APHC010243442018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH 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: 1119/2018 Between: 1. DHARMAVARAM NARASIMHULU, R/O.AMBEDKARNAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM TOWN. ...APELLANT AND 1. 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 Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this memorandum of grounds of criminal appeal to this Honourable Court against the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu in SC.No. 193 of 2015 dated 14-03-2018 for the following among other grounds. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the execution of the sentence, judgement passed on 14th, March, 2018, in SC no. 193 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram and release the petitioner on bail, pending disposal of the above criminal appeal no. 1119 of 2018, and pass Counsel for the Apellant: 1. DEVINENI RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respodent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THIS THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1119 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.193 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram, is the appellant. He, along with A2, A3 and A5, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge (FAC) I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, under the following charges: First charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. against A1; Second charge was under Section 109 I.P.C. against A2, A3 and A5; and The last charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A2, A3 and A5. As A4 and A6 were Juveniles, they were referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. Page 4 of 11 2. Substance of the charge is that on 08.04.2013, at about 8:30 am, in furtherance of common intention, accused No.1 on the abetment made by accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 along with accused Nos.4 and 6, beat one J.C. Yesaiah @ Siddu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with sarava stick, on his head, causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 109 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A1 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted A2, A3 and A5 of all the charges. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: (i) All the accused are residents of Ananthapuram Town. The material prosecution witnesses and the deceased are also residents of the same town. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 are relative, colleague, brother and mother of the deceased, respectively. (ii) One J.C. Kullayappa has two wives. Accused No.2 is son of said Kullayappa through his first wife, and the deceased is son of Kullayappa through his second wife, P.W.5. The parents of P.W.5 gave 4 ½ cents house site. Accused No.1 is son-in-law of the brother of accused No.2. There used to be quarrels between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased with regard to 4 ½ cents of house site belonging to P.W.5. (iii) While so, on 08.04.2013, at about 8:30 pm, the deceased and his family members went to attend a function organised by L.W.9, sister of P.W.5. The deceased, along with his wife and daughter, attended the function on the terrace, and after the function, they came down to have dinner. P.Ws.2 and 3 were also present at that time. All of them sat for dinner. At that juncture, accused No.1, at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 6, suddenly came and beat the deceased on his head with a sarava stick and went away in an auto-rickshaw. Having received head injury, the deceased fell down, and P.Ws.1 to 3 and others shifted him to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuram. Shortly thereafter, the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. On the same day at about 11:45 pm, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and gave a report. P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, I town Police Station, Ananthapuram received Ex.P1, report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.64/2013 under Sections 302 and 109 read with 34 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P7. Having received information from P.W.11, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police sent his staff to safeguard the scene of offence as it was late in the night. On the next day, i.e. on 09.04.2013, P.W.12 went to the Government Hospital, secured the presence of P.W.6 and others and held inquest over the dead body in the mortuary room. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. During the course of inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and others. He also seized M.Os.1 to 4 at the inquest. After completion of inquest, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Thereafter, he went to the scene of offence, secured the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and prepared an observation report, Ex.P8. He also seized blood-stained earth and control earth, M.Os.5 and 6, at the scene of offence. (iv) P.W.10, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Ananthapuram, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to intracranial bleeding associated with skull bone fractures resulting from head injuries. He issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P6. (v) After completion of postmortem, P.W.12 handed over the dead body to his relatives. (vi) On 10.04.2013, P.W.12, once again visited the scene of offence, recorded the statement of P.W.5 and another and added the names of other accused. On 20.04.2013, at about 11:00 am, having received credible information, P.W.12 apprehended accused Nos.1 to 6 in the presence of P.W.9 and another, near RDT Stadium situated on Ananthapuram- Kadiri road, while they were coming in an auto rickshaw. Page 7 of 11 P.W.12 seized the said auto-rickshaw, M.O.8 and five sarava sticks, M.O.7. He arrested all the accused, who were remanded to judicial custody. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.13. (vii) On 20.04.2013, P.W.13, took up investigation and found it in correct lines. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Tirupathi. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P9. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Ex.P1 to P9 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Raman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 9. Learned Senior Counsel strenuously contends that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are closely related to the deceased and highly interested witnesses. He further contends that even according to the prosecution, about six persons participated in the attack, and the deceased received only two injuries, which is highly improbable. He further contends that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out, and at the most, it may attract the offence under Section 304 I.P.C., as such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the scene of offence at the relevant point of time cannot be doubted as they attended the function at the house of P.W.5’s younger sister. He further contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 are equally related to A1 and A2, and as such, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. He further contends that immediately after the attack, P.Ws.1 to 3 and others shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, where he died. On the same day at about 11:45 pm, P.W.1 went to the police Station and gave a report, Ex.P1. There is no need for P.Ws.1 to 3 to implicate accused No.1 in the case. They are equally related to them. As such, he contends that the appeal may be dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. Page 9 of 11 12. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, coupled with the evidence of P.W.5, makes it crystal clear that there was a function in the house of P.W.5’s younger sister, who is closely related to P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no dispute concerning the said organisation of the function at the house of P.W.5’s younger sister. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is also crystal clear that the deceased, along with P.W.1 and their daughter, attended the function at upstairs and came down and sat for dinner. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 further discloses that when the deceased, along with P.W.1, sat for dinner, suddenly accused No.1 came there and gave a blow on backside of the head of the deceased with a sarava stick and went away in his auto. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it is the appellant, who caused injury on the head of the deceased. 13. Coming to the nature of offence, according to the prosecution, when the deceased and P.W.1 sat for dinner, suddenly accused No.1 came there and gave two blows on the head of the deceased and went away. The same is consistent in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The Doctor, P.W.10, who conducted postmortem, in his evidence, has stated that the deceased died due to intracranial bleeding associated with skull bone fracture, resulting from head injuries. He described injury No.5 as follows: “Laceration obliquely placed over the upper part of the occipital region of head and measuring 5 cms x 0.5 cms x bone deep.” 14. Another injury on the head was found as injury No.1, which reads as follows: “Laceration obliquely extended from the right side frontal region to parietal region.” 15. These are two injuries found on the head of the deceased. Insofar as injury No.1 is concerned, it is a lacerated injury, and it cannot be possible by M.O.7, stick. Further, the Doctor, in his evidence, has not stated that these injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 16. Having analysed the evidence of P.W.10, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that accused No.1 gave only one blow on the head of the deceased i.e. injury No.5. Insofar as injury No.1 is concerned, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is silent about who caused that injury. If the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased, he would have inflicted few more blows, without stopping with a single blow. As such, we also have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant did not have any intention to kill the deceased. His intention is only to cause bodily injury. Having given one blow on the head of the deceased, the appellant went away in his auto-rickshaw. As such, we have no hesitation in concluding that the conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. needs to be interfered with. Instead, the appellant can be convicted under Section 304-II I.P.C. 17. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, under Section 302 I.P.C. in S.C.No.193/2015 dated 14.03.2018; instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304-II I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years. As the appellant has served more than five years of the sentence, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. As the appellant/accused herein was already enlarged on bail by order dated 03.04.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2023, in terms of the orders passed by the composite High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others v. State of A.P.1, he is directed to appear before the concerned authorities and complete the formalities. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 13.11.2025 IKN 1 2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)