APHC010043362018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 177/2018 Between: ANASURI KRISHNA, D.NO. 3-203/A, CHERUVUGATTU CENTRE, MADHAVAPATNAM VILLAGE, SAMALKOT MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, high Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.83 of 2015 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. The 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC and the 2nd charge was under Section 307 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 26.08.2013 at about 1.30 A.M., the accused intentionally caused the death of his wife Anasuri Bojjamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), by hacking her with M.O.1-knife in his house situated at Madhavapatnam village, Samalkot Mandal and when his son-P.W.1 intervened to rescue the deceased, the accused also hacked him on his shoulder and elbow joints with the same knife, causing bleeding injuries, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 3 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are resident of Madhavaptnam village, Samalkot Mandal. The deceased is none other than wife of the accused. The marriage between the accused and deceased was performed about 30 years prior to the date of incident and during wedlock the couple blessed with two sons and one daughter. P.Ws.1 and 8 are the sons and P.W.6 is the daughter of accused and deceased. P.W.8-elder son was residing at Hyderabad along with his family. P.W.6-daughter was residing at Rangampeta village along with her family. The accused was having two houses at Madhapavatnam. The accused and deceased were residing in one house whereas P.W.1-younger son of the deceased was residing in another house, belonging to the accused, which is situated near the house of accused. The accused was in the habit of disputing with the deceased and used to suspect her fidelity and used to beat her frequently. While so, on the night of 25/26.08.2013 after dinner, the accused along with the deceased slept in their house and P.W.1 slept in his house. In the mid night, P.W.1 woke up for answering calls of nature. At that juncture, he heard hue and cries of the deceased and he rushed into the house of accused and found the accused hacking the deceased with M.O.1 knife. When P.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased, the accused hacked him on his both hands with the same knife. P.W.1 raised cries. On hearing the cries, neigbours-P.Ws.2 to 5 rushed there. After seeing them, the accused escaped from the house with M.O.1-knife. P.Ws.3 and 4 shifted both the injured to Government General Hospital, Kakinada in 108 ambulance. At about 1.00 A.M., P.W.17-Head Constable, Out-posts police station GGH Kakinada 4 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 received-Ex.P10 intimation from GGH, Kakinada. Immediately, he went to the hospital and found two injured persons. As the deceased was not in a position to give her statement, P.W.17 recorded-Ex.P1 statement from P.W.1 and sent the same to Indrapalem police station on the point of jurisdiction. P.W.30-Sub Inspector of police, Indrapalem police station received-Ex.P1 at about 6.30 A.M. and registered a case in Crime No.168 of 2013 under Section 302 and 307 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at about 4.00 A.M. FIR is marked as Exs.P13. (ii) Subsequently, P.W.1 was shifted to Global Hospital, Kakainada. Having received the copy of FIR, the Inspector of police, Kakinada Rural Police Station (P.W.21) visited Global Hospital and recorded statement from P.W.1. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.Ws.14 and 19. He seized M.Os.2, 3 and 5. He also got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.13. Photographs were marked as Ex.P6. He also prepared an observation report-Ex.P7. He prepared rough sketch-Ex.P14 at the scene of offence. Thereafter, he proceeded to GGH Kakinada and observed the dead body. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.14 and 15. He recorded statements of P.Ws.2 to 7 at the inquest. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P8. He sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. P.W.11-Associate Professor, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He found as many as 13 external injuries and five internal injuries on the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to injury to brain due to sharp edged, medium to heavy cutting weapon associated with laceration of liver. He issued Ex.P5-post-mortem certificate. 5 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 (iii) During the course of investigation, P.W.21 recorded statements of other witnesses. On 11.09.2013 on credible information P.W.21 apprehended the accused at panchayat premises of Sarpavaram village in the presence of P.W.15 and another. The accused produced M.Os.1 and 4 from the heyrick, which were seized under Ex.P9 by P.W.21 in the presence of P.W.16 and thereafter the accused was arrested and later he was remanded to judicial custody. He sent the material objects to RFSL under a letter of advice-Ex.P15. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P18. In the meanwhile, the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P17. (iv) In the meanwhile, P.W.18-Medical Officer, Surya Global Hospital at, Madhavapatnam examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate- Ex.P11. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.21 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1-portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7 was marked. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri.Palla Balu Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and 6 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has come up with different types of “motive”. At one stage, the prosecution witnesses stated that the motive for the accused to kill the deceased was suspicion over the character of the deceased. At another stage, the motive was suggested that there were financial disputes between the accused and deceased. He further contends that the version of P.W.1 was contradictory at the stage of Ex.P1 and at the stage of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the evidence during the course of trial. