NAYAKULA EERANNA @ N.KAMBAIAH, ANANTAPURAM DT., v. STATE OF AP., REP BY PP.,
CRLA/1058/2017 · 2025-02-18
K Suresh Reddy, T C D Sekhar
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32985 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32985 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010490442017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1058/2017 Between: Nayakula Eeranna @ N.Kambaiah State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Appellant:
1. SESHADRI GOALLA 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.542/201 Judge, Ananthapuramu, filed the present appeal. He was tried by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/ suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1058/2017 Kambaiah, Anantapuram District ...AP AND of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPO ellant: dent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) in S.C.No.542/2014 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, filed the present appeal. He was tried and convicted learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3517]
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY PPELLANT ...RESPONDENT on the file of learned Sessions and convicted learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to , in default to
2
2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 19.04.2014 at about 04.00 P.M., during election procession, the accused beat one Nayakula Thippeswamy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with a drum (Thappeta) on his head causing severe bleeding injury and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to head injury, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under:
(a) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Mallapuram Village, Rayadurg Mandal. The deceased was also a resident of the same village. PW.1 and PW.4 are sons of brothers of the deceased.
PW.2 is the wife of the deceased and PW.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. PW.6 is the Villager. On 19.04.2014, at about 11.00 A.M., PW.1, the deceased and accused went to Rayadurg town to participate in the nomination procession of Telugu Desam Party candidate. During the procession at about 04.00 P.M., the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased alleging that he had taken his cell phone. PW.1 intervened and pacified both of them. At about 05.00 P.M., all the three returned to Mallapuram village after completion of the procession. While so, at about 07.30 P.M., the accused once again picked up quarrel with the deceased near the house of one Yerramma (LW.7). The accused was quarrelling with the deceased stating that the latter had taken his cell phone. Hearing the shouts of the accused and deceased, PW.2, wife of the deceased, came to the scene and at that time, the accused gave one blow on the head of the deceased with
3
a drum (Thappeta) which he was carrying during procession. Having received injury on the head, the deceased fell down. Immediately, PW.2 telephoned to PW.1 and informed about the accused beating the deceased. PW.1 came to the scene and both of them shifted the injured to the Government General Hospital, Rayadurg in the Auto belonging to PW.5. On the advice of the Doctors, the injured was shifted to Bellary for better treatment. On the same day at about 09.00 P.M., PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. PW.10, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayadurg Police Station, received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.143/2014 under Section 324 IPC and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P6 is the F.I.R. As it was late in the night, PW.10 did not proceed further. On the next day i.e., 20.04.2014 in the early hours, PW.10 went to VIMS Hospital, Bellary. As the injured was in unconscious state, he did not record any statement from him. Thereafter, he secured the presence of PWs 2 & 4 and recorded their statements.
He left the hospital and went to Mallapuram Village and visited the scene of offence. He recorded the statements of Yerramma, PW.6 and PW.5. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on
21.04.2014. Having received the death intimation, PW.10 altered the F.I.R. to Section 302 IPC. Ex.P7 is the altered F.I.R. Having received the information from PW.1, Inspector of Police, Rayadurg PW.11 visited the VIMS Hospital at Bellary. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.7 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. During inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 2, 3 and others. Thereafter, he sent the dead
4
body for Postmortem examination. PW.9 Associate Professor, Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellary, conducted Autopsy over the dead body and found one sutured wound on the head of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was due to “head injury”. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P5. On 21.04.2014 itself, PW.11 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. He also recorded statements of PWs 4 to 6 and LW.7. On 23.04.2014, on receipt of credible information, he arrested the accused at Pallepalli gate. On the confession made by the accused, he seized drum (Thappeta) M.O.1 from the house of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after receipt of the R.F.S.L. report and Postmortem report, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked exhibits P1 to P12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1, Death intimation of the deceased was marked. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against them. 6. Heard Sri Goalla Seshadri, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 5
7.
The undisputed fact is that on 19.04.2014, PW1, the deceased and accused went to Rayadurg to participate in the nomination procession. During procession at about 04.00 P.M., the accused lost his cell phone. Thinking that the deceased picked up the cell phone of the accused, he quarreled with him. At that juncture, PW.1 intervened and pacified both the accused and deceased. Thereafter, all the three left to Mallapuram village. After going to the village, again an altercation took place between the accused and deceased in front of the house of LW.7. Hearing the cries of the accused and deceased, the wife of deceased PW.2 came to the scene of offence. PW.2 noticed that the accused beat the deceased on his head with the drum (Thappeta) in his hand and left the scene. On the information given by PW.2, PW.1 came to the scene of offence and both of them shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Rayadurg. On the same day at about 09.00 P.M., PW.1 gave a report Ex.P1 to the police and there was no delay on his part. According to the prosecution, PW.2 is the eye witness and having witnessed the incident, she gave information to PW.1. Apart from PW.2, PWs 4 & 6 are also witnessed the incident. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the attack made by the accused on the deceased. Coming to the nature of the offence, admittedly, the accused has no intention to kill the deceased and he was not armed with any weapon. The altercation took place between the accused and deceased with regard to the cell phone. The accused thought that the deceased picked up his cell phone during the procession at Rayadurg. The altercation between the accused and deceased
6
at Rayadurg town is also pacified by PW.1 and thereafter, all of them returned to Mallapuram Village.
It is only thereafter at about 07.30 P.M., again an altercation took place between the accused and deceased in front of the house of LW.7. At that juncture, the accused dealt one blow on the head of the deceased with drum (Thappeta) in his hand and he did not give any further blow. As such, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Doctor PW.9 also found only one injury on the head of the deceased. Further, the accused was not armed with any deadly weapon and the incident was preceded by a small altercation between both of them. As such, the accused is liable for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. 8. In view of the above, the appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. With regard to the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already served nearly 5 ½ years. In view of the said statement, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, under Section 302 IPC, in S.C.No.542/2014 vide judgment dt. 10.07.2017 is hereby set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone, while maintaining the fine amount. 7
As the appellant was already enlarged on bail by order of this Court dt. 21.09.2022 in terms of the order of a Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.1, he is directed to surrender before the concerned Superintendent, Central Prison and complete the formalities in terms of the order of the Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao (1 supra). As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J
_______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J Date: 18.02.2025 MVA
1[2016(3)ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)]