‘M APHC010040932018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 050 MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 180 OF 2018 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole passed in S.C No. 44 of 2008 dt. 15-12-2017. Between: 1. Monapati Venkateswarlu, S/o Kondaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Gollapalem, Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, Praaksam District 2. Monapati Mala Kondaiah @ Peda Kondaiah, S/o Kondaiah, Aged about R/o. Gollapalem, Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, 50 years, Prakasam District 3. Monapati Edukondalu, S/o Kondaiah, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Gollapalem, Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal, Praaksam District ...Appellants/Accused AND i The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri D Purnachandra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: i i i 1 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l80of2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.180 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: {per Justice K. Suresh Reddy) A2 to A4 in S.C.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, are the appellants. The appellants along with A1 were tried by the learned Additional Sessidns Judge, Prakasam at Ongole under the following charges: First charge was under Section 324 IPC against A1 and A3. Second charge Was under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3. Third charge was under Section 302 IPC against A3. Fourth charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1, A2 and A4 alternatively under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. Last charge was under Section 352 IPC against A3. During pendency of trial, A1 died on 14.7.2009 and the case against him was abated. 2. Substance of the charge is that, on 14.6.2007 at about 9.30 p.m., all the four accused beat P.W.1 in front of his house and in the same process. 3. 2 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l80 of 2018 A3 beat one Koniki Katamraju (hereinafter referred to as deceased) on his , head with a stick, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 302 r/w 34 and 352 IPC 4. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A3 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE’. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A2 and A4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for LIFE’. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A3 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted A2 and A4 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for a period of two years. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted A3 under Section 352 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, by the same, A2 to A4 filed the present appeal. 5. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses briefly, is as follows; Aggrieved All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the r same village. A1 is the son of A2. A3 and A4 are brothers of A2. P.Ws 1 to 4 are brothers. P.W.5 is the wife of P.W.1. The deceased is the son of P.W.4, P.W.1 is eking out his livelihood by grazing sheeps. A1 was also , grazing his sheeps. On 14.6.2007, as usual P.W.1 and the deceased were m KSR,J&VS,J Crl.A.No.180 of 2018 grazing their sheeps in the fields of one Aarumudi Srinu. For the last month, A1 had been heckling P.W.1, stating that he was not living with his wife, which led to an altercation between them. While so, at about 9.30 p.m. on 14.6.2007, P.W.1 went to the house of A2 and informed him about the heckling behavior of his son-AI. Then A2 informed him stating that he would speak to A1 and pushed P.W.1 up to his house, where they were altercating with each other. At that juncture, A1 came there armed with a stick and beat P.W.1 on his head. Immediately A2 to A4 also came there. A3 beat P.W.1 pn his left leg with a stick. When the deceased tried to intervene to P.W.1, A3 beat the deceased on his head with M.0.1- stick, as a result he fell down. Thereafter all the accused left the scene. Immediately, the deceased was taken to P.W.9 RMP Doctor who declared him brought dead. P.W.1 shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole. ii) On 15.06.2007, at about O^OO a.m., P.W.13-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station, received hospital intimation, marked Ex.PIO. Immediately, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded statement of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1. At about 5.30 a.m., he returned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.273 of 2007 under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.PII is the F.I.R. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to P.W.14- the Inspector of Police, iii) At about 6.30 a.m., P.W.14 received copy of F.I.R. and took investigation. He proceeded to Gov'^nment Hospital and recorded statement one save was as up 4 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l80 of 2018 from P.W.1. Thereafter he secured the presence of P.W.7 and another and visited Karavadi Village. He got the scene photographed through P.W.8.. Photographs were marked as Ex.P.5. He prepared an observation report- Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. He seized M.0.2 to M.0.7 at the scene of offencp. He also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P.12 at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.7 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.PS. He recorded statements of P.Ws 2 to 5 at the inquest. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. • iv) On the same day at about 2.00 p.m, P.W.11 Cjvil Assistant Surgeon, Ongole conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. He. issued postmortem certificate -Ex.P.8. v) On 22.6.2007, P.W.14 arrested all the four accused at Throvagunta Junction in the presence of P.W.7 and another. On the confession made by A3, he seized M.0.1 hockey stick from his house. He forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur, under a letter of advice- Ex.P13, and the report received there from is marked as Ex.P14. Afte’r receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation. P.W.14 filed charge sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, got- 6. marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 7. 