IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2430 of 2018 JUDGMENT: (per Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.236 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur are the appellants. They along with A3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges: i) First charge was under Section 120B IPC against A1 to A3 and ii) Second charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against A1 to A3. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 13.09.2014 at about 09:00 A.M., A1 to A3 entered into a criminal conspiracy to do away with the life of one Kataru Sri Rangaiah (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and, in furtherance of the said conspiracy, at about 12:00 noon, while the deceased was grazing sheep, A1 and A2 approached him from behind, whereupon A2 caught hold of the deceased from the back and A1 hacked him on the back 2 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 of the neck and head with an axe, causing his instantaneous death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted A1 and A2 under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for “Life” and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the three (03) accused for the offence under Section 120- B IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 filed the present Appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows: i) A1 is a resident of Somidevipalli Village of Racharla Mandal, and all the material prosecution witnesses as well as the deceased are also residents of the same village. PW.3 is wife, PW.4 is father, and PW.5 is brother of the deceased respectively. It is alleged that A1 developed illicit intimacy with a married woman of Sangapeta Village, which came to the notice of the deceased. Having come to know the same, A1 allegedly threatened the deceased not to disclose the same to anyone, which resulted in an altercation between A1 and the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased said to have informed the husband of the said woman about the illicit relationship between A1 and his wife. Then the husband of the said married 3 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 woman admonished her. It is further alleged that A1 secured the support of A2, who was working in Indian Army who had come to the village on leave, and, along with A3, conspired to do away with the life of the deceased and also PW.8, who had informed the husband of the said woman about the illicit relationship between A1 and her. ii) While so, on 13.09.2014 at about 10:00 A.M., PW.1, PW.2 and the deceased were grazing their sheep in the fields of one B. Subbaiah situated near the railway track. At about 12:00 noon, while they were so engaged, A1 and A2 arrived at the scene of offence on a motorcycle, with A2 carrying an axe. Immediately, A2 caught hold of the deceased from behind and A1 hacked the deceased on the back of the head and neck, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the spot. PW.1 thereupon proceeded to the Police Station and lodged a report. PW.13, the then Head Constable of Racharla Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 at about 12:00 noon and registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned and the FIR was marked as Ex.P9. iii) Having received the information from PW.13, PW.16-the then Inspector of Police, Giddalur Circle, went to the Police Station, collected copies of the FIR and proceeded to the scene of offence. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P4, in the presence of PW.10 and PW.11, and also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He seized Mos.1 to 5 from the scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW.9. 4 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 Photographs and CD were marked as Exs.P2 and P3. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW.10 and PW.11, and the inquest report was marked as Ex.P5. He then sent the dead body for postmortem examination. iv) PW.15-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Giddalur, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was hypovolemic shock resulting from rupture of major blood vessels due to hacking injuries. He issued postmortem certificate- Ex.P11. v) On 14.09.2014, PW.16 recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses. On 27.09.2014, PW.16 apprehended A2 and seized bloodstained clothes, Mos.6 and 7, belonging to A2 in the presence of mediators under a panchanama-Ex.P6. vi) On 02.10.2014, PW.16 apprehended A1 and recovered MO.8- axe and Mos.9 and 10-bloodstained clothes in the presence of mediators under a panchanama-Ex.P7. On 04.10.2014, PW.16 apprehended A3, who was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the postmortem examination, PW.16 collected the clothes of the deceased and marked them as Mos.11 to 13. vii) On 27.09.2014, PW.16 filed a Memo adding Section 120-B IPC under Ex.P13. He sent the Material Objects to RFSL, Guntur, under Letter of Advice-Ex.P14. RFSL report was marked as Ex.P10. After receiving all documents and after completion of investigation, PW.14 filed charge sheet. 5 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.16, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and exhibited MOs.1 to 13. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 7. Accepting the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, coupled with PW.6 and PW.7, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously contends that the FIR is anti-timed and that the entire case was fabricated belatedly after completion of the inquest. He further submits that, if PW.1 had in fact lodged the report at about 12:30 noon, the same ought not to have been received by the Court only at about 9:50 P.M. on the same day. On this premise, he contends that Ex.P1 FIR is an afterthought and that the appellants were falsely implicated due to political rivalry in the village. He further contends that, had Ex.P1 been given at 12:30 noon, it would have reached the Court immediately, particularly since the distance between the Police Station and the Court is only nine (9) kilometers, and, therefore, there was inordinate delay in lodging the report with the police. 6 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the prosecution has failed to place any material to establish the alleged motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. He further contends that neither the married woman who was allegedly having an extra-marital relationship with A1 nor her husband were examined and, therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive for the appellants to kill the deceased. He also submits that the prosecution has not placed any material whatsoever to substantiate the so-called conspiracy between A1 and A2 with A3 and, in fact, the learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused of the offence under Section 120-B IPC. He further contends that, having extended the benefit of doubt to A3, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge ought to have extended the same benefit to the appellants also. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that the prosecution has successfully established the motive by examining PW.8. He further submits that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident, namely PW.1 and PW.2, and when there is direct ocular evidence, the question of motive pales into insignificance. He also contends that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 stands corroborated by the testimony of PW.6 and PW.7, who deposed that A1 and A2 were seen fleeing from the vicinity of the scene of offence soon after the incident, with bloodstained clothes and a bloodstained axe. Thus, according 7 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 to him, the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 lends further corroboration to the version of PW.1 and PW.2. He further submits that the ocular version of PW.1 and PW.2 is also fully supported by the medical evidence adduced through PW.15 coupled with Ex.P11. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, who has carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 13. PW.1, in his earliest report, Ex.P1, stated that he, along with PW.2 and the deceased, went to the fields of one Subbaiah for grazing sheep at about 10:00 A.M. He further stated that at about 12:00 noon, A1 and A2 came to the scene of offence and attacked the deceased. In Ex.P1, it is specifically stated that A2 caught hold of the deceased from behind and A1 hacked him on the back of the head and neck, as a result, the deceased fell down on the spot. In Ex.P1, PW.1 also disclosed the motive for the offence, namely, A1 was having an extra-marital relationship with a married woman belonging to Sangapeta Village. 14. According to PW.13, the then Head Constable, he received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 at about 12:30 noon. During the course of trial, PW.1 and PW.2 stated the very same version as stated in the earliest report-Ex.P1. Even in the inquest report-Ex.P5, the same version was recorded by the panchayatdars, and, in fact, the names of PW.1 and PW.2 were also mentioned therein. 8 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 15. Having carefully analyzed the entire evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, we find no reason to disbelieve their version. Merely because the FIR reached the Magistrate at 09:30 P.M., the consistent and cogent testimony of the eyewitnesses, which remained uniform from the earliest report, Ex.P1, cannot be discarded. PW.16, the Investigating Officer, has stated that from the time of receipt of Ex.P1, he was continuously engaged in the investigation by preparing the scene observation report, taking photographs, conducting the inquest over the dead body, and sending the body for postmortem examination, which continued till about 5.00 or 6.00 P.M. in the evening. Therefore, the mere fact that the FIR reached the Court at about 09:50 P.M. on the same day does not give rise to any reasonable doubt regarding genuineness of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. 16. Apart from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the evidence of PW.6 and PW.7 is also available on record. PW.6 and PW.7, in their evidence, stated that while they were proceeding towards Somidevipalli Railway Station, they saw both the accused going on a motorcycle with bloodstained clothes and that A1 was carrying a bloodstained axe. Though these two witnesses were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse was elicited to discredit their version. 17. So far as motive is concerned, PW.8, in his evidence, has categorically stated that A2 enquired him as to whether he had informed the husband of the married woman about the illicit relationship between A1 and her. Of course, PW.8 was declared hostile, as he did not support the 9 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 prosecution with regard to the other aspects of the case. As already pointed out, when the evidence of eye-witnesses is available, motive loses its significance. 18. Having carefully analyzed the prosecution evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the ocular version of PW.1 and PW.2 was corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through PW.15 coupled with Ex.P11. PW.15-the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he found injuries on the back of the head and neck of the deceased and that, except for those injuries, no other injuries were found on the body of the deceased. 19. Having perused the entire material available on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the deceased met with a homicidal death in the hands of the appellants, and the findings recorded by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge to that extent do not warrant any interference. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellants by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur in Sessions Case No.236 of 2015, dated 07.08.2018, under Section 302 IPC. 21. As the appellants were released on bail by Order dated 29.02.2024, in terms of Batchu Rangarao & Others vs. State of A.P1, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining portion 1 {2016(3) ALT (Criminal) 505 (AP)} 10 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 of sentence, failing which learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District is directed to secure the presence of the appellants by issuing warrants and commit them to prison, for serving the remaining portion of sentence. Needless to state that the period already undergone by them shall be given set off, as per the provisions under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date: 28.01.2026 PSA 11 KSR, J & AHSS, J Crl.A.No.2430 of 2018 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2430 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.SURESH REDDY) Date: 28.01.2026 PSA