APHC010648822017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH 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: 902/2017 Between: Yerragorlabaji @ Saradhi, Guntur Dt., ...APELLANT AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Apellant: 1. . 2. Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) The sole accused in S.C.No.321/2016 on the file of Court of learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under three charges. The first charge was under Section 302 IPC. 2 The second charge was under Section 307 IPC. The last charge was under Section 392 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 25.02.2015, at about 12.00 noon, the accused stabbed one Bhanavath Anji Naik (hereinafter referred as the deceased) with a knife on the hill of Kotappakonda by the side of steps way, causing his death and in the same process he also caused injuries to P.W.1 and snatched the gold coated chain from the neck of P.W.1, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 392 IPC. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. He was further convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 392 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/- , in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. The substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: The deceased is a resident of Srirampuram Thanda, Veldurthy Mandal, Guntur District. P.W.1 is a resident of Pitchiraju Cheruvu Thanda, 3 Pullalacheruvu Mandal, Prakasam District. Both of them studied in ‘Gurukula Patasala’ at Sundipenta of Kurnool District. While so on 25.02.2015, P.W.1 went to Kotappa Konda from Maddirala. The deceased also went to Kotappa Konda from Narasaraopet and both of them met there. After darshan, the deceased and P.W.1 were getting down through the steps. After getting down 500 steps, they found some coolies attending the repairs of the steps. As both of them tired, they sat at that place and they were sitting near the water tub at about 12.30 p.m. As the persons proceeding on the steps were seeing them, to maintain privacy, the deceased and P.W.1 went about 60 feet away, sat there and were chit chatting. At that juncture, the accused came there and demanded them to give their valuables at the point of knife. The deceased replied stating that they do not have anything. Immediately, the accused stabbed the deceased with knife in his hand and pushed the deceased towards backwards. Having witnessed the incident, P.W.1 raised cries and tried to interfere with the accused. The accused stabbed her on the chest and stomach. Thereafter, he snatched away the gold coated chain from P.W.1 and cell phone from the deceased. When P.W.1 raised cries, the accused left the scene. Hearing the cries of P.W.1, the coolies-P.Ws.3, 4 and others rushed to the spot and found the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, they tied the chunny to P.W.1 preventing further bleeding and was shifted to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet. On the same day, at about 04.15 p.m. P.W.10 – S.I., of Police, Narasaraopet Rural Police Station on the instructions of the P.W.11 – 4 Inspector of Police, Narasaraopeta-I Town Police Station, rushed to the Area Hospital and recorded statement Ex.P1 from P.W.1. He returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.38/2015 under Sections 302, 307 and 392 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P11 is the FIR. At about 03.00 p.m., P.W.11, having received information went to the scene of offence at about 03.30 p.m., and found the dead body at the scene of offence. P.W.11 was informed that P.W.1 was already shifted to hospital for treatment. At about 05.30 p.m., P.W.10 informed P.W.11 about registering the crime against unknown person. Thereafter, P.W.11 prepared an observation report (Ex.P2) at the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He seized M.Os.9 to 11 at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed vide Ex.P9. He also prepared rough sketch vide Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet for conducting postmortem examination. P.W.9 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to Hemorrhage shock due to stab injury. He issued postmortem certificate Ex.P10. On 26.02.2015, P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.6 and another at the Area Hospital, Narasaraopet under Ex.P.3. During the course of inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 and others. During the course of inquest, he seized wearing apparels of the deceased vide M.Os.12 to 17. On 27.02.2015, he recorded statements of P.Ws.4, 5 and others. On 14.03.2015, P.W.7 – 5 Village Revenue Officer, Ganapavam produced the accused before P.W.1 stating that the accused made extra judicial confession before him. P.W.7 handed over his report vide Ex.P.8 to P.W.11. He recorded confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.W.6 and another. On the confession made by the accused, P.W.11 seized the knife (M.O.18) near the scene of offence. On 23.03.2015, P.W.11 made a requisition before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet to conduct test identification parade of the accused. On 20.06.2015, P.W.13 – II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet conducted test identification parade in the District Jail, Guntur in which P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 identified the accused. Test identification proceedings were marked as Ex.P.14. P.W.11 forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Guntur. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P.15. P.W.14 – the successor of P.W.11 took up further investigation and after receipt of the postmortem report, RFSL report and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P15 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 19. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 – portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 was marked. 5. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 7 and 13, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6 6. Heard Sri. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied as she did not identify the accused in the Court. He further contends that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. He further contends that the evidence of P.W.7 also cannot be relied on as he is stranger to the accused. He also contends that there is no reason for the accused to approach P.W.7 for making extra judicial confession. He further contends that the test identification proceedings marked as Ex.P.14 cannot be relied on as the learned Magistrate – P.W.13 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 34 of Criminal Rules of Practice. As such, he requested this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the evidence of P.W.1 is crystal clear and the same inspire confidence of this Court. He further contends that right from Ex.P.1 the version of P.W.1 is consistent and there is nothing to doubt her version. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. As such, he sought for dismissal of the present appeal by 7 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9. P.W.1 in her earliest report Ex.P.1 has categorically stated that on 25.02.2015 she went to Kotappa Konda where she met the deceased who also came to Kotappa Konda. After taking darshan, both of them started coming down through steps. After covering some distance, they sat near the water tub as they tired. As passersby are observing them, they went 60 feet away from the steps. She also stated that at that juncture, the accused approached them and demanded them for valuables. Immediately, the accused stabbed the deceased on the chest. Thereafter, when P.W.1 intervened, accused also stabbed her on her chest and stomach and thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. P.Ws.4 and 5 in their evidence have categorically stated that they found the accused hurriedly coming down from the steps and went away on the motorcycle (M.O.19). As seen from the evidence of P.W.11, the statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 were also recorded within two days from the date of offence. In the test identification parade held on 20.06.2015, all the three witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 identified the accused. As seen from the material, the incident took place at about noon time and it lapsed for a considerable time as the accused initially attacked the deceased and thereafter P.W.1. As such, P.W.1 could able to identify the accused as the incident lasted for some time. So far as the test identification parade is concerned, P.W.13 i.e., the learned II Additional 8 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet has taken all precautions in the parade. In the cross-examination, the defence has elicited that she has taken all precautions before conducting test identification. In the cross examination, defence counsel elicited from P.W.13 as follows: “As per my report, I myself selected 5 non suspects who were having similar height, age, complexion in colour as that of the suspect among the persons available” 10. As such, the evidence of P.W.13 also lends support to the prosecution apart from the injured eye-witness P.W.1 and corroborating witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5. 11. Having analyzed the above evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, and the test identification parade conducted by P.W.13 clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the evidence of P.W.7 with regard to extra judicial confession is concerned, we are not inclined to accept the same as he has specifically admitted in the evidence that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused and there is no reason for the accused to confess before P.W.7. But, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5 and 13 is sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet in S.C.No.321 of 2016, dated 27.12.2016. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _______________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 04.03.2025 Gss