convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dt. 11.10.2017. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years, while maintaining the fine amount. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 08.09.2025 MVA