IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1123 OF 2017 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present the memorandum of grounds of Criminal Appeal against the judgment passed in SC. No. 310 of 2013, on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, on 03-03-2017 Between: Paperi Krishna Murthy, S/o Ankiah, hindu, aged about 33 years, Lakshmipuram Village Thottambedumandal Chittoor District ...APELLANT AND The State of A.P., represented by the Public Prosecutor High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPODENTS Counsel for the Appellants Counsel for the Respondents : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER : : SRI B PARAMESEWARA RAO APHC010603092017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1123/2017 Between: Paper! Krishna Murthy ...APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (PerHon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in S.C.No.310 of 2013 on the file of the Court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for shorl, ‘learned Additional Sessions Judge’) is the appellant herein. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. . 2. Substance of the charge is that on 30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., the accused hacked one Aruru Mohan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on his neck with a knife in front of Ramalaya temple, Lakshmipuram village causing his death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) The accused and material prosecution witnesses are the residents of Lakshmipuram village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the wife and PW.2 is the mother of the deceased respectively. PWs 3 to 7 are residents of the same village. The marriage between PW.1 and deceased was performed about three years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with daughter. The accused is the neighbour of the deceased. The accused used to suspect that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with his wife, such, there are disputes between the accused and deceased. As The deceased was working as a Tractor driver under PW.6, who held panchayat between the accused and deceased with regard to the said dispute. While so 30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., when the deceased on along with PWs 3 & 4 were chitchatting in front of Ramalayam temple, at that juncture, the accused was going along with M.0.1 knife in his hand. When the accused reached in front of Ramalayam temple, an altercation took place between the deceased and accused. During the course of altercation, the accused hacked the deceased on his neck and on the right leg. On hearing the cries of the 3 deceased, PWs 1 & 2 rushed to the scene and found the accused running away with M.0.1 knife. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. (b) Thereafter, PW.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. On the same day at about 12.30 P.M., PW.10 Sub-Inspector of Police, Thottambedu Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.79 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P5 is the F.I.R. He informed the same to the Inspector of Police PW.11. Having received information from PW.10, Inspector of Police PW.11 went to Lakshmipuram Village at about 06.00 P.M. and found the dead body. PW.11 instructed Sub inspector of Police to stay in the village to avoid untoward incidents. On the next day i.e., 31.12.2012 at about 07.00 A.M., he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.7 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. He recorded statements of PWs 1 to 4 at the inquest. He seized blood stained earth and controlled earth M.O.s 6 & 7 at the scene of offence. He seized M.Os 2 to 5 in the presence of mediators under the cover of Panchanama Ex.P6. He also prepared Rough sketch Ex.P7 at the scene of offence. He also photographed the dead body and the photographs were marked as Ex.P8. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination, (c) PW.9 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Srikalahasti conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “incised wound involving injuries of major blood vessels and trachea injured and filled with blood clots. 4 suffocation, cerebral anoxia, massive blood loss, hemorrhagic shock, cerebral death, multi organ failure, death”. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P4. (d) On 04.01.2013, on credible information, PW.11 arrested the accused near Kothakandriga bus stop in the presence of PW.8 and another. On the confession made by the accused under Ex.P9, PW.11 seized M.0.1 knife from Arjuna Mandapam situated in Lakshmipuram - Ramapuram Road. He sent material objects to R.F.S.L., Tirupati. After receiving all documents and after completion of entire investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.PIO. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked exhibits PI to P10 and exhibited MOs 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence. Exhibits D.1 and D.2 relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 & 4 were marked. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him. 5. 6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 5 9. As seen from the material available on record, the motive for the accused to kill the deceased is that the accused suspected that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with his wife. Right from Ex.P1 which is earliest version, the motive for the accused has been indicated. PW.6, who is the Villager, in his evidence also stated that he held panchayat between the accused and deceased with regard to the illegal intimacy. PW.1 also in Ex.P1 has stated about the motive. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the motive on the part of the accused. (a) coming to the other aspect i.e., with regard to the attack on the deceased, PWs 3 & 4 are the eye witnesses. According to the prosecution, on 30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., the deceased along with PWs 3 & 4 were chitchatting in front of Ramalayam temple. PWs 1 & 2 also have stated in their evidence that the deceased was chitchatting with PWs 3 & 4 in front of Ramalayam temple. Right from the stage of Ex.P1, the names of PWs 3 & 4 have been shown as eye witnesses to the attack. Though these two witnesses have been cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited by the defence. PWs 3 & 4 in their evidence have categorically stated that at about 2.45 P.M., while the accused was going along with sheep, an altercation took place between the accused and deceased, which continued for some time. Both the accused and deceased quarreled for some time and suddenly the accused hacked the deceased with M.0.1 knife on his neck and right toe. On hearing the cries of the deceased, PWs 1 & 2 rushed to the scene of offence, who saw 6 the attack on the deceased. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 establishes that the accused hacked the deceased at about 2.45 P.M. on 30.12.2012. (b) Coming to the nature of offence, according to the prosecution and eye witnesses, and the opinion incorporated in the Inquest report Ex.P2, it is stated that at the relevant point of time, the accused was going along with sheep to the fields holding a knife. When the accused reached the scene of offence, an altercation took place between him and the deceased. It is also stated by the prosecution witnesses that a quarrel took place for quite some time and thereafter the accused hacked on the neck and right toe of the deceased and ran away. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused came to the scene of offence only to kill the deceased with M.0.1 knife. In Ex.P2 Inquest report, it is specifically stated that the incident took place while the accused was going along with sheep to the fields holding a knife. As such, there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased at the relevant point of time. Further, the incident was preceded by a quarrel which took for quite some time and it is only thereafter the accused hacked the deceased with M.0.1 knife. But, as seen from the medical evidence adduced through PW.9, first injury was very severe and certainly after noticing the injury, the accused must have knowledge that the said injury would cause death of the deceased. Further, the deceased died on the spot. (c) As the incident preceded by a quarrel between the accused and deceased and as only one vital blow was given on the neck and the other was 7 on the right toe, the offence committed by the appellant would not fall under Section 302 IPC, but it may fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part by setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, instead convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part -1 IPC. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati in S.C.No.310 of 2013 vide judgment dated 03.03.2017 under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part - I IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years while maintaining the fine amount imposed by the learned trial judge. As the appellant was released on bail by order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 dated 19.01.2023 in terms of the order of the combined High Court passed in Batchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.\ he is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure his presence by issuing Non-bailable warrant and commit him to the prison for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment. It is needless to state that the sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. [2016(3)ALT (CrI.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)] 8 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SDI- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, The Superintendent, Central Parisian, Visakhapatnam, The Station House Officer, Thottamedu Polaice Station, Chittoor Chittoor District One CC to Sri B Paramesewara Rao Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Paradesh [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi THREE CD COPIES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. psr TAC HIGH COURT DATED:08/04/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1123 of 2017 OF 1 2 I MAr S' ★ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL