APHC010349562018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1474/2018 Between: REPANA VENKAT RAO, R/O.THALLAPALLI VILALGE, MACHERLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, CT.NO. 6504 ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, rep. by its Inspector of Police, Macherla Rural Circle, through Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.Dr CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.453 of 2016 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 04.12.2015 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused caused the death of one Vemula Kanthamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), when she returned home from the fields, by hacking her with an axe, near the house of the accused situated by the side of Z.P.High School, Thallapalli village, thereby committed an 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 imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- (i) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Thallapalli village of Macherla Mandal, Guntur District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.1 is the husband of deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the brothers of P.W.1, P.W.4 is relative of the deceased, P.W.5 is the daughter of deceased, P.W.6 is son of P.W.3, P.W.7 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and P.W.8 3 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 is mother of the deceased. The accused and the deceased are the neighbours and their houses are situated side by side. (ii) While so, on the evening of 03.12.2015, the accused blamed the deceased stating that she took silver waist band of his son for which the deceased denied. But, the accused scolded and quarreled with the deceased. In the meanwhile, the other prosecution witnesses pacified them. The accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences. On 04.12.2015 at about 5.00 P.M. the deceased returned home from the fields. On seeing her, the accused pounced upon her with an axe and hacked her indiscriminately on the left side head and other parts of the body. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. (iii) P.Ws.1 to 8 witnessed the attack made on the deceased. P.Ws.1 to 8 and others raised hue and cries and the accused went away towards tank bund on the outskirts of Thallapalli village along with the axe. On the same day at about 10.00 P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. On the same day, P.W.13-A.S.I of police, Nagarjuna Sagar police station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.128 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P9 is the FIR. (iv) Having received the information, the Inspector of police (P.W.14) went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. He got the scene photographed through P.W.9. The Photographs along with C.D. were marked as Ex.P2. He recorded the statement of P.W.7. He shifted the dead body to Government Hospital, Macherla. As it was late in the night, he could not proceed with the investigation 4 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 and posted a guard at the scene of offence and also at mortuary, Government Hospital, Macherla. (v) On 05.12.2015, P.W.14 took up further investigation. He secured the presence of P.W.11 and others and visited the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P5 in the presence of P.W.11 and another. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. He seized blood stained earth-M.O.1 and control earth-M.O.2 under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, he went to the mortuary, secured the presence of P.W.10 and another and held inquest over the dead body. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P4. During the inquest, P.W.14 recorded statements of P.Ws.2 to 4. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (vi) P.W.12-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Macherla conducted autopsy over the dead body. He found as many as eight injuries on the body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was “due to severation of cervical spinal cord with shock”. He issued Ex.P8 post-mortem certificate. (vii) Thereafter, P.W.14 visited the village and recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 8. On 06.12.2015, P.W.14 recorded statements of P.W.8 and others. (viii) On 28.12.2015 on credible information, he apprehended the accused at Ring road Centre, Macherla. On the confession of accused, P.W.14 seized M.O.3-axe under Ex.P7 in the presence of P.W.11 and another. On 02.01.2016 P.W.14 sent seized material objects to RFSL Guntur. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P11. After receiving all the 5 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P11 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that P.Ws.1 to 8 were planted by the prosecution and in fact, they did not witness anything. He further contends that their presence is also very much doubtful at the time of incident. He further contends that if really P.Ws.1 to 8 were present at the time of incident, they ought to have tried to interfere and save the deceased. He contends that the conduct of P.Ws.1 to 8 is highly artificial in not trying to save the deceased from the hands of accused. He further contends that P.Ws.1 to 8 are interested witnesses and they are related to the deceased and P.W.1. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P.1. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the 1 1994(5) SCC 188 6 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal contending that the incident took place in front of the house of the accused and the presence of P.Ws.1 to 8, who were residing in the said locality, cannot be doubted. Merely because, P.Ws.1 to 8 did not try to save the deceased, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. However, right from Ex.P1, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 8 is very much consistent with regard to they witnessing the incident. He further contends that the accused was having an axe in his hand and the incident lasted for a short period and when they raised cries, the accused escaped towards tank bund of the village. He further contends that P.Ws.1 to 8 are equally related to the accused. The accused is none other than the cousin brother of the deceased. He further contends that there is no reason for P.Ws.1 to 8 to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real culprit. As such, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in the evening at about 5.00 P.M. when P.W.1 and the deceased returned home from their fields. Having seen the deceased in front of his house, the accused pounced upon her with an axe and hacked her indiscriminately. Having seen the attack, P.Ws.1 to 8 raised hue and cries and on hearing the screams, the accused escaped towards tank bund of the village. P.Ws.1 to 8 tried to save the deceased and it is for that reason all of them raised hue and cries and on hearing their cries, 7 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 the accused escaped from the scene. The incident lasted for a short period and there was no scope for P.Ws.1 to 8 to prevent the accused in hacking the deceased. As the attack happened suddenly, there was no scope for P.Ws.1 to 8 to prevent the accused from hacking the deceased. There was also no scope for P.Ws.1 to 8 to suspect the attack as the accused is none other than the cousin brother of the deceased. Further, P.Ws.1 to 8 cannot be termed as interested witnesses as they are related to the accused also. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 is consistent right from the stage of Ex.P1 and their evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.12 coupled with Ex.P8. As such, the prosecution could able to prove that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased. 13. So far as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant it was a case of factions between two groups. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held as under : “The evidence of Dr Pande also to the effect that he had found incised injuries on the deceased including a L shaped injury (injury 11) and a semi-circular injury (injury 18) is indicative of the fact that these two injuries were caused with different weapons and looking to the nature of the other incised wounds present on the deceased, the possibility that three types of sharp-edged weapons were used cannot be ruled out. That being the position, it is obvious that the ocular testimony does not fit in with the medical evidence and instead it contradicts it.” 14. As there was no corroboration from the medical evidence to the ocular version of P.Ws.1 to 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence. But, in the case on hand, there were no factions between the accused and the 8 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 deceased. As already pointed out, both of them related to each other and they are neighbours. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the incident is an outcome of fit of rage and sudden provocation. As such, the offence may not fall under Section 302 IPC and at best it amounts to an offence under Section 304 IPC. 16. We do not accept the said contention. The alleged quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, one day prior to the date of attack i.e., on 03.12.2015. So far as the attack is concerned, it took place at about 5.00 P.M. on 04.12.2015. The incident was not preceded by any altercation between the accused and the deceased. When the deceased returned home from the fields at about 5.00 P.M., suddenly the accused pounced upon her with an axe and hacked her indiscriminately. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the offence committed by the accused will fall squarely under Section 302 IPC. 17. In that view and in view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 14.03.2018 vide Sessions Case No.453 of 2016 by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant/Accused was already released on bail by order, dated 31.03.2023, in terms of the order, dated 9 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 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 to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion of sentence forthwith. Failing which, the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, is directed to secure his presence by issuing warrants 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. 28.10.2025 SAB 10 Crl.A.No.1474 of 2018 193 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Criminal Appeal No.1474 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 28.10.2025 SAB