APHC010607702018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3514] TUESDAY, THE TENTH 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: 2474/2018 Between: GEMMELI MALLESH, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. GANDHINAGARAM VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT OF G MADUGULA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, Through Inspector of Police, PS G. Madugula Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.S DUSHYANTH REDDY 2.LEGAL AID 3. Counsel for the Respondent: 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.126 of 2016 on the file of the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vishakhapatnam, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge under two charges. 2. The 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC and the 2nd charge was under Section 498-A IPC. 3. Substance of the charge is that prior to 13.02.2016, the accused used to harass his wife-P.W.10 and subjected her to cruelty and on 13.02.2016 at about 6.45 A.M. when the accused is beating his wife- P.W.10, she ran away to her grandmother’s house-P.Tulasamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased No.1’) situated at Gandhinagar village, G.Madugula Mandal where the accused initially hacked D.1 when her son Pangi Satthi Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased No.2’) intervened, he also hacked D.2 and caused their death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections. 302 and 498-A IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for the remaining period of his life and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer 3 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 5. 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 Gandhinagar Village, G.Madugula Panchayat. Both the deceased were also residents of the same village. The marriage between the accused and P.W.10 was performed about thirteen years prior to the date of incident. P.W.10 is a deaf and dumb woman. The accused, being addicted to alcohol, used to spend his earnings and, in an intoxicated state, frequently used to harass and beat his wife- P.W.10. He was in the habit of assaulting her on a regular basis. Whenever the accused beat her, she used to go to the house of her grandmother (D.1). P.Ws.1 and 2 are the cousins of P.W.10. As the accused was persistently harassing and beating his wife-P.W.10, a panchayat was convened by the then Vice-Sarpanch of G.Madugula Panchayat, who was examined as P.W.4. About one week prior to the date of incident, P.W.4 held a panchayat and admonished the accused. (ii) While so, at about 6.45 A.M. on 13.02.2016, the accused started beating P.W.10. Unable to bear the same, P.W.10 ran towards the house of her grantmother-D.1. The accused chased P.W.10 by arming with a knife-M.O.1. After reaching the house of D.1, D1 admonished the accused. Immediately, the accused hacked D.1 on her waist, who died on the spot. When the cousin of P.W.10-D.2 tried to intervene, the accused also hacked on his legs. Immediately, the accused fled away from the scene. P.Ws.1, 10 and the son of D.1 witnessed the 4 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 incident. D.2 was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Paderu. Immediately, the son of D.1 by name Sri Chitti Babu (who met with natural death) went to the police station and gave a report. (iii) On the same day at about 8.00 A.M P.W.12-incharge Station House Officer, G.Madugula Police Station received Ex.P11 report from the said Chitti Babu and registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2016 under Sections 302, 307 and 498-A IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P9. (iv) Having received express FIR from P.W.12, P.W.11-Inspector of police took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P4 in the presence of P.W.6 and others. He also prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence. He also got the scene photographed, marked as Ex.P12. He recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. He also held inquest over the dead body of D.1 in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (v) P.W.7-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Paderu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of D1. He opined the cause of death was due to “hemorrhagic shock Secondary to cardio pulmonary arrest”. (vi) P.W.13-Inspector of police, G.Madugula Police Station took up further investigation. On 18.02.2016 at about 10.00 A.M. P.W.6 produced the accused before P.W.13 stating that the accused made extra judicial confession before him. P.W.13 recorded confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators-P.W.6 and another. The accused said to have surrendered along with M.O.1-knife. P.W.13 5 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 arrested the accused and seized M.O.1-knife from his possession. On 19.02.2016 P.W.13 visited the village and recorded the statements of witnesses. (vii) P.W.13 received the death intimation of D.2 from the hospital. P.W.13 visited Gandhinagar village and recorded statements of witnesses. He held inquest over the dead body of D.2 under Ex.P1 in the presence of mediators. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Paderu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.2. He opined the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest and hypo volimic shock due to heavy blood loss. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P6 pertaining to D.2. (viii) On 21.02.2016 P.W.13 recorded the statement of P.W.10 with the assistance of translator. Thereafter, P.W.13 visited the house of accused and seized blood stained shirt-M.O.3 in the presence of mediators. On 06.03.2016 he sent the material objects to RFSL. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P7. (ix) In the meanwhile, having received hospital intimation, P.W.9-the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu, visited the hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P8 from D.2. After receipt of all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P12 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 6 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 8. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 coupled with the Dying Declaration of D.2-Ex.P8, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 9. Heard Sri S.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that there was no intention on the part of the accused to kill both the deceased. He further contends that P.W.1 is a child witness and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 mutually contradictory to each other. He further contends that if really the accused intended to kill both the deceased, he ought to have inflicted more injuries on both the deceased. He further contends that the accused dealt only one blow on D.1 and one blow on the legs of D.2. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal contending inter alia the intention on the part of the appellant to kill D.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 is crystal clear that as D.1 was pacifying the accused and admonishing him as he was beating P.W.10, he decided to eliminate D.1. On the fateful day also, the accused chased his wife up to the house of D.1 where the accused uttered saying that he will eliminate D.1 as D.1 is chastising him. Further, if really, the accused was not having any intention, he would not have chased his wife-P.W.10 armed with a curved knife. It is not the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 that the accused took out M.O.1-knife from the house of deceased and dealt a 7 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 blow. As such, intention is there on the part of the accused in choosing the vital part of D.1 while killing her. Therefore, he contends that there are no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge may be confirmed. 12. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 13. It is pertinent to note that in the earliest report-Ex.P11, son of D.1 has categorically narrated the entire events. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that the accused chased his wife-P.W.10 to the house of D.1 arming with M.O.1-knife. Immediately after coming to the house of D.1, the accused hacked D.1 with M.O.1-curved knife on her waist, who died on the spot. It is also stated in Ex.P11 that when D.2 tried to intervene, the accused hacked D.2 on his legs and fled away from the scene. The same version was spoken in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 during the course of trial. The same version was also stated by D.2 in his dying declaration-Ex.P8 recorded by the Judicial Officer- P.W.9. Further, the ocular evidence spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2 and 10 was also corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.7 and 8. 14. P.W.7-Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on D.1, has categorically described the injury on her. He described the injury as follows:- “Deep lacerated wound of size 8cm X 3cm X 5 cm on the left lower back extending from the lumbar vertebrae to the lateral side exposing the viscera. He also opined the cause of death was due to “hemorrhagic shock Secondary to cardio pulmonary arrest. Another doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.2, who was examined as P.W.8, in his evidence has stated the cause of death of 8 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 D.2 was due to “cardio respiratory arrest, Hypo volimic shock due to heavy blood loss”. If really, the accused was not having any intention to kill D.1, he ought not to have taken M.O.1-knife to the house of D.1. Fortunately, P.W.10 survived because of the interference of D.1 and D.2. Otherwise, P.W.10 must have been met with the same fate as that of D.1 and D.2. It is only after raising hue and cry by all of them, the accused fled away from the scene. As such, it can safely be presumed that there was an intention on the part of the accused to kill D.1. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge needs no interference, but with regard to the sentence part for the offence under Section 302 IPC needs interference. Since the sentence imposed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge is stated to be contrary to the provisions of Section 302 IPC, it is relevant to extract the said provision for better appreciation : “Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”** But astonishingly, the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge imposed sentence against the appellant for imprisonment for his remaining period of life which is impermissible under law. As such, the sentence of imprisonment for the remaining period of appellant’s life is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9 Crl.A.No.2474 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 01.06.2018 in Sessions Case No.126 of 2016 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 498-A IPC. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is also confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment for the remaining period of the appellant’s natural life is modified to that of imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ while maintain the fine amounts. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt. 10.02.2026 SAB 10 Crl.A.No.2474 of 2018 163 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N Criminal Appeal No.2474 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 10.02.2026 SAB