IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT llo THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY% AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1328 OF 2017 (0 UJ 7> 4 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court I 15.03.2017 passed in court of Judge, Family Court cum III may be pleased to to set aside the judgment dated SC.No.3/2017 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Vizianaga ram Between: Sukuru Bheema Raju, S/o. Latchahna Dora,, Vilalge, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.Agriculture R/o. Mula Boddavara ...APELLANT AND °f Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati High court of ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SRI. KOLUSU RAVIKIRAN KUMar Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: (AP) -a APHC010863632017 12 & IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] j ■ i- WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1328/2017 - «• Between: Sukuru Bheema Raju ...APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Appellant: ...RESPONDENT 1.KOLUSU RAVIKIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Surest! Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.3 of 2017 on the file of Judge, Family Court - Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the appellant. He was cum - III tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. First charge was under Section 302 IPC and the second charge 498-A IPC. was under Section V 2 Substance of the charge is that prior to 26.08.2016, the accused 2. subjected his wife Sukuru Atchayamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) to cruelty by harassing her demanding to bring money from her parents’ house. On 26.08.2016, the accused quarrelled with the deceased and hacked her on the neck causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 498-A IPC. 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.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: 3. (a) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Mula Boddavara Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. The marriage between the accused and deceased was performed about 16 years prior to the date of incident and they lead happy marital life for few years. The couple blessed with a daughter by name Tulasi. Both of them are eking out their livelihood by attending to coolie work. (b) PW.1 is the brother of the deceased, PWs 2 & 3 are neighbours, and PWs 4 & 8 are relatives of the deceased. The accused having addicted to 3 vices used to pick up quarrels with the deceased. He used to beat her with hands and harassing her both physically and mentally. (c) While so, on 26.08.2016 at about 10.30 A.M., the accused asked the deceased to bring money from her parents’ house, for which the latter refused. Thereafter, an altercation took place between both of them. During the course of scuffle, the deceased pushed the accused resulting the accused fell on the C.C. road. Then, the accused got up and took out a knife from the house and hacked her on the neck with said knife. Immediately, the deceased fell on the ground and died on the spot. Immediately, having seen the incident, PW.1 raised cries and PWs 2 & 3, who are neighbours, rushed to the scene of offence. Thereafter, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. At about 1.00 P.M., PW.10 Head Constable, S.Kota Police Station, received Ex.PI from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.193/2016 under Section 498- A and 302 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P8 is the F.I.R. Having received information from PW.10, the Inspector of Police PW.11 took up investigation. He received copies of F.I.R. and secured presence of PWs 7 & 9 mediators and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared observation report Ex.P5 in the presence of PWs 7 & 9. He got the scene photographed, marked as Ex.PIO. He seized MOs 3 & 4 under Ex.P5. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PWs 7 & 9. Inquest report is marked ns Ex.P2. During inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4 and 8. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.PII at the scene of offence. He sent dead body for Postmortem examination. PW.6 Civil Assistant Surgeon, 4 V Community Health Centre, S.Kota, conducted Autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to Hypo volemic shock due to hacking with sharp instrument on the neck. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P3. After Postmortem examination, PW.6 sent MOs 5 & 6 to the Investigating Officer PW.11 who seized them under Panchama. While so, on 26.08.2016 at about 07.00 P.M., the accused surrendered before PW.11 who recorded confession statement Ex.P6. On the confession made by the accused, PW.11 seized MOs 1 & 2 under Panchanama Exs.P6 & P7 in the presence of mediators. He arrested the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. He sent MOs.1 to 6 to R.F.S.L, for chemical examination. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P4. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and exhibited M.O.s 1 to 6. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 6. Heard Sri Kolusu Ravikiran Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. \ \ 5 « Its.*' PW.1, who is none other than the brother of deceased, is shown as eye witness in the present case. In his evidence, PW.1 has specifically stated that the accused having addicted to vices used to demand the deceased to bring money from her parents’ house. PW.1 further stated that the accused used to 8. pick up quarrels with the deceased demanding her to bring money from her parents’ house. Due to unbearable harassment, the deceased came to the house of PW.1 for two or three times and asked PW.1 and his mother for money. It is also stated in his evidence that he gave an amount of Rs.5,000/- at one time and Rs. 10,000/- at another time, and further stated that the accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally. While so, on 26.08.2016, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and hacked her on the neck. PW.1 further stated that on hearing the cries, PWs 2 & 3, who are the neighbours, came to the scene and witnessed the accused hacking the deceased. Though PW.2 was also projected as eye witness, in his cross-examination he specifically stated that he did not witness the hacking by the accused. After hearing cries, he came out and found the body lying in front of the house of the accused. (a) So far as PW.3 is concerned, he is also neighbour of the accused and in his evidence, he has specifically stated that he witnessed the incident. Both PWs 2 & 3 in their evidence have categorically stated that the accused and deceased used to quarrel frequently. The evidence of PWs 1 & 3 is consistent so far as the attack on the deceased by the accused is concerned. They have specifically stated that the accused hacked the deceased with knife 6 on her neck. Further, the evidence of PWs 1 & 3 discloses that the incident is preceded by a quarrel between the accused and deceased, (b) As seen from the evidence available on record, PW.1 promptly lodged a report Ex.P1 before PW.10. Further, the ocular version spoken to by PWs 1 & 3 is corroborated with the medical evidence adduced through PW.6 coupled with Ex.P3. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution established the attack on the deceased by the accused. 10. Coming to the nature of offence, admittedly even according to the prosecution, the accused dealt only one blow on the neck of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident preceded by a quarrel between the accused and deceased. It is also the case of the prosecution that initially the deceased pushed the accused who fell down on the cement road. It is only thereafter the accused took out a knife and gave one blow on the neck of the deceased. As such, it can be safely inferred that the accused was not having any intention to kill the deceased. It is only during the course of scuffle and that too when the deceased pushed the accused who fell down on the cement road, he took out a knife and hacked her on the neck. As such, it is on the provocation of the deceased, the accused dealt one blow on the neck of the deceased with a knife. As such, the offence under Section 302 I PC is not made out in the circumstances of the case and the case falls within the provisions of Section 304 IPC. / \ \ -• 7 In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set 11. aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, instead convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant 12. is suffering with Paralysis and he is bedridden. / -v-y:h On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced 13. written instructions submitted by the Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station confirming the factum of the appellant suffering from Paralysis and undergoing treatment in the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. Subsequently he was discharged from the hospital and his sister is taking care and providing treatment to the appellant. It is also stated that the appellant is not in a position to walk and he is bedridden. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court - cum - III Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in S.C.No.3 of 2017 vide judgment dated 15.03.2017. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, during pendency of the appeal the appellant was released on bail by order dated 04.05.2023 vide I.A.No.1/2023, by which time the appellant has served nearly 6 V2 years of imprisonment. As such, we reduce the sentence to the period which the appellant had already 8 undergone, while maintaining fine amount. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand appellant / closed. SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judge, Family Court cum III Additional Vizianagaram (with records if any) The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, S. Kota, Vizianagaram The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam One CC to Sri Kolusu Ravikiran Kumar Advocate [OPUC] [OUT^^^ Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra I HKEE CD Copies sessions Judge 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Pradesh. 7. psr AL 'f HIGH COURT DATE0:07/05/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1328 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL