APHC010256432018 j IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESni^^ ■ at AMARAVATI V WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present honourable SRI JUSTICE K AND honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA CRIMINAL APPFA I Of Cr.P.C, -01-2018 on the file of the VII Additional District at Ongole. 'O m Xi, FIVE SURESH REDDY REDDY SATTI Appeal under Section 374(2) passed in S.C.No.78 of 2015 dated 24 District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam aggrieved by the judgment Between: 1- Pavuluri @ Podiii Pamidipadu, Korisapadu Mandal. 2. Podiii Srinivasa Mandal. Audi Narayana S/o.Venkata Swamy, R/o. Rao, S/o.Anjaiah R/o. Pamidipadu, Korisapadu 3. Gudipati Anuradha, Colony, Medarametia, Korisapadu Mandal. W/o. Sateesh, R/o. R. Gudipadu, N/o. Yanadi ...Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Station. Prakasam District, r Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Through S.H.O.. Medarametia Rep. by its public Police prosecutor. High court of ■ ■Respondent/Complainant 1 r Ms.Aishwarya Nagula Counsel for Appellant No.1 Counsel for Appellant Nos.2 & 3 : Sri D Purnachandra Reddy Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent The Court made the following Order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1157 of 2ni« JUDGMENT; (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti) Accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.78 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District Ongole, filed the above criminal appeal. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges; The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 and The second charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against A1 to A3. at 2. The gravamen of the charge is that in furtherance of common intention of accused Nos.1 to 3 to kill Meda Subba Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), accused No.1, on 07.08.2013, at about 8.15 pm, stabbed him with a knife indiscriminately all over his body, at S.T. Colony, Medarametl^-Village of Korisapadu Mandal, and A2 and A3 \ / \ caught hold the deceased, aforementioned. thereby, committed the offences 3. After completion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos 1 to 3 under Sections 302 and 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. \ read with 34 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is; (I) Accused No.3, due to disputes, deserted her husband developed illegal intimacy with the deceased and and lived together for two years. Later, some disputes arose between them, and the father of the deceased pacified the matter. Accused No.3 developed the deceased and was waiting for an opportunity to wreak The accused No.3 shifted her residence to the house a grudge against vengeance. of P.W.2, and the deceased used to visit the house now and then. (ii) At about 8.00 pm on 07.08.2013, the deceased went to the house of accused No.3. A quarrel took place between No.3 informed the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 them. Accused same to her brothers, the accused Nos. 1 and 2. came to the house of accused No.3, and altercation took place between the deceased some on one side and the accused on the other side. During the altercation, accused No.1 stabbed \ \ the deceased with a knife, indiscriminately over his body, while accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of the deceased. The deceased, due to fear. ran from there with bleeding injuries and fell at the staircase of the main gate in a prone condition. As accused No.1 chased, the deceased ran towards Darga Road and fell near the corner of the house. He again ran towards NH-5 and fell near the house of P.W.3 on the road margin. • Some of the inhabitants of the locality informed the Police. The Sub- Inspector of Police, P.W. 11, sent P.W.6 and another constable, who, with the help of P.W.3, lifted the injured/deceased from the drainage into the jeep and took him to the hospital. When the deceased was questioned during the transmission, he disclosed the incident in brief. The doctor declared the deceased brought dead. (iii) The brother of deceased P.W.1 gave a report at 10:45 pm on the same day. P.W.11 registered the same as F.i.R.No.87 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. ' and forwarded F.I.R. to all the concerned. P.W.11 made an entry in the general diary of Medarametia Police Station regarding receipt of a Police message. On receipt of a copy of F.I.R., P.W.12 rushed to Medarametia Police Station, at about 11.45 pm and examined P.W.1. P.W.12 observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.9 and another, and he seized M.Os.1 to 8, red and black colour Splendour Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 E 6116, kaki colour paragon chappal pair, \ two key bunches, knife handle, knife metal middle portion, knife metal upper portion, control earth, blood and stained earth under scene of observation report, Ex.P65, attested by P.W.9. cover of He got photographed the scene of offence through P.W.8, photographer. The photos, along with the CD, are marked as Exs.P3 to P29. P.W.12 also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of the offence, Ex.P71. (iv) On 08.08.2013, P.W.12 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and P.W.9. The Inquest report is marked as Ex.P66. He also photographed the dead body of the deceased through P.W.8. The photographs, along with the CD, are marked as Exs.P30 to P64. He also examined P.W.7 and Later, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. P.W.10, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, conducted the postmortem dead body of the deceased on 08.08.2013 and issued a report, Ex.P69. He opined that the death was caused due to multiple injuries. ’ (vi) On 20.08.2013, P.W.12 secured the presence of P.W.9 and others. (V) Forensic over the proceeded to the three junction, an old bypass road towards Daivalaravuru village in Medarametia village at about 4;00 apprehended accused No.1, who pm and coming by motorcycle bearing No.AP 27 AJ 1937 Bajaj Puler, M.O.9. He also recorded the was confessional statement Ex. 67 of accused No.1 in the presence of P.W.9 and another \ F mediator. Accused No.1 led P.W.12 and P.W.9 to the wooden bridge, Pamidipadu village, near the check dam and produced blood-stained black colour pant and a full hands shirt, M.O.10 and M.0.11, respectively, from the bushes. The confession panchanama attested by P.W.9 and another is marked as Ex.P68. Thereafter, accused No.1 led P.W.12 and P.W.9 and others to Lord Anjneyaswamy Temple at Venkatapuram Junction on Nhl-15 and P.W.12 arrested accused Nos. 2 and 3. (vii) Blood-stained lungi of the deceased, the blood-stained three pieces of knife, sample blood-stained earth and control earth, one snuff colour trouser and shirt i.e. M.Os.4 to 6, 8, 7, 10 and 11 were sent to RFSL with a letter of advice, Ex.P72. The report of RFSL is marked Ex.P73. Later, the charge sheet was filed by his successor, V.V. Ramana Kumar. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, 5. marked Exs.P1 to P73 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 12. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 6. they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accepting the evidence of prosecution, the learned Additional 7. Sessions Judge convicted the accused as foresaid. T 8. Heard Sri Prahlad Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. Public \ 9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is not reliable and they are planted witnesses. He would also submit that P.W.4 admitted that A-1 and A-2 are strangers; however, no test identification parade was conducted. He would further submit that Ex.P1 report was scribed by L.W.8: however, he was not examined. Learned counsel also pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6. He would submit that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy. He would finally submit that nothing was mentioned in the F.I.R. or in the Inquest about the oral dying, declaration. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would . contend that no suggestions were put to the witnesses, that A-1 and A-2 are residents of another village. He would further contend that P.W.4 is the eyewitness, and his evidence is consistent and was corroborated by the medical evidence. He would submit that the trial Court considered the aspects, and there is no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court warranting interference. all 11. We have carefully scrutinised the' entire material available on 12. In the case at hand, the plea of the accused is a total denial. In view of the same, the entire burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijayee Singh Vs. State of U.P.\ held 13. that “In India, as it is in England, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as a general rule, and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But when an accused relies upon the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or on any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code, or in any law defining an offence. Section 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Under that Section, the Courts shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions, that is, the Court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved till they are disproved." The prosecution examined the brother (complainant) and father of the deceased as P.Ws.1 and 7, respectively, regarding the death and the relationship of the deceased and A3. Of course, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.7 14. is the direct witness to the occurrence. P.W.4 is an independent and eye witness; whose house is situated opposite the house where A-3 is P.W.3 is also an independent residing, and the incident occurred, witness who accompanied the injured along with P.W.6, in the police jeep • AIR 1999 sc 1459 \ T to the hospital. The prosecution also relied upon the evidence of P.W.5, another eyewitness to the incident. The prosecution examined P.W.2, the owner of the house where A-3 is a tenant. Of course, P.W.2 was declared as hostile; however, the evidence of P.W.2 can be considered to the extent that A-3 resided in the house on a lease on the date of occurrence. • 15. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.4 and 5 are planted witnesses and their evidence is not reliable, we are not totally persuaded by the said submission. P.W..4 in his chief examination specifically deposed about the altercation that took place between A-3 and the deceased at about 6.00 p.m. in the first instance and. the subsiding of the same. He further deposed about the altercation between A3 and the deceased when he went upstairs in his house after having supper; A-1 and A-2 came to the house of A-3 on a two-wheeler. Regarding stabbing by A1, he categorically deposed, which reads thus: A-1 went to the deceased, while the deceased was sitting on the stationed two wheeler motorcycle and A-1 stabbed the deceased. Then the deceased fell on ground from the two wheeler motorcycle and the deceased tried to wake up to retort«against A-1. Then A-2 caught hold of the deceased and A-1 stabbed the deceased twice or thrice into his abdomen. The deceased came out of the house and fell in a drainage canal at the house of P.W.3. A-1 and A-2' took away A-3 with her child by their'two wheeler motorcycle.” X \ / No doubt, in the cross-examination, P.W.4 deposed that he is not aware of the names of A-1 and A-2: however, he deposed that he knew the name of A-3. The appellants/defehce could not elicit any . contradictions in the evidence of P.W.4, the eyewitness to the incident. Though the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.5, another eyewitness, the defence could elicit in the cross-examination that P.W.5 16. and. P.W.1 belong to the same caste. Of course, that itself will not discredit the evidence of P.W.5. 17. It is a well-settled law that a conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness. In Sunil Kumar Vs. State (Govt, of NCT of Delhi)^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 9. ... This Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony, of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. The above principle has been reiterated in Namdeo Vs. State of Maharastra^. \ \ ^ (2003) 11 see 367 2003 See OnLine Se ] 140 \2007) 14 see 150:2007 See OnLine Se 354 18. It is also a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that where direct evidence concerning the attack on assault is worth credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes academic. 19. In Molu and others Vs. the State of Haryana^ the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the above aspect and observed as follows: " It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes, the motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the If, however, the evidence of the eye-witness is creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant ” same. 20. P.W.10, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P69 post mortem report, found 11 injuries on the body of the deceased. Out of 11 injuries, seven are stab injuries. The seventh among other injuries is on the abdomen. P.W.4 specifically • deposed that A1 stabbed the deceased on the abdomen. Thus, the evidence of P.W.10 corroborates the evidence of P.W.4. regarding the stabbing of the deceased by A-1 on the abdomen. The seven stab injuries, as seen from the post-mortem certificate, are on vital parts. / '‘aIr\976 sc 2499 21. The incident occurred at about 8.15 p.m., and the deceased died ' at about 9.30 p.m., and the F.I.R. was registered at about 10.45 p.m. The prosecution also proved the extramarital relationship between the deceased and A-3, beyond a reasonable doubt. P.W.7, the father of the deceased, in cross-examination deposed as follows: it is true that I stated to the police that I advised both subba rao and A3 not to quarrel with each other, and I subsided the quarrel in between them”. 