APHC010247512018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3514] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1155/2018 Between: PUSHADAPU SUBRAHMANYAM, R/O.ALAPARRU VILLAGE, NAGARAM MANDAL, GUNTURU DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of AP ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.J KUSUMAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.520 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 17.07.2015 at about 3.00 A.M., the accused hacked one Mandali Narasimha Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on his left shoulder and left side of the chest with a big knife causing his death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section. 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, 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.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows:- (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Alaparru Village, Nagaram Mandal. The deceased was also residents of the same village. P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the daughters of the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the deceased. The accused frequently used to quarrel with his wife in drunken state. The deceased and the neighbours used to pacify them, for which the accused bore grudge against the deceased. On 3 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 16.07.2015, the deceased returned to the village at about 11.00 P.M. after getting repair to his tractor. At that time, he saw the accused sitting by the side of the road. The deceased casually questioned the accused whey he sat there, on that odd hour, for which the accused got irritated and started abusing the deceased in filthy language. Then P.Ws.1 to 4 and others intervened and took away the deceased to his house. At that juncture also, the accused threatened the deceased with dire consequences and went inside the house. P.Ws.1 to 4 saw the wife of accused going away from his house as he was beating her. On the same night, the deceased along with his family members slept on cots in front of the house. At about 3.00 A.M., P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased woke up as it was raining. Then the deceased went into the tractor shed and slept there on a cot. P.Ws.1, 2 and their mother were sitting in front of the house. The distance between the house and tractor shed is about 10 yards. After ten minutes, the accused went to the deceased with a big knife and hacked him stating that “why are you interfering in my family matters”. On hearing the cries, P.Ws.1 to 4 rushed to the spot and found the accused hacking the deceased. When they tried to catch hold of the accused, he escaped from the scene. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Community Health Centre, Repalle in 108 ambulance. (ii) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries at about 5.20 A.M. on the same day. Having received intimation-Ex.P6 from the hospital, P.W.8-Head Constable, Repalle Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded a statement-Ex.P1 from P.W.1. He forwarded Ex.P1 and death intimation to Nagaram Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. P.W.9-the Head constable, Nagaram Police Station received Ex.P1 at about 7.30 A.M. and registered a case in 4 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 Crime No.73 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P7. (iii) At the same time, P.W.10-Inspector of police, Repalle Rural Circle received information from P.W.9 and proceeded to Community Health Centre, Repalle and found the dead body with bleeding injuries. He instructed P.W9 to post a guard at the dead body. Immediately P.W.10 proceeded to the scene of offence and secured the presence of mediators P.W.5 and another. He prepared an observation report- Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. He also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P8 at the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through P.W.7 and the photographs and C.D were marked as Ex.P5. Thereafter, P.W.10 went to the hospital, secured the presence of P.W.6 and another. He recorded statements of prosecution witnesses at the hospital. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.6 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (iv) P.W.11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Repalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to the vital organs i.e., heart and left lung”. He issued post- mortem certificate-Ex.P10. (v) On 31.07.2015 at about 9.30 A.M. on credible information, P.W.10 arrested the accused at Sajjavaripalem and on the confession made by the accused, P.W.10 seized M.Os.3 and 4 in the presence of P.W.9 under a panchanama-Ex.P4. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.10 sent M.Os.1 to 4 to RFSL, Guntur. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P9. 5 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 (vi) After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of the defence, portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.3 and 4 were marked as Ex.D.1 to D.3. 