THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE THIRTY ONE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2355 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for “Life” and also to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six (06) months. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 02.06.2017 between 02.00 PM and 08.00 PM, the accused beat his mother Savitramma (herein referred to as “the deceased”) on her head with MO.2-Stick in his thatched house situated at Chintalavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, causing her death, thereby committed offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows: 2 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Chintavalasa Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased was also resident of the same village and she is none other than the mother of the accused. The accused is deaf and dumb and addicted to consume liquor. The deceased was aged about 60 years and getting pension from the government. She was eking out her livelihood by attending cooli work. The accused and the deceased were living together in a thatched house. The accused was unmarried and no marriage alliance is forthcoming, as he was deaf and dumb. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased frequently, on the ground that she was not performing his marriage. While so, on 02.06.2017 from 02.00 PM onwards, the accused quarreled with the deceased and both of them were shouting at each other. PW.4 to PW.8 who are neighbours heard the altercation between the accused and the deceased and at about 04.00 PM, there was complete silence. On the same day, the accused went to the house of neighbours and informed them by gestures and signs that he beat his mother and she fell unconscious. Immediately PW.6 to PW.8 gathered there and informed PW.2-the then MPTC Member about accused beating the deceased on her head. Immediately, PW.2 informed the same to PW.1-the then Village Revenue Officer. PW.1 instructed PW.2 to shift the injured to the hospital. Immediately, the neighbours telephoned 108- Ambulance and shifted the deceased to the Government hospital. From there she was shifted to King George Hospital, Vizag. Having received information from PW.2, PW.1 informed the same to the police. 3 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 ii) PW.16-the then Sub Inspector of Police received Ex.P1-report from PW.1 and registered a case in Crime No.75 of 2015 under Section 307 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P10. He visited the scene of offence and recorded statements from PW.2 and PW.3. He prepared an observation report Ex.P4, at the scene of offence, in the presence of mediators. He also prepared Ex.P11-rough sketch, at the scene of offence. He also photographed the scene of offence under Ex.P12. While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries. Having received the said information, PW.16 altered the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Altered FIR is marked as Ex.P13. iii) Further investigation was taken over by the PW.17-the then Inspector of Police. He examined PW.1 to PW.6 and recorded their statements. He also went to the scene of offence and prepared another rough sketch-Ex.P14. On 04.06.2017, PW.17 visited mortuary, King George Hospital, Vizag and held inquest over the dead body, in the presence of PW.1 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. iv) PW.15-the then Assistant Professor, Andhra Medical College conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was “brain injury caused by a head injury”. He issued Ex.P8-postmortem certificate. 4 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 v) On 08.06.2017, PW.17 arrested the accused at about 15.00 hours in the presence of PW.12 and another. He secured the presence of PW.13 and with his assistance recorded the confession statement of the accused by signs and gestures. He seized blood stained clothes Mo.11 and Mo.12, after providing new clothes to the accused. On 22.06.2017, he forwarded Mos.1 to 12 to RFSL, Visakhapatnam. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P15. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.17, marked Exs.P1 to P15 and exhibited MOs.1 to 12. 5. Accepting the evidence of PW.4 to PW.8, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri Kadiyam Neelakanteswara Rao, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 7. We have carefully scrutinized and analyzed the entire evidence on record. 8. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. PW.1 is none other than the Village Revenue Officer and having come to know about the incident, he gave Ex.P1-report to the police. So far as PW.2 is concerned, he was the elected MPTC member and he came to know through 5 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 the neighbours that the accused beat the deceased on her head, as a result, she fell unconscious. It is his further evidence that immediately, he shifted the injured to hospital. 9. PW.3 and PW.4 who are neighbors in their evidence stated that on the date of incident at about 02.00 PM, the accused and the deceased were quarrelling in their house. They further stated that at about 07.30 PM or 08.00 PM on the same day when they returned to their houses, they found a big gathering at the house of accused. 10. PW.5 to PW.8, in their evidence have stated that after beating the deceased, the accused went to the house of neighbors and asked for food. They have further stated that the accused by way of gestures and signs informed them that he beat the deceased. The evidence of PW.5 to PW.8 consistently show that the accused beat the deceased on her head with MO.2-partly burnt stick available in the country made oven. As such, the evidence of PW.5 to PW.8 is consistent that it is the accused who beat the deceased on her head. 11. Further, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused admitted that he beat the deceased with MO.2-Stick, as the deceased was not performing his marriage. As such, the evidence available on record show that the accused beat the deceased on her head with MO.2- Stick. As such, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of PW.5 to PW.8 and there is no motive attributed to them to falsely implicate the accused. As 6 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 already pointed out, the accused admitted that he beat the deceased on her head. 12. Coming to the nature of offence, admittedly, according to PW.3 to PW.8, who are the material prosecution witnesses and who are neighbours of the accused in their evidence have categorically stated that the accused and the deceased were quarrelling with each other and there was a verbal altercation between them from 02.00 PM onwards on the fateful day. According to the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge has taken assistance from the trained teacher of deaf and dumb. Admittedly, there was no pre-meditation and there was also no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. 13. It is evident from the record that, in a fit of anger, as the deceased was not performing the marriage of the accused, the accused inflicted blows on the head of the deceased. Further, immediately after the attack, the accused went to the neighbours i.e., PW.4 to PW.8 and informed them by gestures and signs that he beat the deceased and she fell unconscious in his house. Even according to the prosecution, MO.2-Stick was there in the country made oven and thus, it cannot be said that the accused had come armed with a weapon with an intention to commit the murder. As already pointed out, the incident was preceded by a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, without any premeditation. As such, the offence committed by the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC. 7 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in Sessions Case No.63 of 2017, dated 27.06.2018, under Section 302 IPC, including the fine amount, are hereby set aside. 15. Instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 16. As the appellant has already undergone nearly nine (09) years of imprisonment, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or crime. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 31.12.2025 PSA 8 KSR, J & SRS, J Crl.A.No.2355 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2355 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Date: 31.12.2025 PSA