APHC010046952018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 187/2018 Between: 1. PEETHA SRINIVASA RAO, MANDADI, NOW RESIDING AT 1/19, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of 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 in criminal appeal dated 29-12-2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guruzala convicting the appellant for offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ to pay fine amount to underg following among other. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed in judgment dated 29 2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of the X Additional District and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 187/2018 PEETHA SRINIVASA RAO, MANDADI, NOW RESIDING AT 1/19, BRODIPET, GUNTUR. ...AP AND THE STATE OF AP, rep. ...AP AND THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPO 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 in criminal 2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guruzala convicting the appellant for offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the 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 to nce of imprisonment imposed in judgment dated 29 2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of the X Additional District and IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY PEETHA SRINIVASA RAO, MANDADI, NOW RESIDING AT 1/19, PPELLANT THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana and the state of AP., ...RESPONDENT 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 in criminal 2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guruzala convicting the appellant for offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default o simple imprisonment for 1 month for the 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 to nce of imprisonment imposed in judgment dated 29-12- 2017 in SC.No. 638 of 2009 in the court of the X Additional District and 2 Sessions Judge, Gurazala by continuing the petitoner on bail, pending the disposal of the above criminal appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 240/2018 Between: 1. UYYALA SREENU, OCC.PRIVATE, R/O.MANDADI, NOW AT 1/19, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE INSPECTYOR OF POLICE, Piduguralla, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the sentence made in SC.No. 638 of 2009 dated 29-12-2017 on the file of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, acquit the accused/A-8 IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to suspend the sentence made in SC.No. 638 of 2009 dated 29-12-2017 on the file of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala and continue the petitioner/accused on bail, pending disposal of the main criminal appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 3 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 258/2018 Between: 1. THAMMISEETY PULLA RAO, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 2. THAMMILSETTY PEDA VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 3. THAMMILSETTY CHINA VENKATAESWARLU, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 4. THAMMISETTY RAM BABU, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 5. THAMMISETTY BALA KRISHNA, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P 6. ADDANKI SIVANARAYANA, HINDU, R/O. REGULAGADDA VILLAGE, MACHAVARAM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADAESH, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present the above appeal questioning the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C No. 638/2009, Dt. 29-12-2017 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh IA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to enlarge the petitioner/A2 to A6 on bail by suspending the sentence imposed in S.C No. 638/2009, Dt. 29-12-2017 on the file of the Court of the X 4 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to release the 1st petitioner or 1st Appellant or 1st Accused on bail for a period of 15 days from 25-04-2018 to 10-05-2018 to enable him to attend and celebtate the marriage of his son scheduled to be held on 02-05-2018 and pass 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 release the Petitioner/Appellant No.1 on bail pending in CrI.A.No.258/2018 against Judgment dt.29-12-2017 in S.C.No.638/2009 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurajala, Guntur District, AP and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 5 The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As all the three appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment. A.7 in Sessions Case No.638/2009 on the file of the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala (for short, ‘the learned Additional Sessions Judge’), is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.187/2018; whereas A.8 in the said Sessions Case is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.240/2018. A.1 to A.6 in the said Sessions Case filed Criminal Appeal No.258/2018. 2. On 23.07.2025, when the Appeals were taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.258/2018 stated A.1 died on 13.02.2023 after granting bail by this Court. Consequently, we requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions. 3. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the written instructions along with Death Certificate, confirming the death of A.1 on 13.02.2023. In view of the said fact, Criminal Appeal No.258/2018, insofar as A.1 is concerned, is dismissed as “abated”. 