APHC010590212016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] MONDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 853/2016 Between: 1. KORRA KONDABABU, S/O RAMANNA, N/O BANGARUPUTTU, H/O BANGARUMETTA(P), MUNCHINPUT(M), R/O 12TH MILURAYI, H/O VANTLAMAMIDI (P), PADERU (M). ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal to this Hon'ble High Court on aggrieving the impugned Judgment and order by passing sentence of conviction against the appellant accused to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence U/s 302 IPC in Sc. No. 43 of 2015 dated 21-06-2016 on the file of XII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.43 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that, on 03.11.2014 at about 4.00 P.M., the accused beat his wife Korra Bullemma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), with a stick on her head and back, and pounced upon her, caught hold her head and twisted around it, causing her death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) Accused and all the material witnesses are residents of 12th Milurayi, H/o Vantlamamidi Village, Paderu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. Marriage of the deceased was performed with one Korra Buttanna, who is the elder brother of the accused. Originally they are residents of Bangaruputtu Village. About 16 years prior to the date of incident, they 3 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 migrated to 12th Milurayi, and were living there. About 10 years ago, the said Korra Buttanna died, and about 2 years ago, the accused married the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are son and daughter of the deceased through her first husband. The accused used to beat the deceased frequently, demanding her to bring money. (ii) While so, on 03.11.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., when the deceased and PW1 were present at their house, the accused came and demanded money from the deceased. When the deceased refused to give money, the accused picked up quarrel, went up to the road point, came back with a stick, and beat the deceased on her head and back, and the deceased fell down. The accused also pounced upon the deceased, caught hold of her head, and twisted the same. On seeing the incident, PW1 went and informed the other villagers, PWs 7 and 9. At about 6.00 p.m., PW1 along with PWs 7 and 9, returned to the house of the accused and found the deceased lying dead on the road. On the next day, at about 9.00 a.m., PW1 along with PW7 went to the MRO Office, got Ex.P1 Report prepared there, approached the police and gave report. (iii) On 04.11.2014 at about 12.00 noon, PW18 – the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Paderu Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No.129 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P13. On the same day, at about 01.00 p.m., PW18 visited the scene 4 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 of offence and found the dead body with injuries on the main road. He prepared Ex.P14 Rough Sketch in the presence of PWs 13 and 16. He also prepared Ex.P8 Scene Observation Report in the presence of PWs 13 and 16. He got the scene photographed through PW15 and photographs were marked as Ex.P9. He seized MO5 Blood stained earth and MO6 Controlled earth from the scene of offence. He gave requisition to PW12 – the then Tahsildar, Paderu to conduct inquest over the dead body and PW12 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW14 and another. Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P7. (iv) From 04.11.2014 to 09.11.2014 there was no investigation. On 09.11.2014, PW19 - Inspector of Police, Paderu, received copy of FIR, visited the scene of offence and examined PW1, PW3 and PW7 and recorded statements of PWs 8 and 9. (v) On 05.11.2014, PW10, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Paderu conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death was cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to intracranial haemorrhage, followed by dysfunction of cardio- respiratory centres at brain stem. He issued Ex.P3 Postmortem Certificate and Ex.P4 Final Opinion. (vi) On 14.11.2014, PW19 apprehended the accused in the presence of PW16 and another. On the confession made by the accused, PW19 recovered MO1 stick which was seized under the 5 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 cover of Ex.P11 Seizure panchanama in the presence of PW16 and another. He prepared Ex.15 rough sketch of place of arrest of accused. On 24.11.2014, he sent Hyoid bone of the deceased to RFSL. Ex.P12 is Expert opinion with regard to hyoid bone. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW19 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19, marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 6. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the prosecution projected PW1 as an eye witness, and except PW1 there is no other eye witness to the incident. He contends that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW1, which is belated one. So far as other witnesses are concerned, they are not present at the 6 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 time of commission of offence. He further contended that the ocular version adduced through PW1 does not corroborate with the medical evidence adduced through PW10. As such, he requests to set aside the sentence and conviction recorded by the trial Court and acquit the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Appeal contending that the evidence of PW1 inspired confidence of the Court and the same is reliable. He, therefore, requests this court to dismiss the Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. According to PW1, the alleged incident took place at about 4.00 p.m. on 03.11.2014. PW1, in his evidence, stated that on witnessing the attack, he immediately went away and informed the villagers, PWs 7 and 9, who returned to the scene at around 6.00 p.m. and found the deceased lying dead. Admittedly, PWs 7 and 9 are residents of the same village. However, the prosecution is silent as to why it took two hours to visit to the scene of offence by PWs 7 and 9 after being informed by PW1. As seen from Ex.P14, the rough Sketch, there are number of houses situated near the scene of offence. There is also APFDC Fieldman Office located opposite to the scene of offence. The dead body was found adjacent to the BT Road within the village limits. In such circumstances, though the incident is alleged to have occurred 7 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 at 4.00 p.m. on the road margin, it appears highly improbable that no one else had witnessed the occurrence. 13. According to PW1, on the morning of 04.11.2014, he went to the MRO Office at Paderu, got a report prepared there and presented it before the Paderu Police Station, which was marked as Ex.P1. However, PW12, MRO did not state anything to the effect that PW1 had visited his office or that Ex.P1 was prepared there. Further, as seen from the evidence of PW1, the incident took place at about 4.00 p.m. on 03.11.2014, the FIR came to be registered only at about 12.00 noon on 04.11.2014, even though the distance between the scene of offence and the police station is only 22 KM. Further, though the FIR was registered at 12.00 noon on 04.11.2014, the same reached the learned Magistrate at about 8.35 P.M. Thus, there is considerable delay in lodging the report by PW1. At Column No.8 of FIR, the reason for delay occurred in lodging the report is stated that after discussion with the family members, PW1 gave Ex.P1 report at police station. Further, in Ex.P1, PW1 stated that the accused beat the deceased on her back with a stick; no overt act was attributed to the head. It was only during the course of trial that PW1 deposed that the accused beat the deceased on head. If really PW1 witnessed the incident, he would not have missed the said overt act on the head of the deceased by the accused while giving Ex.P1 report. As seen from the material, the evidence of PW1 is improvised from stage to stage, as such; no much 8 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 reliance can be placed on his evidence. Moreover, the ocular version does not corroborate with the medical evidence. According to PW1, the accused twisted the head of the deceased; however, as seen from the evidence of PW17, the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, the Hyoid bone was intact, and Ex.P12 (marked through PW17) did not indicate any injury to it. As the doctor who issued Ex.P12 was no more, the same was marked through his colleague Doctor-PW17. Thus, the ocular version of the PW1 is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Except the evidence of PW1, there is no other direct evidence available on record and as already pointed out the evidence of PW1 is belated one and there are lot of improvements in his evidence from stage to stage. So far as the evidence of PWs 2 to 9 is concerned, it is purely hearsay and it is not at all helpful to the prosecution. 14. Therefore, having analyzed the entire evidence carefully and scrutinized the same scrupulously, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established single circumstance to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. 15. On the above analyses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 9 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 21.06.2016 in Sessions Case No.43 of 2015 by the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the said charge. Further, fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant / accused shall be refunded. The appellant/accused is set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case or crime. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 03.11.2025 ARB 10 Crl.A.No.853 of 2016 105 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.853 of 2016 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 03.11.2025 ARB