APHC010057952018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3547] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 242/2018 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.40 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, filed the above Criminal Appeal. He was tried by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, under the following three (3) charges: First charge was under Section 448 IPC; Second charge was under Section 302 IPC; and Third charge was under Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Substance of charge is that on 20.10.2011, at about 06.30 pm, the accused trespassed into the house of one Sudha Rani (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟), beat her with hands, kicked her, dragged her and picked up a kerosene can available in the house, poured on her and set her to fire with a match stick by abusing her in the name of “caste” and while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 302 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989. 3. After completion of trial, the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant under Section 448 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also convicted the appellant under Section 3(1) (x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows: (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Thogatapalle Village, Kalikiri Mandal. The deceased was also the resident of the same village. The marriage of the deceased was performed with one B. Ravi about 20 years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed with two daughters i.e. P.W.2 and another. Subsequently, husband of the deceased deserted her and the deceased started living with her parents along with two daughters. Thereafter, the accused developed illegal intimacy with the deceased about 6 years prior to the date of incident. After some time, the deceased acquired house site in “Indiramma House Colony”, constructed a house and living there along with her two daughters by doing coolie work. The accused used to visit the said house and continued his illegal intimacy with the deceased. (ii) Since six months prior to the date of incident, the accused started suspecting her fidelity and used to beat the deceased and harassed her. The deceased informed the said fact to P.Ws.1 to 3. PW.1 and his family members chastised the accused and in spite of the same, the accused did not change his behavior towards the deceased. (iii) While so, on 20.10.2011, at about 6.30 pm, the accused went to the house of the deceased, who was talking with PW.5. On that, the accused questioned the deceased, beat her, abused her and dragged her into the house, brought kerosene can, poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match stick. At that time, the daughter of the deceased-PW2 was studying infront of the house. Unable to bear the flames, the deceased raised hue and cries and the neighbours gathered there put off the flames. Having come to know about the incident, the brother of deceased-PW.1 went to the house and found the injured with burn injuries. Immediately, PW.1 and others shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Piler in 108 Ambulance. On the advise of the Doctors, the injured was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment. (iv) On the same day, at about 8.30 pm, PW.13-Head Constable, Piler Police Station received intimation from the Government Hospital, Piler. Immediately, he went to the hospital and found the injured in an unconscious state and not in a position to give statement. Then, he recorded Ex.P1 from PW.1 and forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Kalikiri Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. (v) On 21.10.2011, at about 8.00 am, PW.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalikiri Police Station, received Ex.P1 from PW.13 and registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989. Hospital intimation was marked as Ex.P14 and F.I.R was marked as Ex.P15. He issued copies of F.I.R to all the concerned. At about 1.00 pm, on 21.10.2011, PW.16-SDPO, Madanapalle, received express F.I.R. After receiving the proceedings under Ex.P17 from Superintendent of Police, he took up investigation. At about 5.30 pm, on 21.10.2011, PW.16 went to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati to examine the injured. As the injured was in an unconscious state, he could not examine her. He recorded statements of PWs.1 & 2. On 22.10.2011, PW.16 went to the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P18. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P19 in the presence of PWs.6 & 7. He seized M.Os.1 to 4 at the scene of offence. (vi) While so, on 24.10.2011, PW.16 received death intimation from SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. Thereafter, he altered the Section of Law from 307 to 302 IPC. Altered FIR was marked as Ex.P20. He went to the hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.8 to 10. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P21. He recorded statements of Pws.3 and 6 at the inquest. He forwarded the dead body for Post Mortem examination. (vii) PW.11, Professor in SV Medical College, Tirupati, conducted autopsy over the dead body. She opined the cause of death was “due to hypo volaemic shock as a result of burns”. She issued Post Mortem report, which was marked as Ex.P11. (viii) On 10.11.2011 at about 10.30 am, PW.16 arrested the accused at his house. He found burn injuries on the right hand and on the left wrist of accused. He sent the accused to hospital. One Dr.B.Venkataswamy, examined the accused and issued wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P16, through PW.15 colleague of Dr.B.Venkataswamy. On 18.11.2011, PW.16 recorded statements of PWs.4 & 5. He also obtained caste certificate of the deceased, which was marked as Ex.P13. After receiving Post Mortem report and after completion of investigation, PW.16 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 apart from exhibiting MOs.1 to 4. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence found against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of PWs.11 and 15, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the only evidence available on record is PW.2, who is a child witness and no reliance can be placed on her evidence, as she was aged about 9 years at the time of incident. He further contends that PW.2 was tutored by PW.1 and police. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the accused has no intention to kill the deceased and it is only after seeing the deceased talking with PW.5, got enraged and poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match stick. So far as the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act, 1989, is concerned, learned counsel states that in the earliest report-Ex.P1, it was not stated that the accused abused the deceased in the name of “caste”. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending inter alia that the evidence of PW.2 is consistent and though she was cross examined at length, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the defence. So far as “motive” is concerned, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is consistent right from the stage of Ex.P1. PWs.1 and 3 specifically stated in their evidence that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of deceased and he used to beat and harass the deceased for that reason. PWs.1 and 3 further stated that though they chastised the accused number of times, he did not change his behavior towards deceased. As such, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Judge. Page 8 of 10 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that they have already served notice to the defacto complainant in terms of Section 15-A of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act. 12. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record. Right from the stage of Ex.P1, the version of the prosecution is consistent. Though PW.1 is not eye witness to the incident, he came to know the same through PW.2, who narrated the entire incident. According to the prosecution, the incident took place between 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm on 20.10.2011 and within one hour, Ex.P1 report was recorded from PW.1 at the hospital. There was no delay in recording the statement of PW.1. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that while PW.2 was studying infront of the house, the accused trespassed into the house, beat the deceased and dragged her, poured kerosene on her and set her to fire with a match stick and went away. Having come to know about the incident through the villagers, PW.1 immediately went to the house of deceased, shifted her to Government Hospital, Piler and from there to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 23.10.2011. 13. Though PWs.4 to 10 did not support the prosecution, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is consistent. Though PW.2 is aged about 16 years at the time of recording evidence, her evidence inspire the confidence of this Court and nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the defence. As such, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the medical evidence establish the attack made by the accused on the deceased. Further, the prosecution could able to prove the factum of the accused receiving burn injuries with the evidence of PW.15 coupled with Ex.P16-wound certificate. 14. So far as the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act, 1989 is concerned, PWs.1 to 3 did not state before the Investigating Officer or in Ex.P1 report about the accused abusing the deceased in the name of “caste”. It is only during the course of evidence P.W.2 has attributed the abuses in the name of “caste”. PW.16-Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross examination that PWs.1 to 3 did not state about the accused abusing the deceased in the name of “caste”. It is the case of prosecution that the accused killed the deceased as he developed suspicion against her fidelity and not because she belongs to a particular caste. Absolutely, there are no allegations attracting the ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act, 1989 in Ex.P1 or in the statements recorded by the investigating officer-PW.16. As such, the conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge under Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act is not sustainable. Page 10 of 10 15. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in S.C.No.40 of 2012 dated 10.01.2018 under Sections 448 & 302 IPC. So far as the conviction and sentence under Section 3(1) (x) of S.C. and S.T (POA) Act, 1989 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. As the appellant was released on bail, by order, dated 15.02.2023, he is directed to surrender before the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment, failing which, the learned I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is directed to secure his presence by issuing NBW and commit him to the prison for serving the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off, as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated 29.08.2025 TVN/TSNR