4. Therefore, the Appeals are taken up for hearing insofar as A.2 to A.8 are concerned. All the eight accused were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges: 6 a) The first charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.8 b) The second charge was under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A.4. 5. Substance of the charge is that on 13.02.2008 at about 01.00 P.M., all the accused attacked one Thammisetty Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and beat him with sticks and stones at S.C. colony, Regulagadda Village, Machavaram Mandal, causing his death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A.2 to A.8 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. 6. Case of the prosecution as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows: (a) A.1 to A.5 and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Regulagadda Village, Machavaram Mandal. A.6 to A.8 are residents of Guntur Town. The deceased was also resident of Regulagadda Village, Machavaram Mandal. PW.2 is the sister, PW.3 is the brother and PW.5 is the mother of the deceased respectively. The deceased was having extra marital 7 relationship with the wife of A.4 and as such, there was rivalry between both the families. A.1 to A.5 as well as the family of the deceased were closely related to each other. While so, on 11.02.2008, A.1 to A.5 beat the deceased and the latter gave a report at Machavaram Police Station and a case in Cr.No.6/2008 was registered against A.1 to A.5 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. While, such was the position, A.1 to A.4 decided to kill the deceased and they called A.6 to A.8 from Guntur through A.5. A.1 to A.8 assembled on 13.02.2008 at about 1.00 P.M. at Regulagadda Village and waited for an opportunity. At that juncture, the deceased along with PWs 1 & 4 came to Regulagadda centre and were proceeding towards S.C. colony to take drinks at the house of PW.6. When they reached near the house of PW.6, all the accused attacked the deceased in front of the house of PW.6 and beat him with sticks and stones on his head and all over the body. Hearing the cries, PWs 2 & 5 rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the attack. After receiving the injuries, the deceased fell down. At about 1.50 P.M. on 13.02.2008, PW.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station received a phone call from PW.7 about the deceased receiving injuries. Immediately, he rushed to the scene of offence situated at Regulagadda and found the victim boy lying on the ground with injuries. Then, with the help of PW.1, he shifted the injured to a private hospital at Piduguralla and for a better treatment the injured was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. PW.12 returned to the Police Station. He received report Ex.P2 from PW.2. On the basis of the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.7/2008 under Section 8 307 r/w 34 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P12 is the F.I.R. He visited Regulagadda Village and prepared an observation report Ex.P13 in the presence of PWs 9 & 10. He seized M.O.3 Blood stained stones at the scene of offence. He also seized Blood stained earth M.O.4 and Control earth M.O.5 at the scene of offence. He prepared a Rough sketch Ex.P14 at the scene of offence. He photographed the scene of offence through his mobile and the photographs were marked as Ex.P15. He secured presence of PWs 3 & 5 and recorded their statements. (b) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 14.02.2008. At about 11.30 P.M. on 14.02.2008, PW.12 received death intimation from the hospital. He altered section of law from Section 307 to 302 IPC. Altered F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P16. (c) PW.12 along with PW.11 visited Mortuary, Government General Hospital, Guntur and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.11 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P9. At the inquest, he seized M.O.6 half pant of the deceased. At the time of inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 2, 3 & 5. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. The Doctor, who conducted Postmortem, was not examined by the prosecution and the Postmortem report was marked as Ex.P17 through PW.12 Investigating Officer. (d) Further investigation was taken over by Inspector of Police PW.13. He verified the investigation done by PW.12 and found it on correct lines. He secured presence of PWs 1 to 8 and recorded their statements. On 9 28.02.2008, PW.13 apprehended all the accused in the presence of PW.11 and another on the northern side of the village at about 02.00 P.M. On the confession made by the accused, he recovered M.Os 1 & 2 near Donka towards Tangeda village under Ex.P10. He arrested the accused under a Panchanama Ex.P11. After completion of investigation, PW.13 filed charge sheet. 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, marked exhibits P1 to P17 and exhibited MOs 1 to 6. On behalf of the defence, portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 was marked as Ex.D.1. 8. