APHC010279242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 468/2017 Between: Madala Venkateshwarlu, Nellore Dt., The State of A.P., rep. by its P.P. a Counsel for the Appellant: 1. J C FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of the acquittal dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned IV Additional District S.C.No.141/2015, the de facto 2. The 2nd respondent herein was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 468/2017 Madala Venkateshwarlu, Nellore Dt., ...AP AND . by its P.P. and another ...RESPO ellant: dent(S): T NAGARJUNA REDDY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of the acquittal dated 20.10.2016 passed by learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in de facto complainant / PW.1 filed the present appeal. respondent herein was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3476] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) Questioning the judgment of the acquittal dated 20.10.2016 passed by Judge, Nellore in complainant / PW.1 filed the present appeal. respondent herein was tried by the learned Additional Sessions 2 3. Substance of the charge is that at about 8.00 A.M. on 02.09.2013, the 2nd respondent / accused beat his mother by name Madala Adivamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with a pestle on her head in front of his house situated at Parareddypalli village of Atmakur Mandal, causing her death, thereby committed offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the 2nd respondent by judgment dated 20.10.2016, which is impugned in the present Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) The deceased was having three sons and one daughter. The accused is the first son, one Madala Lakshmaiah is the second son and PW.1 is third son. About 20 years prior to the date of incident, the properties of Adivamma and her husband were partitioned and all the three sons were allotted their respective shares. Some properties were kept with the deceased and her husband. About six years back, the husband of the deceased passed away in a road accident. After the death of her husband, the accused and Lakshmaiah started picking up quarrels with the deceased demanding to distribute her property. The deceased was staying with the last son PW.1. On 31.08.2013, PW.1 erected a shed in the site of her mother, which was objected by the accused and Lakshmaiah. Then the deceased intervened and informed both of them that PW.1 erected a shed in her site on her instructions only. While so, on 01.09.2013, the matter was placed before the elders PW.9 and another, before whom the deceased has stated that she would give the 3 property to PW.1 as he is taking care of her and he is looking after her. On 02.09.2013, at about 8.00 A.M., the deceased was going to milk centre for supplying milk. When she reached near the house of the accused, he picked up quarrel with her and beat her with pestle on her head and the deceased collapsed with severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. On seeing the same, PW.1 rushed to the spot, but the accused went upon PW.1 with pestle in his hands. Some of the villagers also came to the scene of offence. PW.2, who is brother of the deceased, and PW.3, son of PW.2, and other villagers came to the scene. On the same day, at about 9.45 A.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.13 Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station, received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.162/2013 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P9. At about 10.00 A.M. on the same day, PW.14 Inspector of Police received information from PW.13. Immediately, PW.14 along with staff visited the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report Ex.P6 at the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P10. He also seized M.Os 1 to 4 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 6 and 10. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.8 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. He took photographs of the scene of offence, marked as exhibits P.11 to P13. He sent dead body to the Government Hospital, Atmakur for Postmortem. PW.12, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Atmakur, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined 4 the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused by blunt and hard object. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P8. On 05.09.2013, PW.14 arrested the accused at Narampet Cross roads. On the confession made by the accused, he seized pestle from bushes under Ex.P15. He forwarded material objects to F.S.L. Ex.P16 is the F.S.L. report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P16 and exhibited MOs. 1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, exhibits D.1 to D.4 were marked. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7. Disbelieving the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. No representation on behalf of the appellant. Even on earlier occasion also, there was no representation. Consequently, we heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent / accused. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 8. The main witnesses in this case are PWs 1 to 3. PW.1 is the third son of the deceased. According to him, he is an eye witness to the alleged incident. He has stated in his evidence that on 02.09.2013 at about 08.00 A.M., when the deceased was proceeding to milk centre and when she reached the house of the accused, the latter quarreled with her and beat her 5 with pestle on her head and the deceased collapsed there itself and died on the spot. But, PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that at the time of incident, when the accused was beating the deceased, he was inside the house, which is situated at a distance of 50 yards from the scene of offence. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he has prepared two reports. First report was drafted at his house and the second report was drafted at Police Station with the help of PW.9. Admittedly, first report was suppressed by the prosecution. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that in the first report prepared at the house, the accused, his brother by name Lakshmaiah and his son were shown as accused. But, after going to Police Station, after due deliberations with PW.9, he gave report against the accused alone leaving his brother Lakshmaiah and his son. As such, the prosecution is suppressing the genesis of the version. In view of so many inconsistencies, the learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.1. Similarly, PWs 2 and 3 also claims to be the witnesses to the incident. But, PWs 1, 2 & 3 specifically admitted in their evidence that the house of PWs 2 and 3 is situated at about one kilometer away from the scene of offence. Further, PW.1 did not state the presence of PWs 2 and 3 in his Ex.P1 report. Admittedly, there are property disputes between the accused and his brother PW.1 and the deceased. Learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. Except the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, there is no other evidence on record. As already pointed out, 6 PW.1 has admitted specifically stating that he prepared two reports. First report prepared by PW.1 at his residence was suppressed by the prosecution, which was given against the accused, his brother Lakshmaiah and son of Lakshmaiah. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. . In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the acquittal dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in S.C.No.141/2015. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Date: 06.01.2025 MVA