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1. He further contends that P.Ws.1, 6 and 8 are interested witnesses, being sons and daughter of deceased. He further contends that the independent witnesses P.Ws.2, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 19 did not support the prosecution. He further contends that the statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer-P.W.19 belatedly. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed contending that it is the accused and deceased who are residing in the house and there is no other third person. He further contends that as many as 13 injuries were found on the body of deceased. He contends that P.W.1 is injured witness and P.Ws.1, 6 and 8 are none other than the children of accused and deceased. He further contends that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are neighbours, rushed to the scene of offence after hearing cries of P.W.1. They also found the accused holding blood stained knife at the scene of offence. He further 7 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 contends that when there is direct eye witness to the incident, motive loses its significance. He further contends that the deceased met with homicidal death in his house and it is for the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house as per the provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. As such, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. Admittedly, P.Ws.1, 6 and 8 are the children of accused as well as the deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that the accused and deceased are living in one house and he is living in other house which is near to the house of accused. Both the houses belong to the accused. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that in mid night on 25/26.08.2013 he woke up to answer calls of nature. When he was going to attend calls of nature, he heard screaming sound of his mother. Immediately, he went into the house of accused and found him hacking the deceased with M.O.1 knife. When he intervened and tried to save his mother, the appellant hacked him with the same knife on his both hands. Immediately, he raised cries and on hearing the same, the niehgbours-P.Ws.2 to 5 rushed to the scene of offence. Though P.Ws.2 and 5 did not support the prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 4 have categorically stated by the time they went there, they found the accused holding the blood stained knife. As such, the evidence of P.W.1 was also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Further, P.Ws.6 and 8, who are daughter and son of accused, have also stated that the accused used to beat the deceased frequently suspecting her fidelity. Of course, P.Ws.6 and 8 are not eye witnesses. It is also in the 8 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 evidence of prosecution witnesses that immediately both the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada in 108 ambulance. While undergoing treatment at about 4.00 A.M. on the same day, the deceased succumbed to injuries. So far as P.W.1 is concerned, he was shifted to Global Hospital, Madhavapatnam where P.W.18 treated P.W.1. Before shifting P.W.1 to the Global Hospital, P.W.17-Head Constable out-post, GGH Kakinada recorded Ex.P1- report from P.W.1 as the deceased was not in a position to speak and sent the same to P.W.20 on the point of jurisdiction. Ex.P1 statement was recorded in the wee hours of 26.08.2013. P.W.20 received Ex.P1 at about 6.30 A.M. who registered a case in Crime No.168 of 2013. Immediately, P.W.21 commenced investigation. 13. We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 6 and 8. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically stated that the incident took place on the intervening night of 25/26.08.2013 at about 1.00 A.M. Further, P.W.1 received bleeding injuries in the hands of accused caused with M.O.1 knife. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited from his evidence. So far as P.Ws.3 and 4 are concerned, they also stated in their evidence that by the time they came to the scene of offence, they found the accused holding blood stained knife. Of course, these two witnesses came after the attack. P.W.3 also stated in his evidence that by the time he went to the scene of offence, he saw both the accused and P.W.1 were quarrelling with each other. So far as P.Ws.6 and 8 who are none other than the daughter and son of the accused and deceased are concerned, they also deposed that the accused used to beat the deceased frequently suspecting her fidelity. As already pointed out, the evidence of injured witness-P.W.1 is there on record which was 9 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Further, though the deceased met with homicidal death in his house, no explanation is coming forward from the accused in terms of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, though the incident took place on 25/26.08.2013, the accused was absconding till 11.09.2013. It is only on 11.09.2013 the accused was apprehended by P.W.21 in the presence of mediators P.W.16 and another. At the instance of accused, M.Os.1 and 4 were recovered at the time of arrest under panchanama-Ex.P9. As per RFSL report-Ex.P18, M.Os.1 and 4 contain human blood. Apart from the direct evidence of P.W.1, all other circumstances pointing the guilt towards the accused alone. As already pointed out, P.W.1 is injured witness and his evidence inspires confidence of this Court. 14. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that it is the accused who committed murder of the deceased who is his wife and caused injures to P.W.1 who is his son. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 29.11.2017 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2015 by the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. As the appellant/Accused was already released on bail by order, dated 07.02.2023, in terms of the order, dated 02.11.2016, passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011), he is directed 10 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion of sentence forthwith. Failing which, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, is directed to secure his presence by issuing N.B.W. and commit him to prison to serve the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dt. 09.09.2025 SAB / TSNR 11 Crl.A.No.177 of 2018 467 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 09.09.2025 SAB / TSNR