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 9. Accepting the evidence of PWs 2 & 5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 10. Heard Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the appellant/A.7 in Criminal Appeal No.187/2018, Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for appellant/A.8 in Criminal Appeal No.240/2018, Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the appellants/A.2 to A.6 in Criminal Appeal No.258/2018, as well as Sri C.Panini Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent State. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10 12. Having analyzed the evidence on record carefully, the only evidence available on record is PWs 2 & 5, who are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. PW.2 is none other than the elder sister of the deceased and PW.5 is the mother of the deceased. So far as PW.3 brother of the deceased is concerned, according to his evidence, he was not present in the village on that day. So far as PW.2 is concerned, according to her evidence, the incident took place at about 1.30 noon. Immediately, at about 3.00 P.M., she went to the Police Station and gave a report Ex.P2 to the police, on the basis of which, PW.12 registered a case in Cr.No.7/2008. In her earliest version, PW.2 has stated that A.1 to A.5 along with Laxmamma, Ramana, Veeramma, Bhavani, Kondamma, Vemula Nagendram and Singadala Mukkanti along with two others attacked the deceased with sticks and stones. So far as A.6 to A.8 are concerned, their names were not mentioned in Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted the names of Laxmamma, Ramana, Veeramma, Bhavani, Kondamma, Vemula Nagendram and Singadala Mukkanti as their involvement was not established. But, A.6 to A.8 were included in their place. Neither PW.2 nor PW.5 referred to their names in their earliest reports. In the evidence of PW.2, there are number of improvements and contradictions. Even in the evidence, she attributed overt acts against A.1 and A.3 stating that A.1 beat the deceased on his head and A.3 beat the deceased on his head with a stone. But, in the earliest report Ex.P2, she stated that A.1 beat the deceased with a stick on his head and A.4 beat the deceased on the head with a stone. PW.2 in her deposition has not 11 stated anything about the accused who were deleted from the charge sheet. So far as the second overt act attributed by PW.2 is concerned, there is a contradiction in her evidence and Ex.P2. In Ex.P2, she attributed second overt act to A.4, whereas in the evidence she attributed second overt act to A.3. Except these two overt acts, she did not attribute any overt act against any one of the accused. So far as PW.5 is concerned, she did not attribute any overt act to the accused. According to PWs 2 & 5, they were in the house at the relevant point of time. PW.12 Investigating Officer in his cross- examination has stated as follows: “I have idea of Regulagadda Village. The distance from the house of PW.2 to scene of offence is half a kilometer. The house of PW.2 is situated in the down lying area of Krishna River. From the house of PW.2 to scene of offence there are lot of thick bushes. There are five or six lanes from the house of PW.2 to scene of offence. The scene of offence is not visible from the house of PW.2. There might be possibility of audibility from scene of offence to the house of PW.2.” In view of the admission made by PW.12 in his cross-examination, there is no possibility for PWs 2 & 5 to witness the incident, which is situated at a half a kilometer distance and which is not visible from their house. Further, the house of PWs 2 & 5 was situated six lanes away from the scene of offence. As such, it is highly improbable to accept that PWs 2 & 5 witnessed the incident at the relevant point of time. As such, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 2 & 5. PW.2 went to the extent of stating that her brother PW.3 also witnessed the incident. But, PW.3 in his evidence has categorically stated that on the date of incident, he went to Nalgonda on some work and by 12 the time he returned to the village, the deceased was shifted to the hospital in Ambulance. As such, the evidence of PWs 2 & 5 does not inspire confidence of this Court. 13. Coming to the cause of death, the prosecution did not examine the Doctor who conducted Postmortem. Postmortem report Ex.P17 was marked through Investigating Officer PW.12. As such, the cause of death and injuries on the person of the deceased were not established by the prosecution by adducing the evidence of the Doctor who conducted Postmortem examination. 14. So far as the recovery of M.Os 1 & 2 is concerned, it cannot be accepted as they were recovered from public place accessible to one and all. Except the evidence of PWs 2 & 5, there is no other evidence on record and all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution and they were declared as hostile. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurazala in Sessions Case No.638/2009 vide judgment dt. 29.12.2017 against A.2 to A.8 is liable to be set aside. 16. As already pointed out, as A.1 died during pendency of the present appeal and the appeal against A.1 was dismissed as abated. In the result, all the Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District & 13 Sessions Judge, Gurazala, under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, in Sessions Case No.638/2009 vide judgment dt. 29.12.2017, against A.2 to A.8. The fine amount, if any paid by the accused, shall be refunded. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J 31.07.2025 MVA