7. Accepting the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4, coupled with the medical evidence adduced through P.W.11, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Smt J.Kusumavathi, 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 there are contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence has stated that the attack took place in shed whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that the accused attacked the deceased in front of the shed. She further contends that even in the inquest report-Ex.P3, it is stated that the incident took place in front of the shed and not inside the shed. She further contends that all the four witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 have attributed only one over tact. But the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.W.11 show there are two injuries on the body of the deceased. She further contends that there is no intention on the part of the accused to kill the 6 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4 have stated that the accused dealt only one blow. As such, she requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal contending inter alia that the behavior of the accused is very aggressive. He further contends that right from Ex.P1, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent. Absolutely, there are no contradictions in the case which go to the root of the prosecution version. He further contends that in Ex.P1, P.W.1 has specifically narrated as to how the incident took place. He further contends that there are no improvements in the prosecution witnesses and right from the beginning, it is consistent. Therefore, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. It is pertinent to note that in the earliest report-Ex.P1, P.W.1 categorically narrated the incident right from 11.00 P.M. till morning 3.00 A.M. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 has referred the names of P.Ws.3 and 4 who witnessed the incident and who helped them in shifting the injured to Community Health Centre, Repalle. The evidence of P.W.2 also corroborates in all aspects with the evidence of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence has stated as follows:- “On 16.07.2015 when my father’s tractor is not in working condition, my father went to Repalle and get it repaired and returned back to our house at 11.00 p.m. and found the accused sitting on the road in front of his house. Then my father enquired the accused as to why he sat on the road at 7 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 that time, then the accused grew wild saying “Naakodaka Naa kutumba vishayallo kalugachesukuntava” saying he tried to beat my father. Then myself, my mother, my maternal grandparents, my sister, Mendu Rattiah, Alaparthi Kumara Swamy, Alapathi Sundari, Alaparthi Venkateswara Rao were took away my father to our house. Accused while leaving proclaimed “Ippudu thappichukunnava tharvathaina Champutanu” went inside to his house, inside his house abused and beat his wife and she went away to her parents house. On the same day night my father slept in front of house in varandash myself, my younger sister and my mother and my grandparents slept inside the house. As rainstarted at 3.00 a.m. my father took his cot and slept in tractor shed. Myself, my younger sister and my mother put our cots on the Northern side of our house and sat on the cots. 10 minutes later accused came to my father’s cot holding a knife “Naakodaka Naa kutumba vishayalalo Kalugacheukuntava ippudu yela thappinchukuntavu” saying hacked my father with knife on his left shoulder extending to left chest. Then my father raised cries loudly. We also raised cries and neighbours namely Mendu Rattiah, Kumara Swami and his wife Sundari, Alaparthi Sambaiah and Alaparthi Lakshmi came and when accused tried to hack my father again we intervened then the accused went away.” 13. P.Ws.3 and 4 who are residing in the neighbouring house of the deceased have also stated the same thing as spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 have specifically stated that the incident took place in the tractor shed. There is no contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 8 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 as to where the incident took place. They also stated in their evidence that the incident took place in the tractor shed of the deceased. The distance between the house of deceased and tractor shed is hardly 10 yards as suggested by the defence counsel before the trial Court. As such, there is no much variance in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Further, the ocular version of P.Ws.1 to 4 has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.11 coupled with post-mortem certificate-Ex.P10. P.W.11 in his evidence has stated that the deceased received two injuries. He described the injuries as follows:- 1. Stab injury of 6 cm X 3 cm Lung and heart deep over left side of chest in between 3rd and 4th inter coastal space 4cm away from mid sterna point. 2. An incised injury of 6 cm X ½ cm muscle deep over upper 3rd of left arm present. Wounds are ante-mortem in nature. 14. In the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it is elicited that both injuries are possible with a weapon like M.O.3-knife. As such there are two different injuries on the body of the deceased. The injury No.1 is a very serious injury which caused damage to the left lung and heart of the deceased. As the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is consistent right from the beginning which is corroborated by the medical evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. 9 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 07.12.2017 vide Sessions Case No.520 of 2016 by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, under Section 302 IPC. As the appellant/Accused was already released on bail by order, dated 02.03.2023 vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, in terms of the order, dated 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 XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenali, 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 HARINATH.N Dt. 26.02.2026 SAB 68 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND 10 Crl.A.No.1155 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Appeal No.1155 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 26.02.2026 SAB