5 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.l80of2018 When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the prosecution witnesses but they did not choose to examine any witness on 7.. their behalf, but got marked Exs.D-1 to D-10. 8. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. ‘ Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. We have carefully 9. analyzed the entire evidence on record. 10. The prosecution projected P.Ws 1 to 5, as eye witnesses. P.Ws 1 to 4 are closely related to each other, being brothers. Deceased is none other than son of P.W.4. P.Ws 1 to 5 in their evidence categorically stated that for the last one month A1 heckling at P.W.1 alleging that he was not living with his wife. Being vexed with'the attitude of A1, P;W.1 went to the house of A1 and complained about his son’s (A1) behavior to A2, for which, the latter informed P.W.1 stating that he would speak to A1. It is the further evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 that A2 pushed P.W.1 up to his house. It is also the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 that when P.W.1 was altercating with A2 in front of his house A1, A3 and A4 came there. Immediately A1 dealt a blow on the head of P.W.1 and A3 beat P.W.1 on his leg. Immediately P.W.1 fell down. 11. It is the further evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 that when the deceased went to rescue P.W.1, A3 dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with M.0.1 stick who fell down on the ground. All the accused left the scene. Wh^n the 6 KSR,J&VS,J Crl.A.No.180 of 2018 deceased was taken to P.W.9 R.M.P. Doctor, he was declared as brought dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 was shifted to Government Hospital, Ongole. 12. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 is consistent with regard to the manner of' ' attack by A1 and A3. So far as A2.and A4 are concerned, P.Ws 1 to 5 did not attribute anything at least any role except referring to their names. Right from the stage of Ex.P.1, the version of P.Ws 1 to 5 is consistent. P.Ws 1 to ' • 5 attributed specific overt acts to A1 and A3 only. As already stated, A1 died during pendency of trial. As such, the only overt act remain is A3 beating the deceased on his head and A3 also beating P.W.1 on his leg. Except these two overt acts, nothing has been attributed to A2 and A4 by P.Ws.1 to 5. 13. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A2 and A4 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. P.Ws 1 to 5 has not attributed any role to A2 and A4. The' only role attributed to A2 was that P.W.1 went to the house of A2 and P.W.1 in his informed him about the heckling behavior of his -son A1. evidence specifically stated that A2 assured him and stated that he will speak ' ' to A1. Except stating the same, nothing has been attributed to A2. So far as A4 is concerned, absolutely there is no reference to his role in the said attack. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have *' » convicted A2 and A4 with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 14. As already pointed out, right from the stage of Ex.P.1, P.Ws 1 to 5 attributed specific overt acts against A1 and A3 only. No role has been attributed to A2 and A4. As such the conviction and sentence recorded by 7 KSR,J&VS,J Crl.A.No.180 of 2018 the learned Additional Sessions Judge against A2 and A4 are not sustainable. So far as A3 is concerned, P.Ws 1 to 5 in their evidence specifically 15. stated that A3 dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with M.0.1 stick. Further the alleged attack was preceded* by a quarrel between the prosecution witnesses and the accused. As such, it can safely be inferred i that the accused were not having any intention to kill the deceased. If really A3 was having any intention to kill the deceased, he would have inflicted few more blows on the deceased. According to the prosecution, when the deceased intervened to save P.W.1, A3 dealt a blow on the head of the deceased. As such, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that A3 was having any intention to kill the deceased. 16. Having carefully analyzed the entire evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence recorded against A2 and A4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 I PC are liable to be set aside. Likewise, the conviction and sentence recorded against A3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC are also liable to be set aside. However, the appellant/A3 is found guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 304 Part-ll IPC. Insofar as the charge under Section 352 IPC is concerned, since the prosecution has not adduced any evidence, the appellant/A3 is entitled to an acquittal of the said charge. ♦ 8 KSR, J & VS, J Crl.A.No.180 of 2018 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and 17. sentence recorded by the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole in S.C.No.44 of 2008 under Sections 302 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC against A2 and A4 are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted accordingly. The conviction and sentence recorded against A3 under Section 302 and 352 IPC are also set aside; however, he is found guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 304 Part II IPC. As regards the since A3 has already undergone more than five years of sentence imprisonment, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, to meet the ends of justice. Since A3 was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.01.2023 in I.A. No. 01 of 2022, he is directed to surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent to complete the formalities in terms of the orders of the erstwhile High Court in Batchu Rangarao & Others v. State of A.P. Insofar as A2 and A4 are concerned as they were enlarged on bail pursuant to the order dated 26.04.2018 in I.A. No. 01 of 2018 by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, Prakasam district (with records if any) 2. The III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, Prakasam district 3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole, Prakasam District. f K 4. The Inspector of Police, Ongole Town Circle, Prakasam district 5. One CC to Sri. D Purnachandra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi f 8. Two CD Copies Stu vna i H/GH court DATED;21/07/2025 i JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 180 OF 2018 11 partly allowing the criminal 1^' appeal .'H