1 APHC010755672016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3566] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 833/2016 Between: 1. THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APELLANT AND 1. GANTI DHARMAYYA, S/O VEERAYYA, HARIJANAPETA, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. 2. GANTI NAGARAJU DIED, W/O.POSHETTY R/O.MANCHIPPA, NIZAMABAD MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. GANTI KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O VEERAYYA, HARIJANAPETA, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. 4. GANTI SATYANARAYANA, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, HARIJANAPETA, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. 5. GANTI CHINA VEERASWAMY, S/O KASIYYA, HARIJANAPETA, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. 6. GANTI PEDA VEERASWAMY, S/O KASIYYA, HARIJANAPETA, VADAPALLI VILLAGE, E.G.DIST. ...RESPODENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.833 of 2016 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma) Introductory:- [i] This is an appeal filed by the State represented by its Public Prosecutor, directed against the judgment dated 22.08.2007 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram in SC.No.365 of 2005, where under accused Nos.3 to 6 not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 324 r/w 149, 302, 302 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and found the accused No.1 alone guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. [ii] It is represented that accused No.1 filed an appeal questioning the conviction and the same is ended in abatement on his death. [iii] Accused No.2 is described as died in the impugned judgement itself. 4 [iv] Accused No.3, 5 and 6 are the respondents No.3, 5 and 6 herein. As per the postal endorsement dated 03.09.2025, they are expired. [v] Now only the 4th respondent/accused No.4 is alive and his culpability is under challenge. Case of prosecution in brief, is that:- 2. [i] State represented by the Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Circle laid charge sheet against accused No.1 to A6, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. [ii] Accused and the informant party belongs to the same village i.e, Vadapalli within the limits of Ravulapalem Circle. One Polamati Ramesh Kumar (hereafter referred as ‘the deceased’) and PW.2 and PW.3 are the sons of PW.1. PW.4 is the wife of PW.1 and a member of Dwakra group. One Kondamma-wife of accused No.1 was also a member of that group and one Seethamma, wife of accused No.3 is the president of that group. [iii] PW.4 fell due in a sum of Rs.2000/- towards loan taken by her, and the other members of the Dwakra group demanded repayment. Then PW.4 disputed the liability, stating that she has to pay only Rs.900/-. In that context, the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 and other members approached the MDO and brought pressure on PW4. In connection with that issue, accused No.1 to 6 armed with the knives and sticks came to the house of PW.1 at about 11.30 p.m. on 12.2.2005, demanded PW.4 to pay the amount 5 due by her. When PW.1 interfered, accused No.1 slapped PW.1 below the left eye and stabbed him on the left side of the chest, whereupon PW.1 received bleeding injury. Meanwhile, sons of PW.1 i.e., PW.2 and PW.3, and the deceased came there. [iv] Accused No.2 attacked the deceased with a curved knife and hacked him in the stomach causing cut injury, whereby intestines came out. Meanwhile, accused No.1 stabbed the deceased on the left upper arm and the deceased fell down and unconscious. Accused No.3 and 4 beat PW.2- Bhushan Kumar with sticks on the head and body. Accused No.5 and 6 beat PW.1 and his other sons, with sticks on the hands and on the head. Injured/deceased was shifted to Hospital in an auto with the help of PW.5. When the villagers gathered, accused left the scene of offence with the weapons they possessed. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. PW.1 was given first aid. [v] On receipt of information, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police- PW.10 proceeded to Kothapeta and recorded the statement of PW.1 under Ex.P1 and returned to Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC under Ex.P12 and transmitted the copy of F.I.R. to all the concerned including the concerned Magistrate Court. [vi] On receipt of information from PW.10, PW.13 taken up the investigation, examined the witnesses- PW.1 to 5, got the dead body 6 photographed, posted the constable to guard, and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators- PW.8 and another. Ex.P4 is the observation report of scene of offence. Further held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators PW.8, LW.12/Tatikayala Trinadha Swamy and LW.14/Manepalli Krishnamurthy. [vii] PW.13 secured the presence of PW.6 and PW.7, at the scene of offence, who are said to be the eye witnesses and recorded their statements under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. [viii] After inquest, PW.13 sent a requisition to the Medical Officer, Kothapeta, to conduct Post-mortem examination. PW.9 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He has opined that the deceased appeared to have died of massive bleeding due to injury to great artery, and the injury might have been caused with sharp edged and curved weapon with pointed tip. Ex.P8 is the Post-mortem Certificate issued by PW.9. [ix] PW.11 examined PW.1 with regard to the injuries and as per his evidence, he found the following injures: 1) an incised wound of 2 inches length, bone-deep over left side cheek. 2) A stab wound of 1 inch length muscle deep on the left side lateral chest, no bleeding present. 3) Tenderness on the right forearm. 7 He opined that all the injuries are simple in nature, could have been caused by knife. [x] PW.12 is the scribe of the mediators’ report relating to the arrest, etc., of accused Nos. 3, 5, and 6 vide Ex.P14 and Ex.P15. [xi] Since the investigation disclosed the commission of offences in terms of Sections 302, 324 r/w 34 IPC, charge sheet is laid. Cognizance, Committal and Trial:- 3. Cognizance of the case was taken by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta vide PRC No.30 of 2005 and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions vide SC.No.365 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram, after completing necessary formalities. Charges:- 4. (i) Accused No.1 to 6 were charged in terms of Section 148 IPC. (ii) Accused No.1, 5 and 6 were charged in terms of Section 324 of IPC. (iii) Accused No.2 to 4 were charged in terms of Sections 149 and 324 IPC. (iv) Accused No.2 charged in terms of Section 302 IPC. 8 (v) Accused No.1 was charged in terms of Sections 149 and 302 of IPC alternatively under Section 302 r/w 34. (vi) Accused No.3 to 6 charged in terms of Sections 149 and 302 IPC, Or alternatively, accused No.1 to 6 were charged under Sections 149 and 302 of IPC. (vii) Accused No.5 and 6 were charged in terms of Section 324 IPC. 5. After addressing the charges and evidence, learned Sessions Judge, concluded that – (1) There was no formation of unlawful assembly with an unlawful object. Consequently, attack if any does not amount to rioting. (2) Considering the motive for the alleged offence, injuries sustained by both the groups, and the place of occurrence being situated in the middle of the houses of the accused and PWs.1 to 3, in the light of the fact that accused No.1 went to Police Station and reporting the matter,(covered by crime No.9 of 2005), found that the accused No.1 alone is liable for the charge under Section 324 IPC. (3) With regard to accused No.4, learned Sessions Judge found that the name of the accused No.4 is not mentioned in Ex.P1. The evidence of PW.1 is that the accused No.3 and 4 beat PW.2. PW.2 says that the accused No.3 beat him with a stick on his head and the accused No.4 also beat him with a stick on his back. Whereas there is 9 no medical evidence as to the injury sustained by PW.2. Therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to believe the assault by the accused No.4 and there exists reasonable doubt. 6. Learned Sessions Judge observed that fatal injury is caused by accused No.2 and that there is no constructive or joint liability for want of formation of unlawful assembly or sharing of common intention and that the accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 cannot be held guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149 or 302 r/w 34 IPC. Arguments in this appeal:-. 7. (i) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that there is common intention and the evidence available is sufficient to find the respondents - accused punishable in terms of Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. (ii) Learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that except two witnesses, all the others supported the prosecution case, and that the accused went to the house of the deceased as such they are the aggressors. Arguments for the accused: 8. (i) As against accused No.4, the allegation is that he beat PW.2 on the back; however, there is no corresponding medical evidence to prove the same. 10 (ii) Ingredients attracting either unlawful assembly and sharing of common intention or common object is not there. Therefore, judgment of acquittal of accused No.4 by the learned Sessions Judge is proper and there are no grounds to interfere. 9. The points that arises for determination in this appeal are :-.. (1) Whether the judgment dated 22.08.2007 in SC.No.365 of 2005 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram acquitting the accused No.4 under Sections 148, 324, 324 r/w 149, 302, 302 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable in law or require any interference ? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? (2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1:- 10. As per the oral evidence of PW.1, specific overt acts attributed against accused No.4 is that accused No.4 beat PW.2-P.Bhushan Kumar with a stick on the shoulder and on the body. PW.2 states that he was beaten by the accused No.4 with a stick on his back. PWs.1 and 2 are father and son. PW.3 stated that accused No.3 and 4 beat his brother- PW.2, on the head and neck with sticks. There is clear contradiction with regard to the overt acts attributed to accused No.4, when the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is compared. There is no corroboration from the medical evidence in support of the version of PWs. 1 to 3 regarding the overt acts 11 attributed to Accused No. 4 as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. PW.4 is the wife of PW.1. Her evidence is hearsay and is relevant to show shifting of the deceased and PW.2 to Hospital. PW.6 and PW.7 are said to be the neighbours in the locality and eye witnesses to the occurrence, but they did not support the prosecution case. Evidence of PW.5, an independent witness is not of any help. Evidence of PW.6 is that on the next day of incident, he heard that accused family and family of PW.1 had a fight and that he does not know where the incident took place. He has added that the accused also received injuries and he do not know anything about the case. Similarly, PW.7 - another independent witness said to be the neighbour and having acquaintance with both the families of the accused and the prosecution witnesses, who stated that he do not know how the deceased died and he did not support the prosecution story. 12. The other witnesses are formal and official witnesses and their evidence would show that about the homicidal death, inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the arrest of the accused. 13. A close look at Ex.P1 shows that the name of accused No.4- Ganti Satyanrayana, is an interpolation. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge, while finding the accused No.4 not guilty, can be considered as logical, and based on the probability, particularly when viewed in the light of the interpolation, absence of medical evidence and 12 correlation to the injury alleged to have been caused to PW.2 by accused No.4. 14. In the context of reasonable doubts traceable to the correction/interpolation of the name of accused No.4 and the absence of medical evidence touching the injuries allegedly sustained by PW.2, the accused No.4 entitled for the benefit of doubt. Further the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that sharing of common intention or common object is not established is found as a well-reasoned. 15. In the light of the evidence available on record, and for the reasons stated above, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused No.4 for the offences under which, he was charged is found sustainable, and no grounds are found to interfere with the same. Point framed is answered accordingly. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Point No.2 :- 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA Date:09.02.2026 Pnr 13 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.833 of 2016 Dated 09.02.2026 Pnr