IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDD AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1070 OF 2017 i Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Calendar and Judgment dt. 26-07-2017 passed in SC No 415 of 2010 by the court of learned Judge, Family Court-cum- VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. Between: 1. Gurrala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Narasimhamurthy, Occ; Agriculturist, R/o. Valluripalli @ Mukiralapadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, W.G. Dist. 2. Gurrala Naresh S/o.Venkateswararao, @ Venkateswarlu, Valluripalli @ Mukkiralapadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, W.G. Dist. R/o. ...APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Pubic Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following JUDGMENT : n APHC010721132017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3517] THURSDAY,THETHIRTEENTHDAY 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: 1070/2017 Between: ...APPELLANT(S) Gurrala Venkateswara Rao, West Godavari District &another AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (PerHon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) A.1 & A.3 in S.C.No.415/2010 on the file of learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Judge, Family Court are the appellants in the present appeal. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges: (i) First charge was uncj^r Section 452 r/w 34 I PC against A.1 to A.3. 2 (ii) Second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3. Substance of the charge against the accused is that on 01.11.2009 at 2. about 7.00 P.M., A.1 to A.3 along with Child in Conflict with Law (for short, ‘the CICL’) trespassed into the house of one Adabala Srirama Murthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) at Valluripalli @ Mukkiralapadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, and beat him with hands and legs and throttled the neck and repeatedly kicked on his stomach and testicles and thereafter while taking treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 04.11.2009, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452 & 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 to A.3 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted them under Section 452 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two weeks each. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, A.1 and A.3 filed the present Criminal Appeal. 3 m A.2 filed Criminal Appeal No.1147/2017 and it was reported that during pendency of both the appeals, A.2 died on 22.12.2019 and as such, the said appeal filed by A.2 i.e., Criminal Appeal No.1147/2017 was dismissed as 3. abated by judgment dt. 15.10.2024. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: 4. (a) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Valluripalli @ Mukkiralapadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased, PW.2 is son-in-law of the deceased and PW.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The family of the deceased and the family of the accused are residing in opposite houses. A.1 and A.2 are brothers and A.3 is the son of A.1. There was a dispute between the family of accused and the deceased regarding coconut leaves fencing. On 01.11.2009 at about 07.00 P.M. or 07.30 P.M., PW.1 informed the deceased that the wife of A.1 abused them and there was a small altercation between the women folk of both the families. At that juncture, all the three accused along with CICL entered into the house of the deceased, caught hold the hair of the deceased and dragged him upto Choultry situated near Gram Panchayat. PW.1 followed them by raising hue and cry. A.1 caught hold of the deceased and squeezed the neck, and A.3 kicked on the testicles of the deceased. On hearing cries of PW.1 and the deceased, PWs 2 to 6 came to the scene of offence and on seeing them, the accused ran away from that place. Then the injured was taken to the Government General Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment. After receipt of information, LW.15 Head 4 Constable, attached to Tadepalligudem Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded a statement from the injured, which is marked as Ex.P6. On 01.11.2009, PW.9, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem examined the injured. He found no visible external injuries on the person of the injured. Patient complained of severe pain at testes and PW.9 advised to shift him for better treatment to the higher hospitals. From 01.11.2009 to 03.11.2009, the injured was in Government hospital. On 03.11.2009, the injured was shifted to Asram Hospital, Eluru for abdomen. better treatment. On 03.11.2009 at about 3.00 P.M., LW15 Head Constable Tadepalligudem Police Station, received hospital intimation Ex.PS and statement of the injured Ex.P6. On the basis of exhibits P.5 and P.6, he registered a case in Cr.No. 150/2009 under Sections 452 & 323 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P7 is the copy of the F.I.R. Further investigation was taken over by PW.12 Sub-Inspector of Police. He visited the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem on 03.11.2009 and recorded the statement from the injured under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3. Subsequently, he proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report Ex.PI in the presence of PW.8 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.PS at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of PWs 4 & 5 and recorded their statements. (b) While undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to injuries on 04.11.2009. On the same day at about 1.15 P.M., PW.12 received death intimation. Having received the death intimation, PW.12 altered the F.I.R. 5 f Ex.P9 is the altered F.I.R. from Section 323 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, he proceeded to Asram Hospital and took photographs of the deceased. Photographs were marked as Ex.PIO. PW.13 Inspector of Police, Tadepalligudem, took up further investigation. At about 02.30 P.M. on 04.11.2009, he secured the presence of PW.8 and others and held inquest over the dead body in the hospital. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. PW.10 Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Eluru, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to peritonitis and gangrenes small bowel and omentum. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P4. On 09.11.2009, PW.13 arrested A.1 to A.3 and CICL at Da'rsiparru village, who were remanded to judicial custody thereafter. After completion of investigation and after receipt of the Postmortem report, he filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and marked exhibits PI to P10. On behalf of the defence, exhibits D.1 to D.6, 5. relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses were marked. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they 6. denied the incriminating material appearing against them. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned 7. Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6 Heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, ledrned Additional Public Prosecutor 8. representing the State. 9. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 10. PWs 1, 3, 6 & 7 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.1 is none other than the wife of the deceased. PW.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PW.6 is the daughter. PW.7 is the villager of the village. All these four witnesses in their evidence have categorically stated that the incident took place at about 07.00 P.M. or 07.30 P.M. preceded by a small quarrel between the women folk of the family of the accused and the deceased. At that juncture, all the three accused along with CICL trespassed into the house of the deceased and dragged him upto Choultry and beat him with hands and legs. Though PWs 1, 3, 6 & 7 witnessed the attack on the deceased, they did not choose to give any report to the police. Further, PW.11 registered crime on the basis of Ex.P6 statement, said to have been recorded by LW.15 Head Constable, Tadepalligudem. The said F.I.R. was also registered on 03.11.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. Though the incident said to have taken place on 01.11.2009 at about 07.00 P.M. or 07.30 P.M., the F.I.R. came to be registered on 03.11.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. LW.15, who recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P6, was also not examined by the prosecution. Further, the prosecution has also not produced any material to show that the injured was treated by the Doctor at Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem from 01.11.2009 to 03.11.2009. No material is placed on 7 record to show that the injured was treated till 03.11.2009, on which date the injured was referred to Asram Hospital, Eluru. The Doctor, who conducted Postmortem and issued Ex.P4, in his evidence stated as follows; “As per my observation, a surgery was done to the deceased prior to his death. The case sheet of the deceased where he was treated prior to his death is necessary to ascertain for which reason a surgery was done to him prior to his death. I did not find either external or internal injury to the testes of the deceased. Likewise I did not find either external injury or internal injury on the waist of the deceased. I did not find any contusions or bleeding in subcutaneous tissues on the neck of the deceased.” Further, the Doctor PW.9, who initially admitted the injured in the hospital on 01.11.2009, has specifically stated that there are no visible external injuries on He has only recorded that the patient the person of the deceased. complained of severe pain at testes and abdomen. But, he did not find any Taking advantage of the minor incident, the external or internal injuries, prosecution witnesses, particularly PWs 1, 3, 6 & 7, magnified the said offence stating that the deceased died due to the attack made by the accused. As the medical evidence adduced by PWs 9 & 10, the deceased did not succumb to the injuries sustained by him in the hands of the accused. The deceased might have died due to complications of surgery prior to his death. Absolutely, the prosecution has not placed any material to show that for what ailment the deceased underwent surgery and the prosecution suppressed the substratum of its case. As already indicated, taking advantage of the minor incident 8 V between the women folk, the prosecution party tried to implicate the accused in the present case. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Judge, Family Court in S.C.No.415/2010 vide judgment dt. 26.07.2017. The appellants A.1 and A.3 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. As the appellants A.1 and A.3 were already enlarged on bail by order of this Court dt. 14.09.2022 in terms of the order of Division Bench of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.\ they are directed to surrender before the trial Court / Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajahmundry, and complete the formalities in terms of the judgment in Batchu Ranga Rao (1 supra). As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. 1 [2016(3)ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)] SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Family Court-cum- VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari district # The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem West Godavari District 2. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District The Station House Officer, Pentapadu Police Station, West Godavari District 4. 5. One CC to Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 7. THREE CD COPIES stu TAC HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1070 of 2017 o fc 1 1 mar 2025 . Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL