IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 805 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against by the Judgment passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Chittoor dated 08-02-2017 in SC.No.64 of 2016. Between; C.Nagaraja, S/o. Chinna Kanna Naicker, Aged 53 years, Cast: Naicker Occ: Mason, R/o. D.No.6/628/A, Nagalamma Temple Street, Santapeta, Chittoor Town. ...Appellant/Accused AND The State of AP., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP. ...Respondent/Complalnant Counsel for the Appellant: Sri G Vijaya Saradhi Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: % APHC010253232017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3517] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.805/2017 Between: C.Nagaraja, Chittoor Town., ...APPELLANT AND The State of A.P., Rep. by its P.P. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.G VIJAYASARADHI ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.64/2016 on the file of Court of learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under Section 302 IPC and second charge was under Section 307 IPC. Substance of the charge against the accused is that on 17.07.2015 at 2. about 9.30 P.M., the accused stabbed one S.Tulasiram (hereinafterreferred to 2 as ‘the deceased’) with a knife causing severe injuries and in the said process, he caused injuries to PWs 4 & 5, thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. He was further convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: 3. The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Santhapeta, Chittoor Town. PW.1 is the brother and PWs 4 and 5 are friends of the deceased respectively. PW.6 is the mother and PW.7 is the sister of PW.4. PW.2 owning a house in Nagalamma Temple street with five portions. PWs 4, 6 & 7 were living in one portion and the accused was living in another portion as tenants. The deceased was working as an Auto driver and living with his brother PW.1. The accused vyas working as a Mason. PW.4 was having a pet dog in his house. It is alleged that the said pet dog was making nuisance in the street. The accused and others informed PW.2, owner of the house, but in vain. On that, a quarrel took place between the accused and PW.4 and her family members. In that connection, on 17.07.2015 at about 3 9.15 P.M. also, a quarrel took place in between the accused and PW.4. During the course of quarrel, PW.4 tefephoned to the deceased and PW.5 and informed about the quarrel. Having received phone call from PW.4, the deceased and PW.5 came to the scene and the quarrel was continuing. During the course of quarrel, the accused took out a knife and stabbed PW.4. When the deceased tried to rescue PW.4, the accused also stabbed the deceased and PW.5 with the same knife. On hearing the cries, PW.1 came to the scene of offence. PWs 6 and 7 also came to the scene of offence. After seeing all of them, the accused left the scene of offence. PW.1 enquired the deceased, who informed him the entire incident. Thereafter, PWs 4 & 5 and deceased were shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment. Thereafter, all the three were shifted to the CMC Hospital, Vellore. On the way to hospital, Vellore, the deceased succumbed to injuries. At about 01.00 A.M., 18.07.2015, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report to police. PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Chitoor, received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.127/2015 under Sections 302 & 307 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P8 is the F.I.R. Having received information from PW.13, Inspector of Police PW.14 proceeded to the scene of offence at about 05.15 A.M. He prepared an observation report Ex.P3 in the presence of mediators PW.10 and another. He seized MOs 5 to 10 at the scene of offence. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P9 at the of offence. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital at about 8.30 A.M. and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the on scene 4 presence of PW.8 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, PW.14 recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3. After completion of inquest, he forwarded the dead body for conducting Postmortem examination. One Dr. Hemanth Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock due to multiple lacerations. As the whereabouts of the Doctor was not available, the Postmortem report Ex.P12 was marked through PW.15. As PWs 4 & 5 were taking treatment in I.C.U. PW.14 could not record their statements. On 19.07.2015, PW.14 visited CMC hospital, Vellore and recorded statements of PWs 4 to 6. On 27.07.2015 PW.14 arrested the accused. At the instance of the accused, PW.14 recovered M.0.4 knife near the scene of offence under a Panchanama Ex.P4 in the presence of PW.10. Thereafter, the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation was taken over by PW.15. After receiving Postmortem report Ex.P12 and after receiving the Wound Certificate and after completion of the investigation, PW.15 filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15, marked 4. exhibits PI to PI 3 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 10. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional 6. Sessions Judge convicted the accused 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. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. PW.1 is none other than o\A/n brother of the deceased. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that he did not witness the incident. After the incident, he proceeded to the scene of offence and enquired the deceased as to what had happened. The deceased said to have informed the entire incident to PW.1. His evidence further discloses that while he was taking the deceased to the hospital at Vellore, he succumbed to injuries on the way. 8. Immediately, he proceeded to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P1 to the police at about 01.00 A.M on the intervening night of 17 / 18.07.2015. In he has categorically admitted that he has not witnessed the incident. PW.2, who is the owner of house, has also stated that he has not witnessed the incident. He admits that the accused and PWs 4, 6 PW.3 in his evidence also stated that he has not his cross-examination & 7 are his tenants, witnessed the incident. He states that he was present at the time of inquest the dead body. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is not at all helpful to the prosecution in proving the attack by the accused on the deceased and PWs 4 & 5. PW.4 is the neighbour of the accused and on the fateful day, at about 9.30 P.M., the accused quarreled with him. During the course of quarrel, he telephoned to the deceased and PW.5 stating that the accused was quarrelling with him. His evidence further discloses that during the course of altercation, the accused stabbed him with a knife used for cock fights. He over 6 further stated that the accused stabbed on his chest, neck, and stomach and caused bleeding injuries. Thereafter, PW.4 fell down. PW.5 in his evidence has stated that by the time he along with the deceased reached the scene of offence, he found PW.4 with bleeding injuries on his stomach. While he was lifting PW.4, the accused came there and stabbed PW.5 also on his left side stomach and right palm and caused bleeding injuries. Later, he also fell down. As seen from the above, the evidence of PWs 4 & 5 clearly discloses that the accused stabbed both of them with knife M.O.4. PW.6, mother of PW.4, in her evidence deposed that on 17.07.2015, at about 9.30 P.M., while they were questioning the accused, he stabbed PW.4 with knife causing bleeding injuries. PW.4 telephoned to the deceased and PW.5 and asked them to come to the scene of offence. Later, the deceased and PW.5 came to the house of accused. Then, the accused pushed PW.6 during the course of quarrel. PW.7, daughter of PW.6, in her evidence stated that the accused stabbed PWs 4 & 5 and deceased with same knife causing bleeding injuries. As such, the evidence of PWs 6 & 7 corroborates with the evidence of PWs 4 & 5 in causing injuries to the deceased and PWs 4 & 5. PW.8 is the Panch witness for inquest. PW.9 is the Panch witness for observation report and recovery of MOs.5 to 10. PW.10 is the V.R.O, who is a mediator for the arrest of accused. PW.11 is the Doctor, who treated PWs 4 & 5, and issued Wound Certificates Exs.P.6 and P.7. PW.12 is the Corpse constable. PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector, who registered the crime. PWs 14 & 15 are the Investigating Officers. Having analyzed the above evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 4 to 7 disclose the attack made by the accused on the deceased and PWs 4 & 5. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 also lent support to the version of PWs 4 to 7. As such, the prosecution is able to prove that it is the accused, who caused injuries to the deceased as well as PWs 4 & 5. 9. come Coming to the nature of offence, admittedly even according to the prosecution, on the fateful day i.e., 17.07.2015 at about 9.30 P.M., a quarrel took place between PW4 and accused. During the course of quarrel, the accused stabbed PW.4 with a knife used for cock fights. Thereafter, PW.4 telephoned to the deceased and PW.5. Having received the said call, the deceased and PW.5 came to the scene of offence and during the course of quarrel, the accused stabbed the deceased and PW.5 with the same knife i.e., M.O.4. As such, there is no pre-meditation by the accused to attack the deceased as well as PWs 4 & 5. The entire incident is preceded by quarrel As such, it cannot, by any stretch of 10. between the accused and PW.4. imagination, be said that the accused has got intention to kill the deceased. The weapon used by the accused also is a small knife used for cock fights. As such, it can safely be held that the accused is liable for conviction under Section 304 Part-1 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the evidence of PW.4 is crystal clear that he attempted to kill her because his pet dog was causing nuisance in the X 8 entire street. Though the said fact was informed to the owner PW.2, he did not take any steps. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC recorded by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, in S.C.No.64/2016 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor, under Section 302 IPC in S.C.No.64/2016. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years. The fine amount imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained. So far as the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 307 IPC is concerned, it needs no interference. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has already held that both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is made clear that the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment, if any. Failing so, the learned trial Jude is directed to secure the presence of the appellant by issuing warrants. 9 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE QrfQtiX)fP ICER 1. The VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District (with records) 2. The IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 4. The Station House Officer, Chittoor II Town Police Station, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies To, Stu sree HIGH COURT DATE0:27/01/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.805 of 2017 0 5 FEB 2025 Si a €oJ ^ . Current Section , ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IN PART