APHC010725962018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 3036/2018 Between: 1. ERICHERLA MOJESH, R/O. THOMASPETA VILLAGE, CHEERALA TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. CASTE BY S.C. (MALA). ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against Conviction and Sentence awarded in S.C.No. 216 of 2017 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Dated 26th day of February, 2018. 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 condone the delay of 56 days in Representing the Criminal Appeal Sr.No. 16412 of 2018 and to pass 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, 2 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 151 days in preferring the Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dated 26/02/2018 passed in S.C.No. 216 of 2017 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, and to 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 to suspend the execution of sentence in S.C.No. 216 of 2017 on the file of the Xth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, and release the petitioner on bail in CrI.A.No. 3036 of 2018, which is pending before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. LAKSHMI D S 2. - Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 CRL.A.3036 of 2018 dt:22.09.2026 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.216 of 2017 on the file of the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, for the offence U/s.302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 08.09.2016 at about 08.30 a.m. accused quarreled with one S.Radhakrishna (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟) in the room, where they were residing, and the accused caught hold of head of the deceased, hit forcibly to the corner of the cement plate stopple twice or thrice, causing his death, thereby committed offence punishable U/s.302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: i) The accused is originally resident of Thomaspeta Village, Cheerala Town. About 5 years prior to the date of incident, accused started working at Tirupati. P.W-1 was running a furniture workshop under the name and style of S.L.V. Furnitures. 4 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 P.W-12 used to work in the furniture shop of P.W-1. P.W-1 has taken a shop on lease from P.W-7 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,800/-. He has also provided a room for stay of workers. P.W-12 introduced the accused to P.W-1, and the accused was working in the furniture shop of P.W-1. P.W-2 is the wife of P.W-1. After some time, the deceased also joined in the said furniture shop and used to work along with the accused. Both the accused and the deceased used to reside in the room situated adjacent to the furniture shop. P.W-6 also running another furniture shop in the same town. P.W-8 is the wife, P.W-9 is the son, P.W-10 is the daughter and P.W-11 is the brother of the deceased respectively. P.W-3 is running a kirana shop near the furniture shop of P.W-1. P.W-4 also working as a carpenter and he was also working under P.W-1. P.W-1 used to pay an amount of Rs.500/- per day to both the accused and the deceased. After finishing their work, accused and the deceased used to sleep in the room provided by P.W-1, which was situated in the same furniture shop. ii) While so, at about 07.45 a.m. on 09.09.2016, P.W-1 went to his furniture shop and called both the accused and the deceased, but there was no response. He found the door of the room was opened. He went inside and found the deceased in a pool of blood on the cot. He also found the accused absent in the room. 5 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 Having seen the dead body, P.W-1 went to police station and gave a report. iii) P.W-18/Inspector of Police, Alipiri P.S., Tirupati, received Ex.P-1 report from P.W-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.175/2016 U/s.302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P-14. He gave information to the higher officials as well as to the clues team. At about 01.30 p.m., he went to the scene of offence along with P.W-1. He recorded statements of P.Ws-1 to 5. He conducted inquest over dead body in the presence of P.W-13 and others. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-15. Meanwhile, clues team headed by P.W-15 developed chance prints, marked as Ex.P-9. He prepared a rough sketch at scene of offence marked as Ex.P-6. He has also prepared an observation report at scene of offence marked as Ex.P-5. He seized M.Os-1 to 3 at the scene of offence under Ex.P-8 panchanama. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. iv) P.W-16 Assistant Professor, Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Triupati, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to cranio cerebral injury, caused by blunt weapon. He issued post mortem certificate marked as Ex.P-12. 6 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 v) On 10.09.2016, P.W-18 recorded statements of P.Ws-8 to 11. He has also seized M.Os-11, 12 and 15 after the post mortem examination under Ex.P-17 panchanama. On 11.09.2016, P.W-18 recorded statement of P.W-12. On 21.09.2016, P.W-18 arrested the accused in the presence of mediators/P.W-14 and another. On the confession made by the accused, P.W-18 seized M.Os-13 and 14 clothes belonging to the accused under a panchanama marked as Ex.P-18 in the presence of mediators/P.W-14 and another. He obtained finger prints of the accused and sent them to the clues team under Ex.P-11. Ex.P-10 is the list of the material seized by the clues team with regard to chance prints. Forensic Science Laboratory report was marked as Ex.P-13. After collecting all the documents, and after completion of investigation, P.W-18 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws-1 to 18, marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 and exhibited M.Os-1 to 15. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 6. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7. Heard Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel representing Smt.D.S.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses in the present case. The prosecution rests its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 9. First circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the accused as well as the deceased were residing in a room where P.W-1 was running a furniture shop. Of course, there was no denial on the part of the accused in this regard. Second circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the last seen theory. Third circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the conduct of accused. Fourth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is non- explanation of accused in terms of the provisions of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Fifth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that accused informed P.W-12 stating that both of them quarreled with each other on the fateful day, and the last circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the deceased 8 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 met with homicidal death in the room, where the accused and the deceased used to reside. 