APHC010310312017 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 SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 181/2017 Between: Vanthala Lakshmana, Visakhapatnam, A The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.53/2015 on the file of learned District & Sessions Judge, convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 181/2017 Vanthala Lakshmana, Visakhapatnam, A.P. ...AP AND . by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPO pellant: SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO dent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.53/2015 on the file of learned XII Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam is the appellant. He was tried and Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT XII Additional He was tried and under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of 2 Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: One Pangi Ramanna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was a resident of Vanabasingi Village, Vishakapatnam District. The accused and material prosecution witnesses are also residents of the same village. PW.1 is none other than the wife of the accused. The accused and the deceased used to work in a hotel belonging to LW.2. The accused left the said hotel stating that the salary is not sufficient. But, his wife PW.1 continued to work in the said hotel. The deceased developed an extramarital relationship with PW.1. Having come to know of that, the accused warned PW.1 but there was no change in the attitude of PW.1. Thereafter, the accused raised a dispute before the panchayatdars PW.7 and others, who are the elders of the village. The elders after hearing the respective versions directed the deceased to pay an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the accused as compensation as he took away PW.1. The deceased agreed the verdict and requested for two monthly instalments. Ever since, the accused bore grudge on the deceased. On the morning of 10.11.2014, PW.1 along with the deceased went to Pedabayalu Sandy to purchase groceries. Having noticed the presence of the deceased in Sandy, the accused armed with a knife and stabbed the deceased on his abdomen and escaped from the scene. Immediately, the injured was shifted to the hospital, who succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment shortly. At about 2.30 P.M. on the same day, PW.1 went to the Police Station 3 and gave a report. PW.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedabayalu Police Station received Ex.P9 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.37/2014 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P10 is the F.I.R. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence situated at Pedabayalu and prepared an observation report Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.8 and another. He photographed the scene with station camera. Ex.P11 is the photographs. He seized M.O.1 blood stained earth and M.O.2 control earth under Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he proceeded to Primary Health Centre, Pedabayalu and found dead body in the hospital. He took photographs of the dead body under Ex.P13. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.8 and others. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. At the inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3 and others. He sent dead body for Postmortem examination. PW.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Paderu, conducted Autopsy over the dead body on 11.11.2014. He found one stab injury on the abdomen of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to Hypo volumic shock caused by internal bleeding in abdominal cavity. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P6. PW.10 Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam recorded statement of PW.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P8. Further investigation was taken over by PW.12 Inspector of Police, Paderu. He verified the investigation done by PW.11 and found it on correct lines. He visited Vanabasinghi village and recorded statements of witnesses. He seized 4 MOs 4 and 5 blood stained clothes of the deceased. On 18.11.2014, he recorded statements of PWs 5 & 6 and others. On 19.11.2014, he arrested the accused in the presence of PW.8 and another. On the confession made by the accused, M.O.3 knife was recovered by PW.12 from the house of the accused in the presence of PW.8 and another. After receiving Postmortem report Ex.P6 and after receiving Ex.P15 R.F.S.L. report and after completing the investigation, PW.12 filed charge sheet. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked exhibits P1 to P15 and exhibited MOs 1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1 Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 was marked. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. Heard Sri Surepalli Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. We have perused the entire material on record. 6. PW.1, the eye witness who is none other than the wife of the accused, did not support the prosecution and she was declared as hostile. PW.1 disowned Ex.P9 report. So far as PW.2 is concerned, he is none other than the younger brother of the deceased. Admittedly, PW.2 was not present at the time of incident. When he was at his house at about 01.30 P.M., he came to know about the attack made by the accused through the villagers. Of 5 course, PW.2 in his evidence has stated that the elders convened a panchayat between the accused and deceased and in the Panchayat, the deceased was asked to pay an amount of Rs.16,000/- to the accused towards compensation. PW.3 also speaks on the same lines of PW.2 with regard to the Panchayat and awarding of compensation in favour of the accused. PW.4 said to have present on that day in Sandy. He stated in his evidence that the accused was running away with a knife in his hand. When he along with public tried to catch hold of the deceased, the accused escaped. Thereafter, PW.4 and others shifted the injured to the hospital in 108 Ambulance. PW.5 also stated in his evidence that he saw the accused stabbing the deceased and he is the only eye witness in the present case. The evidence of PW.6 is not at all helpful to the prosecution. PW.7 is the person who convened a Panchayat between the accused and deceased and directed the deceased to pay a compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the accused. PW.8 is the V.R.O., who is a Panch witness for inquest report, observation report, arrest and seizure proceedings. PW.9 is the Doctor, who conducted Autopsy over the dead body. PW.10 is the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, who recorded statement of PW.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime, prepared an observation report, recorded statements of PWs 1 to 3, and he also held inquest over the dead body. PW.12 is the Investigating Officer. 6 7. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only evidence available for the attack on the deceased is the evidence of PW.5. The evidence of PWs 2 to 4 establish the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. Though these four witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt so far as the attack on the deceased is concerned. Coming to the nature of the offence, admittedly the accused gave one blow with knife on the abdomen of the deceased. After giving one blow, the accused ran away from the scene. Even according to the medical evidence adduced through PW.9, only one injury was found on the abdomen of the deceased. PW.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, has categorically stated that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to Hypo volumic shock caused by internal bleeding in abdominal cavity due to stab injury. Even according to the eye witness PW.5, the accused gave one blow with the knife on the abdomen of the deceased and ran away. As such, the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. Instead, the appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 17.10.2016 in Sessions Case No.53 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, and instead he is convicted for the 7 offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant-accused remained in custody from the date of his arrest i.e., from 19.11.2014 till today. As the appellant-accused has been in custody for more than 10 years 3 months, he shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 03.03.2025 MVA