22. P.W.3, an independent witness, deposed about the galata at the house of P.W.2. P.W.4 deposed about the altercation that took place between the deceased and A-3 in two spells on the same day. M.0.1 vehicle of the deceased was found at the scene of the offence with blood stains. All these instances mbke the thing clear beyond a reasonable doubt, regarding the relationship of the deceased with A3, the altercation on the date of the incident, A1 stabbing the deceased, and A2 catching hold of the deceased at the house where A3 resides. 23. The other contention regarding the oral dying declaration by the deceased while he is being shifted to the hospital, P.W.3, independent witness and P.W.6 constable specifically deposed about the oral dying declaration. Of course, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, nothing was mentioned about the oral dying declaration. / -jf - - • either in Ex.P1 report. Hence, we are not relying upon the oral dying declaration. 24. A-1 was apprehended on 20.08.2013, and his confession before the police is marked as Ex.P67. Based on said confession, blood-stained clothes of A-1 (M.Os.10 and 11) were recovered. As per RFSL report EX.P73, human origin blood stains were detected on items Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6. Items Nos. 5 and 6 belonged to A-1. This instance also proves that the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 regarding stabbing the deceased beyond a reasonable doubt. 25. Regarding the common intention, P.W.4 eyewitness, deposed that A-2 caught hold of the deceased, and A-1 stabbed him. To invoke Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the criminal act done by more than one person in furtherance of a common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. was 26. in Balu @ Bala Subramaniam Vs. State (UT of Pondicherry)®, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 11. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that (i) there ^.(2016) 15 see 471 : 2015 See OnLine Se 975 / was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime, and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. The essence of liability under Section 34 IPC is simultaneous conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. Minds regarding the sharing of common intention gets satisfied when an overt act is established qua each of the accused. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. Common intention is an intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if he has participated in that common intention. 27. As pointed out supra, the eye witness specifically deposed about A-2 catching hold of the deceased, and A-1 stabbed the deceased indiscrirhinately. Thus, the prosecution established the guilt of A-1 and A- 2 beyond a reasonable doubt for the offences under Sec 302 read with Sec 34 IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against A-1 and A-2 do not require any interference. 28. Insofar as A-3 is concerned, P.W.4 eyewitness did not state anything about the participation of A-3. This Court is not relying upon the oral dying declaration of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.3 and P.VY-6 in that regard. The prosecution failed to prove the participation of A-3 in the commission of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed against A-3 are not sustainable and V require interference. The accused No.3 is acquitted of the charge, and \ the conviction and sentence imposed against her are liable to be set aside. 29. We are conscious of the criminal jurisprudence that the should always endeavour to find the truth, and a criminal offence is not only an offence against the individual but also against society. The Court should be able to perceive both sides, i.e. prosecution as well as the defence. court 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against A-3 for the offence Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. A-3 is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-3 shall be refunded to her. As the appellant/A-3 herein under was already enlarged on bail by order dated 11.05.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, A-3 is directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Ongole,.for completing formalities in terms of the judgment rendered by the combined the legal High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.® The Criminal Appeal in respect of A-1 and A-2 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed against A-1 and A-2 for the offence , "2016(3) ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB)(AP) under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge. Prakasam District, Ongole in S.C.No.78 of 2015 dated 24.01.2018 is hereby confirmed. Since A1 and A2 were released on bail on 10.05.2023 and 02.03.2023 respectively, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court, forthwith, to serve the remaining period of the sentence. Failure to do so, the learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of A1 and A2 by issuing Non-bailable However, it is needless to state that the period already undergone by A1 and A2 shall be given set off under Sec 428 IPC. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending shall stand warrants. closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR v //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ \ To VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam 1. The District. 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, Prakasam District. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Superintendent, Open Air Jail, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5. The Station House Officer, Medarametia Police Station, Prakasam District. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 6. Two CCs to Amaravathi[OUT] 7. One CC to Sri D Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Aishwarya Nagula, Advocate [OPUC] 9. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10.Two CD Copies TK vna \. HIGH COURT \ \ DATED;15/10/2025 gf 2 3 OCT 2025 , ★'''QyiTChi— • JUDGMENT CRLA No.1157of2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL