APHC010915202017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH 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: 1603/2017 Between: 1. KANNAM REDDY VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. BABU @ GANDHI, TELAGA BY CASTE, VNR STREET 6TH WWARD, PERALA, CHIRALA. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3148 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 the delay of ( 31 ) days in represeing the above Crl Appeal SR No. of 2017 before this Hon'ble Court and to pass such other order or 2 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 orders as this Hon'ble Court y deem fit and proper in the ircumstances of the case. IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3149 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 the delay of (63) days in filing the above criminal petition against Judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed in SC No. 59/2016 on the file of the court of the Family-cum-VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 3 OF 2017(CRLAMP 3150 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 Judgment dated 21.06.2017 passed in SC No. 59 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Family-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole by enlarging the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of appeal before this Hon'ble Court and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.59 of 2016 on the file of Judge, Family Court- cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole is the appellant. He 3 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 26.01.2015, at about 07.00 p.m., the accused caused the death of one Chichula Mallika (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), using an axe, in front of her house situated at Perala-Chirala village, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows: (i) The accused, as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Perala-Chirala village, Prakasam district. The deceased was also a resident of the same village. P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased and P.Ws.2 to 6 are their relatives. P.W.7 is residing in the same locality. The accused is also related to P.W.1 and is son by courtesy. The accused and the deceased are neighbors to each other. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one Galabha Venkata Rao about 11 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with a daughter. Six years prior to the date of incident, the deceased got separated from her husband due to some disputes, 4 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 by taking divorce. Thereafter, the deceased, along with her daughter joined the house of her mother (P.W.1). They were eking out their livelihood by grazing two she buffaloes and by selling milk. One month prior to the date of incident, while P.W.1 was bringing grass for her she buffaloes, when she reached the house of the accused, some grass fell on the front side of his house, for which, the accused abused her in filthy language. P.W.1 informed the same to the deceased. Then, the deceased went to the junior paternal uncle of accused, who chastised the accused, for abusing P.W.1. On that, the accused bore grudge against the deceased, as she informed his junior paternal uncle. (ii) While so, on 26.01.2015, at about 07.00 p.m., while the deceased was grinding flour in front of the house, the accused came there and hacked the deceased with an axe on her head and all over the body. The deceased raised hue and cry. Having heard cries of the deceased, P.W.1, who was inside the house, came out and found the accused hacking the deceased. When P.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased, the accused threatened her showing the axe. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After the attack, the accused left the scene, along with axe. Hearing the cries, P.Ws.4 to 6, who are also residing in the same locality, came to the scene of 5 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 offence. On the same day, at about 09.10 p.m., P.W.1 went to the Police station and gave a report. (iii) P.W.11 – Inspector of Police, received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.12 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P.8. Immediately, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at VNR street, Chirala. He found the deceased lying in a pool of blood, in front of her house on the C.C. road. He posted a guard at the scene of offence. As it was late in the night, he could not conduct further investigation. On 27.01.2015, at about 06.00 a.m., he secured the presence of P.W.9 and another and prepared a rough sketch at the scene of offence (Ex.P.9). He also prepared an observation report (Ex.P.3) in the presence of P.W.9 and another. He seized M.Os. 2 to 4, at the scene of offence, under Ex.P.3. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.8 and photographs are marked as Ex.P.2. He secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body, in the presence of P.W.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.4. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination by instructing the corpse constable to collect blood stain clothes of the deceased at the hospital. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were marked as M.Os.7 to 9. 6 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 (iv) P.W.10 – Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Chirala conducted autopsy over the dead body and found seven external injuries. He opined the cause of death was due to shock as a result of multiple injuries over the body, especially on the head. He issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.7). (v) On 06.02.2015, at about 02.00 p.m., P.W.11 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.9 and another, near Jandrapeta railway station. On the confession made by the accused, he recovered M.O.1 – axe and M.Os.5 and 6 – blood stained clothes of the accused, near FCI godown of Jandrapeta railway station, under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P.6). Thereafter, the accused was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.11 sent M.Os.1 to 6 to RFSL, Guntur, through SDPO, Chirala for chemical analysis under a letter of advice (Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11). RFSL report is marked as Ex.P.12. After receipt of postmortem certificate, RFSL report and after completion of investigation, the successor of P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, marked exhibits P1 to P12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 7 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 5. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 to 7, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri. Ancha Panduranga Rao, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and Sri. Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 7. As seen from the material available on record, the prosecution has come up with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 to 6. P.W.1, in her evidence, categorically stated that on 26.01.2015, at about 07.00 p.m., when the deceased was grinding flour in front of her house, she heard cries of the deceased, upon hearing the same, she came out of the house and found the accused hacking the deceased. P.W.1 further stated in her evidence that when she tried to rescue the deceased, the accused threatened her and pushed her aside and went along with axe. Hearing her cries, the neighbors (P.Ws.4 to 6) also came there and witnessed the incident. P.W.1 in her earliest report has stated the same version as deposed in the Court. The motive for the accused to kill the deceased also was spoken to by P.W.1 in her deposition, as well as in Ex.P.1. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 07.00 p.m., and P.W.1 gave report to the Police at about 8 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 09.15 p.m. The distance between the Police station and the scene of offence is two (2) kilometers. As such, absolutely, there is no delay in lodging the report by P.W.1. Being a lady, she took two hours to go to the Police station, which is natural in the circumstances of the case. Further, the argument that all the witnesses are related to the deceased cannot be accepted, because, all these witnesses are also related to the accused. In fact, the accused is none other than son by courtesy, to P.W.1. As such, there is no reason for the prosecution witnesses to implicate the accused falsely, leaving the real culprit. 8. Admittedly, the incident took place in front of the house of P.W.1. As such, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 4 to 6 cannot be ruled out. The evidence of P.W.7, who resides in the same lane show that the accused was going away along with blood stained axe, at the relevant point of time. As such, the evidence of P.W.7 lends support to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 to 6. Further, as seen from the medical evidence, the ocular version spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 4 to 6 corroborates with the medical evidence adduced through P.W.10, coupled with Ex.P.7 (postmortem certificate). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge is not required to be interfered, as there are no merits in the case. 9 KSR,J& VS,J Crla_1603_2017 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C.No.59 of 2016, dated 22.06.2017. The period 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:08.07.2025. Gss