10. So far as the first circumstance i.e., accused and the deceased were residing in one room in the furniture shop of P.W-1 is concerned, prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4, 6 and 7. P.Ws-1 and 2 in their evidence have categorically stated that the accused and the deceased were residing in the room provided by P.W-1 situated at the furniture shop. Of course, P.W-3 did not support the prosecution and he was declared as hostile. P.Ws-4, 6 and 7 have also categorically stated that accused and the deceased were residing in the room provided by P.W-1 situated in the furniture shop. Of course, the accused is not disputing that he is staying in the room along with the deceased, as such, the prosecution is able to establish the first circumstance evidencing that the accused and the deceased residing in one room provided by P.W-1 situated at the furniture shop. 11. Coming to the second circumstance i.e., last seen theory is concerned, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W-4. P.W-4 in his evidence has stated as follows: “On 08.09.2016 at 07.00 p.m., I have lastly seen the deceased and the accused together. They were altercating 9 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 with each other. I have seen the deceased on 09.09.2016 at 10.00 a.m. I found deceased on the cot with head injury and blood stains over the cot. Accused was not found when I went to furniture room. I did not interfere with accused and deceased, when they were altercating on 08.09.2016, as it was common for them.” Though P.W-4 was cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited. Further, accused also is not disputing the evidence of P.W-4 seriously, as such, the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused on the night of 08.09.2016 at about 07.00 p.m., as such, prosecution could able to prove the second circumstance also. 12. Coming to the third circumstance i.e., accused absconding from 08.09.2016 to 21.09.2016. According to the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4, 6 and 7, accused and deceased were residing in the room provided by P.W-1. P.W-1 further stated that at about 07.45 a.m. on 09.09.2016, he went to the furniture shop and called both accused and the deceased, but there was no response. He found the door was opened. Immediately he went inside and found the dead body of deceased in a pool of blood on a cot. P.W-1 further stated that he found the accused absent in the room. P.Ws-1 to 4, 6 and 7 in their evidence have categorically stated that from 09.09.2016 onwards, the accused was absconding. It is only on 10 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 21.09.2016, the Investigating Officer/P.W-18 apprehended the accused; As such, the conduct of the accused in absconding from 09.09.2016 to 21.09.2016 supports the version of the prosecution and as such, the prosecution could able to establish the third circumstance also. 13. Coming to the non-explanation of the accused in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, absolutely, there was no explanation from the accused. Admittedly, accused and deceased were residing in a room situated at the furniture shop of P.W-1. Prosecution could also establish that the deceased met with homicidal death on 09.09.2016, but the accused was continuously absent from 09.09.2016 to 21.09.2016, as such, prosecution could able to establish that deceased was found in the company of the accused on the previous night i.e., on 08.09.2016 and as such, it is the incumbent on the part of the accused to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in the room, where both of them are residing. But, absolutely, no explanation is forth coming from the accused, as such, prosecution could able to establish the additional circumstance of non-explanation in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 14. The prosecution is relying on the additional circumstance i.e., accused informing P.W-12 about the quarrel between both of them. Prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W-12 to establish this additional circumstance. P.W-12 in his evidence has categorically stated that earlier he used to work in the furniture shop of P.W-1. Subsequently, he introduced the accused to P.W-1, where the accused was working. Subsequently, P.W-12 stopped working there and went away. P.W-12 was previously acquainted with the accused. P.W-12 in his evidence has stated that on the morning of 09.09.2016, the accused telephoned him and informed him that there was a galata between him and the deceased and both of them beat each other. P.W-1 and P.W-4 also in their evidence have stated that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other frequently. 15. According to the prosecution version, accused demanded the deceased for liquor and the deceased refused to provide liquor, as such, an altercation took place between both of them. Even P.Ws-1, 2 and 4 in their evidence have categorically stated that both of them used to quarrel with each other frequently. Even P.W-6 also in his evidence has stated that there was a quarrel between accused and deceased having consumed liquor. 12 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 16. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it is the accused, who is responsible for death of the deceased. 17. It is the case of the prosecution that the incident preceded by a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. During the course of altercation, accused caught hold of the head of the deceased, and forcibly hit his head to the corner of cement plate stopple twice or thrice. 18. According to the prosecution, there was no motive for the accused to kill the deceased and the accused was not armed with any weapon, as such, the offence committed by the accused may not fall within the ambit of section 300 IPC. The offence committed by the accused would fall under exception-4 to section 300 IPC, as such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs to be interfered with. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, U/s.302 IPC in S.C.216/2017 dated 26.02.2018 is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted U/s.304-II IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous 13 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years, while maintaining the fine amount. Needless to state that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 22nd September, 2026 PSK Whether the judgment is: Speaking -- Reasoned √ Reportable -- Non-Reportable √ 14 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.3036/2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 53 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3036 OF 2018 22nd September, 2026 W PSK