APHC010865042017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1417 of 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the Judgment passed in S.C.No.99/2015, dated 24.07.2017 on the file of the court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Neliore, SPSR Neiiore District. Between: Parri @ Parri Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Ramu @ Banda Ramudu, S/o Kondaiah, R/o. Old SC Colony, Budamgunta Village, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Neliore District. ...APPELLANT/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010865042017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1417/2017 Between: 1.PARRI@ PARRI RAVI@RAVI@RAMU@ BANDA RAMUDU, S/O KONDAIAH, R/0 OLD SC COLONY, BUDAMGUNTA VILLAGE, KAVALI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. ’ ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep, by its PP, High Court 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 present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the Judgement passed in S.C.No.99/2015, Dt 24.07.2017 on the file of the court of IV Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore Dist. lA NO: 1 OF 2017fCRLAMP 2812 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 condone delay 54 days in referring the Criminal Appeal against the Judgement Dt 24.07.2017 passed in S.C.No.99/2015,on the file of the court of IV Addl.Dist & Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore Dist. and pass. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 2 KSR,J& VS,j Cria 1417 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 pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence which is passed in S.C. No. 99 of 2015 on the file of IV Addl. Dist. And Sessions Judge Nellore, Judgement dt. 24.07.2017 and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above CrI.A. No. 1417 of 2017, and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.G VIJAYASARADHI 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.99 of 2015 on the file of Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The first charge was under Section 302 IPC. The second charge was under Section 307IPC. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 22.06.2013, at about 11.00 a.m., the accused beat Davuluru Madhava Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and Parri Hazarathamma (P.W.2 and also wife of the accused) with an iron rod near Rajeswari Filling Station, Bharat Petroleum bunk, Jammalapalem village, Jaladanki Mandal which resulted in the death of the deceased and 3 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1417 201> bleeding injury to P.W.2, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. (a) After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused 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 Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: (i) The appellant is a resident of old S.C. colony, Budamgunta village, Kavali mandal, SPSR Nellore district and he ekes out his livelihood by driving an auto rickshaw, bearing No.AP-27-X-5418. The deceased is a resident of New Colony, Budamgunta village of Kavali mandal and used to work as community coordinator/cluster coordinator in I.K.P., Repalle, Guntur District. P.W.2, who is the wife of the appellant/accused, used to work in Bheema Mitra/Sanga Mitra, IKP, Kavali. Due to harassment of her husband i.e. the accused, P.W.2 got separated from him in the year 2006 and is living separately. Since then, P.W.2 developed illicit intimacy with the deceased KSR,J& VS,j > Crla_1417_2017 '' due to which, the accused bore grudge against both of them and was waiting for an opportunity to do away with their lives. (ii) While so, on 22.05.2013, when the deceased and P.W.2 were proceeding from Kavali to Chinthalapalem on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-26- AJ-9069, the accused, having observed them together on a motorcycle, followed them in his auto rickshaw from Kavali. En route, the deceased and P.W.2 went into Sri Rajeswari Filling Station, Jammalapalem village, Jaladanki mandal to fill petrol in the motorcycle. At the filling station, at about 11.00 the accused stopped his auto and got down from it with an iron rod, beat P.W.2 on her head due to which, she sustained bleeding injury and fell down from the motorcycle and lost her consciousness. Thereafter, the accused attacked the deceased by beating him on his head and face with the iron rod, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the ground. Assuming that both of them are dead, the accused escaped in his auto towards Kavali. a.m.. (iii) Upon witnessing the incident, P.Ws.5 and 6 (workers of the petrol bunk) called an ambulance and in the meanwhile, P.W.9 also witnessed the incident and informed the same to P.Ws.7, 8 and other villagers of Budamgunta. Both the injured were shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Kavali by ambulance crew, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 12.25 p.m. P.W.2 was shifted to DSR headquarters hospital, Nellore for better treatment. Upon receiving information from P.W.8, 5 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1417 2017 P.W.1 - wife of the deceased, along with her mother, visited the hospital and noticed the dead body of the deceased. (iv) On the same day, at about 03.00 p.m., P.W.1 gave a report before the Police and P.W.14 - Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2013 under Section 302 and 307 IPC against the accused. FIR was marked as Ex.P.12. Thereafter, P.W.14 informed about the registration of the case to his superiors and further investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.15 - Inspector of Police. Upon receipt of information, P.W.15, immediately proceeded to Government Hospital, Kavali and saw the deceased in mortuary with injuries over his face and back of the neck. He then received FIR copy from P.W.14 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at the hospital. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence along with P.W.10 (mediator) and P.W.14. He prepared an observation report which is marked as Ex.P.3. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and the same is marked as Ex.P.13. He seized M.0.1 - blood stained Earth and M.0.2 - control Earth from the scene of offence. Thereafter, he along with P.W.10 went to Budamgunta Harijanawada and seized the auto bearing No.AP-27-X- 5418 under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.4). Subsequently, he again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are workers in the filling station. He went to D.S.R.Government hospital, Nellore, where P.W.2 was being treated and recorded her statement. 6 KSR,J& vs,j Crla_1417_20l7 a.m., P.W.15 visited the Government hospital, Kavali and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10. Ex.P.5 is the inquest report. He also recorded statements of P.Ws.3, 4. 7, 8, 9 and others. He sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. (V) On 23.06.2013, at about 07.30 On 23.06.2013, at about 12.00 p.m., P.W.12 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kavali, on receiving requisition from P.W.15, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was due to vital organ injury like brain and skull bone, leading to hemorrhage causing cardio respiratory arrest. P.W.12 issued postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P.10. On 22.06.2013, at 11.00 a.m., P.W.13 - Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Nellore examined P.W.2, who is undergoing treatment in the said hospital and found one lacerated injury behind the right ear. P.W.13 issued wound certificate (Ex.P.11) stating that the injury is ‘simple in nature’. (Vi) (vii) On 25.06.2013, P.W.15 was informed by P.W.14 that the accused surrendered before the Police and as such, he instructed P.W.14 to bring the accused to Circle office, where, P.W.15 recorded the statement of accused in the presence of P.W.10 and the same is marked as Ex.P.6. During interrogation, accused led P.W.15 to Budamgunta cross roads, where the accused produced one iron rod (M.0.6) from the bushes. The said iron rod 7 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1417 2017 was recovered under the cover of mahazar vide Ex.P.7. P.W.15, then arrested the accused at about 06.00 p.m., and remanded him to judicial custody. P.W.15 sent M.Os.1 to 3 and 6 to Forensic Laboratory, Guntur for examination. Ex.P.14 is the RFSL report. P.W.15 took photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.36 are photographs with compact disc. After receiving RFSL report, postmortem certificate and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed a charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 15, marked exhibits PI to P36 and exhibited M.Os.1 to .6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel 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 contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident to prove that the accused killed the deceased. He further argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are alleged 8 KSR,J& VS,j Crla_1417_2017 to be the workers of the filling station where the incident has occurred, convicted the appellant, which cannot be believed as they have not furnished any proof to the extent that they are the employees of the said petrol bunk. He further argued that the accused,and P.W.2 got separated way back in the year 2006. However, on the date of the incident, upon seeing the deceased and P.W.2 travelling on a motorcycle, the accused, in a spur of moment, in grave and sudden provocation, attacked the deceased and P.W.2. As such, the accused had no premeditation to kill the deceased, hence, such act would attract exception No.1 of Section 300 and the accused is liable to be punished under Section 300(1) IPC. He further contended that the accused charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for allegedly committing the murder of the deceased and for attempting to kill P.W.2 respectively. Learned counsel contends that when P.W.2, who allegedly sustained injuries on the date of incident, had turned hostile, conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable. As such, he requested this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. i was Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the appeal and while denying the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the finding of the Trial Court that P.Ws.5 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the incident cannot be doubted as the version spoken by them 8. 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla 1417 2017 r- was corroborated by the medical evidence. With regard to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had no premeditation in killing the deceased, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that had there been no intention for the accused to kill the deceased and P.W.2, he would not have followed the deceased carrying the iron rod (M.0.6) along with him in his auto. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the accused, in a spur of moment got provoked seeing the deceased along with P.W.2 travelling on a motorcycle. Hence, he requested to dismiss the appeal. 