APHC010860612017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1239/2017 Between: 1. GADIMERI RAGHAVAIAH, SPSR NELLORE DT.,, S/O RAMANAIAH, R/O, PATHUR, RAMATHEERTHAM VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF AP REP PP, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment dated 23.08.201- in Sessions Case No.30 of 2015 on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 2466 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence dated 23.08.2017 passed in S.C.No.30 of 2015 on the file of the court of the III Addl. Sessions judge, 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 Nellore and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to enlarge the petitioner herein on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C.No. 30 of 2015 dated 23-08-2017 on the file of the court of the III Addl. District and sessions Judge, Nellore and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the Crl.A.No. 1239 of 2017 and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ROSEDAR S.R.A 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice V. Sujatha) Sole accused in S.C.No.30 of 2015 on the file of Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 16.07.2013, at about 03.45 p.m., the accused hacked one Gadimeri Vijayamma (hereinafter referred to as 3 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 ‘deceased’) with an axe while she was sleeping on a cot, causing her death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: (i) The marriage of the deceased was performed with the accused and they were blessed with three children (two daughters and one son). While they were living happily, the accused suspected the fidelity of the deceased and used to quarrel with her. As such, three days prior to the date of incident, P.W.5–cousin brother of P.W.1 (father of the deceased) and other elders held negotiations and persuaded the accused to change his attitude towards the deceased. The accused suspected the deceased of having illicit intimacy with others and decided to do away with her life. While so, on 16.07.2013, at about 03.45 p.m., while the deceased was sleeping on a cot in front of their thatched house, the accused secured an axe and hacked on middle and back of her head, due to which, she fell unconscious on the cot, which was witnessed by P.W.3 – co-sister of the deceased and P.W.6 – relative of the deceased. Upon seeing them, the accused ran away along with the axe. Thereafter, the injured was immediately shifted to Bollineni hospital, Nellore. On the same day, at about 08.00 p.m., P.W.1 – father of the deceased, gave a report (Ex.P.1) to S.I. of Police, Vidavalur Police Station, who registered a case in Crime No.41 4 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 of 2013 under Section 307 IPC, which is marked as Ex.P.12. Upon the advice of doctors, while the deceased was being shifted to a hospital in Chennai, she succumbed to injuries in Nellore town itself on 17.07.2013 at about 02.00 a.m. (ii) On 17.07.2013, at about 07.00 a.m., P.W.14 – Inspector of Police, was informed about the death of the deceased. He altered section of offence from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. He visited Vidavalur Police station and received the altered FIR in crime No.41 of 2013. Ex.P.13 is the altered FIR. P.W.14 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report (Ex.P.14) in the presence of P.W.9 and others. He also prepared rough sketch, which is marked as Ex.P.15. He got photographed the scene of offence and has seized blood stained Earth (M.O.5), controlled Earth(M.O.6), blood stained wire(M.O.3) and controlled wire(M.O.4) from the scene of offence.Thereafter, P.W.14 went to the Government hospital, Nellore and secured the presence of P.Ws.8, 11 and other blood relatives of the deceased and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.16 is the inquest report. He also recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 6. Thereafter, P.W.14 sent the dead body for postmortem examination. (iii) On 17.07.2013, at about 04.00 p.m., upon receiving requisition from Police for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, P.W.13 – Civil Assistant Surgeonin Community Health Centre, Allur, examined 5 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. He issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.11. (iv) Thereafter, P.W.14 again visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.W.7 and two others and recorded their statements. After completion of autopsy, he seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased which are marked as M.Os.7 to 9. On 19.07.2013, upon receiving credible information, P.W.14 along with P.Ws.9 and 12 (mediators) went to Bus stop centre, Ramatheerdham and apprehended the accused. The accused lead the Police to Poonnapudi turning road at the outskirts of Pathuru village, where he hid the axe and his shirt. P.W.14 seized the axe (M.O.1) and shirt (M.O.2) under seizure mahazar (Ex.P.17). P.W.14 arrested the accused who was remanded for judicial custody. Thereafter, he sent all the material objects to RFSL, Guntur and on examining the same, RFSL, Guntur issued a report which is marked as Ex.P.19. After receiving RFSL report and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14, marked exhibits P1 to P19 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. On behalf of the accused, exhibits D1 to D5 were marked. When the accused was examined under 6 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. Rosedar S.R.A., learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence on record. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that though the incident allegedly took place on 16.07.2013, at about 03.45 p.m., a report was filed before the Police at 08.00 p.m., on the same day, which clearly shows that there is a delay of 4 hours 15 minutes in reporting the case and the reason for the said delay is not explained. He contends that during the said period, the accused was confined by the family members of the deceased and was pressurized to transfer all his properties, in favour of his children. He further argued that, when the deceased allegedly succumbed to injuries on the way to Chennai at 02.00 a.m., and the said report was given to the Police by P.W.4 at 07.00 a.m., it is curious as to how the dead body of the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital without any FIR from the Police. Learned counsel further argued that the deceased was missing from one day prior to her death and after thorough 7 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 search by the appellant and others, the dead body of the deceased was found in the fields of P.W.5. When the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the fields of P.W.5, the act of accused hacking the deceased with an axe in front of their house, as alleged, is unacceptable. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the injuries, sustained by the deceased as can be seen from Ex.P.11, are not possible with an axe and the said fact is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.13 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, that the injury No.2, sustained by the deceased is possible with a blunt object like stick or rod. In such a case, convicting the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased is unsustainable. As there are certain discrepancies, as mentioned above, learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to allow the appeal and to set-aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the appeal has contended that there is no explanation on the part of the accused, as to how the dead body of the deceased ended up in front of his house, on a cot. He further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 cannot be doubted as they witnessed the accused coming out of his house, carrying a blood stained axe in his hand. Moreover, the axe, which was used by the accused in hacking the deceased, was recovered at the instance of the accused. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the 8 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and requested to dismiss the present appeal. 9. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the mother, of the deceased. P.W.3 is the co-sister and P.W.4 is the brother, of the deceased. P.W.5 is the cousin brother of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is a relative of the deceased. According to the prosecution, P.Ws. 3 to 7 are eye witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.8 and 11 are the inquest mediators. P.W.9 – V.R.O., of Ramatheerdam village and P.W.10 acted as mediators for scene of offence observation report (Ex.P.14). P.W.12 acted as mediator for the arrest of accused. P.W.13 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.14 is the investigating officer. 10. After perusing the entire material available on record, we opine that P.Ws.3, 5 and 7 are the crucial witnesses in the present case, as they consistently deposed in their evidence that, on the fateful day, at the relevant point of time, they saw the accused coming out of the house with a blood stained axe in his hand and as well as the deceased lying down on the cot with a head injury. 11. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses would show that the accused used to harass the deceased and suspected her fidelity, due to which, mediations were held by P.W.6 and other village elders. It can also be 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 observed that P.Ws.3, 5 and 7 were present at the scene of offence and have witnessed the accused coming out of his house with blood stained axe in his hand. It is also commonly established from their evidence that the deceased fell down on the cot, after sustaining the injuries. Though learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the injuries sustained by the deceased are not possible with an axe, the same cannot be sustained in view of the evidence of P.W.13 – Civil Assistant Surgeon. Though there are certain discrepancies, as to whether P.Ws.3, 5 and 7 have really witnessed the incident, their evidence is consistent regarding the accused coming out of the house with a blood stained axe in his hand and the deceased lying down on the cot in front of their house, with a cut injury. Even otherwise, the defence failed to elicit anything adverse during the course of cross examination. Further, no explanation was offered by the appellant as to how the deceased met with homicidal death at his house. 12. Though the case of the accused is that the deceased was missing one day prior to the date of incident and her dead body was found in the fields of P.W.5, except giving a suggestion to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 in their cross examination, nothing has been elicited either from them or from P.W.5, in whose field the dead body of the deceased was recovered, as per the defence. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that while he was coming from his agricultural field, upon hearing galata near the house of the accused, he went 10 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 there and saw the accused coming out of the house with a blood stained axe in his hand and the deceased lying down on the cot in front of the house, with a cut injury. Nothing prevented the defence to rebut the evidence of P.W.5. If at all the accused found the dead body of the deceased in the fields of P.W.5, nothing prevented him from reporting the alleged incident to Police. Even assuming, that the version put forth by the accused is taken at its face value, there is no cogent material on record to substantiate such a claim. The defence, despite having availed an opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, especially P.Ws.3, 5 and 7, failed to elicit any contradictions or discrepancies to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Merely suggesting a theory in defence, without any supporting material evidence, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 13. Now, with regard to the delay in lodging a report before the Police by P.W.1, the explanation of the defence, that after recovering the dead body of the deceased from the fields of P.W.5, the accused was confined by the family members of the deceased, including P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and was forced to transfer his property in favour of his children, cannot be believed. Further, we are of the opinion that, if at all the sole intention of the family members of the deceased is to get the property of the accused transferred in favour of his children, the family members would not have confined the accused as aforesaid, as the children of the accused, being the legal heirs, are deemed to 11 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1239_2017 inherit the properties of the accused. As such, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this aspect is untenable. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased, beyond reasonable doubt and as there are no merits in the present appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 15. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _______________ V.SUJATHA, J Date:17.07.2025. Gss