APHC010019372020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI n MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 106 OF 2020 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the judgement dated 18.12.2019 passed in S.C.No.71/2015 on the file of - VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. Between: Sudhalagunta Seshaiah, CT No.6494, Central Prison, Nellore, S/o. Lakshmaish, aged 50 years, Paluru Village, Sydapuram Mand SPSR Nellore District ...APPELLANT AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandaleru Police Station,Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI M CHALAPATI RAO- LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 't: •; TjW Court made the following JUDGMENT : #■ IK 4 tv *5 • ¥ ■ «■ ''■N APHC010019372020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 106/2020 Between; SUDHALAGUNTA SESHAIAH, CT N0.6494, CENTRAL PRISON, NELLORE, S/0. LAKSHMAISH, AGED 50 YEARS, PALURU VILLAGE, SYDAPURAM MAND SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...APELLANT AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandaleru Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.M CHALAPATI RAO LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for the trial of offences against Women, Nellore, is the appellant herein. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges The 1®^ charge was under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder P.Ws.2 to 5 ; The 2^^ charge was under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to P.W.2 : The 3*^^ charge was under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to P.Ws.3 to 5 : and the Last charge was under Section 326 IPC for causing injuries to P.W.3. I. IV. Substance of the charge is that on 22.02.2013 at about 12.30 P.M., the accused attempted to commit murder of P.Ws.2 to 5 with an axe without any reason by causing severe injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC. 2. 3. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ arid also to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for attempting to commit murder of P.Ws.2 to 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC 3 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for causing injuries to P.W.2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 326 IRC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for causing injuries to P.W.3. Judge further convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for causing injuries to P.W.4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for causing injuries to P.W.5. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellan t filed the present appeal. Learned Additional Sessions 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Sanayapalem village, whereas the accused is resident of Paluru village, Sydapuram Mandal. As the wife of the accused discarded him, the accused came to Sanayapalem village where his sister is residing. It is alleged that the accused used to pick up quarrel with the villagers frequently. As such, the villagers are not talking with the accused. As such, the accused bore grudge against the villagers and decided to kill any one of the villagers. 4 Crl.A.No.106 of 2020 While so, on 22.02.2013 at about 12.30 P.M., P.W.2 was going on Podalakur - Rapuru road with an axe for cutting fire hood. At that point of time, the accused came across P.W.2 snatched axe from P.W.2 and hacked on her head with the said axe. On seeing the same, P.W.1 reached there and the accused went away into the village with the said axe where he attacked P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 with the same axe without any reason. All the injured were shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nellore. At about 2.30 P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. P.W.13-S.I. of police, Varlkuntapadu Police Station received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2013 for the offences under Sections. 307 and 324 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P22 is the FIR. He went to the Government Hospital and recorded statements of P.Ws.2 to 5. He seized M.os.1 to 5-clothes from the injured at the hospital in the presence of P.W.10 and another under a panchanama- EX.P23. He went to the 1®* scene of offence along with P.Ws.9 and 10 and seized M.Os.6 and 7. He also prepared an observation report- EX.P24. He prepared Ex.P25-rough sketch of the 1®* scene of offence. On the same day, P.W.13 went to the 2"^ scene of offence and seized M.Os.8 and 9 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 10 under a panchanam- EX.P26. He prepared rough sketch-Ex.P27 at the 2"^ scene of offence. He also seized the blood stained earth and controlled earth-M.Os.10 and 11 under Ex.P26. On 23.10.2013 at about 7.00 A.M., P.W.13 arrested the accused in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10. On the confession made by the accused, he seized the axe-M.0.12 under a panchanama-Ex.P31. He sent the material objects to RFSL, Guntur. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P32. (ii) 5 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 (iii) In the meanwhile, P.W.11-Civil Assistant surgeon examined P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 and issued wound certificates-Exs.PIS,PI 9 and P20 respectively. Injuries on P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are simple in nature. P.W.7 Causality Medical Officer, Bollineni Hospital, Nellore, examined P.W.3 He opined that the injury on P.W.3 is grievous in nature. After completion of investigation and after receipt of wound certificates, P.W.13 filed the charge sheet. and issued wound certificate-Ex.P4. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 marked Exs.P1 to P32 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 12. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. 9. Earlier, when the matter came up for hearing on 22.04.2025, this Court directed the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore to produce the appellant before the Superintendent, Government Hospital for Mental Health Care, Visakhapatnam, who in turn has to examine the mental heatth condition of the appellant/accused. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Nellore produced the appellant/accused before the concerned doctor. After examining and after providing necessary treatment, the Superintendent, Government 6 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 Hospital for Mental Health Care, Visakhapatnam furnished his report, dated 01.08.2025. The relevant portion of the report furnished by the Superintendent, Government Hospital for Mental Health Care, Visakhapatnam reads as follows:- “Regarding his mental condition, psychometry report revealed Borderline intellectual functioning with an IQ of 74, corresponding to chronological age of 11 years and 10 months, a schizophrenic profile and impulsivity. During his hospital stay and observation for a total of 2 months and 11 days, no symptoms or sings of Mental illness were found, hence no psychotropic medications were initiated. However, in view of his low intelligence and impulsivity, periodic remains by psychiatrist one advised while continuing treatment for his hypertension, since non- compliance may cause further decline din his intellectual functions intellectual disability cannot be reversed, hence he can never be cured of his low IQ. ” As the present mental health condition of the appellant/accused is normal, we have taken up the appeal today for hearing. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not assigned any special reasons for imposing maximum sentence under Section 307 IPC. He further contends that the mental health condition of the appellant was not normal when the alleged offence took place. Further, the appellant is not residing in the village where injured persons were living. He further contends that there is no animosity between P.Ws.2 to 5 and the appellant. 11. : 7 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 He further contends that the present case falls within the exceptions enunciated in Section 84 of Indian Penal Code. As such, he requests this court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 12. 13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending inter alia that for no fault of P.Ws.2 to 5, the accused attacked them and caused injuries with an axe. He further contended that for taking aid of Section.84 IPC, no plea was raised before the trial Court and there is no material to show that at the relevant point of time, the accused was suffering from ‘unsoundness of mind being incapable of understanding the nature of the act’. As such, he requests this court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence. 14. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. P.Ws.2 to 5 are the injured witnesses. P.Ws.2 to 4 in their evidence have categorically stated about the manner of attack made by the appellant/accused. So far as P.W.5 is concerned, she did not support the prosecution. So far as P.W.1 is concerned, immediately after the incident, he attended the injured and shifted them to Government Hospital, Nellore. P.W.1 further stated in his evidence that he gave the report-Ex.P1 to the police, received by P.Ws.2 to 5 were also corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.7 and 11 coupled with Exs.P4, PI 8 to P.20 respectively. So far as other material witnesses are concerned, they did not support the prosecution. Except P.Ws.1 to 4, and the Medical Officers-P.Ws.7 and 11 and the Investigating Officer-P.W.13, no other witnesses have supported the prosecution. 15. Further, the injures 8 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 We have gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Admittedly, P.Ws.2 to 4 are the injured witnesses and they deposed the manner in which the accused assaulted them with an axe. Though P.Ws.2 to 4 were cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 lends corroboration from the medical evidence of P.Ws.7 and 11. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 also corroborated by the evidence of PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion. Further, for taking shelter under Section 84 IPC, the defence has not taken such plea during the course of trial and there evidence adduced by the accused for taking shelter under 16. was no Section 84 IPC. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused under Section 307 IPC. So far the conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC are concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5 and no separate conviction need to be recorded under Section 324 and 326 IPC’. So far as the sentence of imprisonment passed under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the same is also liable to be interfered with, as there are no special reasons awarded by the learned trial Judge while imposing maximum sentence. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 17. as In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part setting and sentence recorded against the 18. aside the conviction appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 18.12.2019 in Sessions Case No.71 of 2015 by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge for the trial of offences against Women, Nellore, for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and the 9 Crl.A.No.l06 of 2020 appellant/accused is acquitted of both the charges. However, the conviction recorded under Section 307 IPC is hereby confirmed and sentence of imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine amount. The appeilant/accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case or crime. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for the Trial of Offerides against Women, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District (with records if any) 2. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 4. The Station House Officer, Kandaleru Police Station, SPSR Nellore District 5. One CC to Sri. M Chalapati Rao Legal Aid 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. Two CD Copies stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 JUDGMENT CRLANO. 106 OF 2020 "V r ov 15 SEP 2025 m Com ^ Curreni Ssciion ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IN PART