9. We opine that P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 9 are the crucial witnesses in the present case. (i) P.W.5, in his evidence has categorically stated that he joined as an office boy in Raja Sree Filling Station situated at Jammalapalem village in April, 2013 and on 22.06.2013, while he was discharging his duties, a motorcycle came to the filling station driven by a male (deceased) with a female (P.W.2) sitting on the back side. At that juncture, accused came to the scene of offence in an auto rickshaw and took a rod from it, beat the female (P.W.2) due to which, she fell on the ground; thereafter, the accused beat the male (deceased) on his head, due to which he fell on the ground and thereafter, the accused beat him indiscriminately all over his body. Subsequently, the accused proceeded to Kavali in his auto. 10 KSR,J& Vs,j Crla_1417_2017 P.W.6, who worked in Raja Sree Filling Station, Jammalapalem from 2011 to 2013, in his evidence has stated that on 22.06.2013 while he was in his office, one male (deceased) and female (P.W.2) motorcycle for filling petrol in the motorcycle and upon hearing a big noise, he came out of the office and noticed that the female (P.W.2) was on the ground and saw the accused beating the deceased with an iron rod. When P.W.6 tried to reach the scene of offence, accused took the rod and fled away in his auto rickshaw towards Kavali. (ii) came on a P.W.7, who was working as cluster activist in non-pesticides management, in his evidence deposed that on 22.06.2013, he went to Budamgunta village to take' photos of agricultural lands and while he returning to Kavali on his motorcycle, at about 10.45 a.m., he noticed that the f deceased was boarding the motorcycle near Budamgunta cross roads, who later proceeded towards Jaladanki mandal. He noticed the accused following the deceased, in his auto. He then went to his office, at about 11.00 a.m., he was informed by L.W.16 over phone, that the accused attacked deceased and (iii) was P.W.2. (iv) it is the evidence of P.W.9 that he is a car driver and on the date of incident, he went to a construction site and completed his work there and started towards Kavali. En route, in order to fill petrol in his motorcycle, at about 10.45 a.m., he went to Jammalapalem Petrol Bunk and started to 11 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1417 2017 Kavali. While he was leaving the filling station; he saw the deceased and P.W.2 entering the filling station on a motorcycle. He also saw the accused entering the filling station with his auto rickshaw. He then heard sounds from the filling station and when he went to the place to see what happened, he saw the accused coming out of the filling station in his auto and going towards Kavali. He then noticed the deceased and P.W.2 on the ground. From the above, it can be held that P.Ws.5, 6 and 9, were present at the aforesaid filling station on the fateful day and have witnessed the accused attacking the deceased and P.W.2. In their evidence, they categorically stated that the deceased and P.W.2 came to the filling station on a motorcycle, followed by the accused in an auto rickshaw. It is also commonly established 10. from their evidence that the accused beat P.W.2 on her head and subsequently beat the deceased and then fled away from the scene of offence. Furthermore, the accused was seen following the motorcycle on which the deceased and P.W.2 were travelling, by P.W.7. Hence, it can be certainly held that the accused had attacked the deceased at Raja Sree Filling Station situated at Jammalapalem village. The Trial Court has appropriately concluded that the accused is responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. 11. It is an admitted fact that both the accused and P.W.2 got separated way back in the year 2006. Thereafter, the accused got married to another i. , 12 KSR,J& VS,j Crla_1417_2017 lady, two years prior to the date of incident. Subsequently, P.W.2 developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. However, it is the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused got provoked upon seeing the deceased and P.W.2 travelling together on a motorcycle and in a spur of moment, he attacked the deceased and P.W.2. But, we believe that had there been no premeditation, the accused would not have carried the iron rod (M.0.6) in his auto. It is clearly indicative from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the accused acted with premeditation. The accused started following the motorcycle on which the deceased and P.W.2 were travelling from Kavali to Chinthalapalem and when he saw them going into the filling station situated at Jammalapalem, he got down from the auto and took out the iron rod from his auto and beat P.W.2, because of which, she fell down and remained unconscious. Thereafter, the accused beat the deceased on his head and when the deceased fell down on the ground, he attacked him indiscriminately. However, it is an admitted fact that the accused and P.W.2 got separated in the year 2006 itself and thereafter, the accused got married to another lady. In such a case, getting provoked upon seeing P.W.2 along with the deceased does not arise. Further, the fact that the accused has been carrying an iron rod (M.0.6) in his auto rickshaw establishes that the accused was pre-determined for the attack and was waiting for a moment to attack the deceased and P.W.2. Thus, it can be held that the accused has deliberately carried the iron rod in his auto rickshaw, with an intent to kill the deceased. 13 KSR,J& VS,J Cria 1417_2017 When the injured witness i.e. P.W.2, turned hostile, conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC is liable to be set-aside. 12. 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, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. Further, the conviction and sentence recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 307 IPC is hereby set-aside. 13. In the result. Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRY //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Neiiore, Nellore District. Judiciai Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, Nellore District. 2. The Additional 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, Nellore District. 4. The Station House Officer, Kavali Rural Police Station, Nellore District. 5. One CC to Sri G Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Amaravathi 8. Three CD Copies Criminai Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at TK -r* A \ HIGH COURT DATED:30/06/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA No.1417 of 2017 g 18 JUL 2B25 Co Current Section ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN PART