Date of reserved for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 15.07.2026 APHC010930872018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3283/2018 Between: 1. SRI. T. VENKATARAMANA, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGE - 26YRS,(CONVICT PRISONER - CT NO. 7045), G.V.. PURAM VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT., A.P. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3283 of 2018 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.288 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajampet, is the appellant. 2. First Information Report was initially registered against A1 to A4. During the course of the investigation, as no material was found disclosing the involvement of A2, his name was deleted from the charge sheet. Since Accused No.4 absconded and could not be apprehended, the charge sheet was filed only against Accused Nos.1 and 3. Consequently, A1 and A3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges: 1) First charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 and A3. 3 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 2) Second charge was under Section 25(1b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act against A1 and A3. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 21.06.2012, at about 12.30 a.m., during the night, A1, with the help of A3, caused the death of one Gabbi Rama Krishna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") while he was sleeping in the house of P.W.1 with a firearm, i.e., a revolver, and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1b)(a) of the Arms Act. 4. During pendency of trial, A3 died and case against him was abated. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of G.V. Puram Village. A1 and the deceased were closely related to each other. P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W.1 and the deceased were residing in neighbouring houses. ii) There was a land dispute between A1 and his cousin, Venkata Ramana. In the year 2009, while the said Venkata Ramana was sleeping in front of his house, A1 poured petrol on him and set him ablaze at about midnight, causing his death. In the said case, P.W.1 4 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 and the deceased were cited as prosecution witnesses. As such, accused bore grudge against the deceased. iii) While matters stood thus, on the intervening night of 21/22.06.2012, at about 12.30 a.m., P.W.1 and the daughter of the deceased were watching television, while the deceased was asleep on a cot. It is the case of the prosecution that, at that juncture, Accused No.1 fired at the head of the deceased through the window with a revolver while he was asleep. On hearing the gunshot and noticing smoke emanating from the room, P.W.1 and the daughter of the deceased rushed out and found Accused No.1 leaving the scene of offence carrying the revolver. The deceased succumbed to the gunshot injury at the spot. On hearing the sound of the gunshot, several villagers woke up and gathered at the house of the deceased. iv) Thereafter, at about 6:00 a.m. on 21.06.2012, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report. On the basis of the said report, one K.Subba Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 100 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25(1b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. He issued copies of FIR to all concerned. The FIR was marked as Ex.P22. As the said Sub-Inspector was not examined, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur, was examined to identify Ex.P22. v) Having received the information, the Inspector of Police, P.W.17 Railway Kodur, took up the investigation. Immediately, he 5 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 went to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P10. He recorded the statements of P.W.1 and other witnesses. He also seized the blood-stained clothes and other material objects i.e., M.Os.1 to 8, at the scene of offence. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P24 at the scene of offence. He forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. vi) P.W.14, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Rajampet, conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined the cause of death was due to Cardio Respiratory Failure due to Hemorrhagic Shock consequent upon a gunshot injury to the head. He issued post-mortem certificate, marked as Ex.P16, and the final opinion, marked as Ex.P19. vii) On 12.07.2012, the parts of the dead body preserved by the doctor were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. On 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015, P.W.17 recorded statements of some of the witnesses. viii) On 03.10.2015, P.W.17 apprehended A3 at the old bus stand, Railway Kodur. During interrogation, A3 confessed that, at the request of A1, he had supplied a country-made gun for an amount of Rs.9,000/-. Thereafter, A3 was remanded to judicial custody. ix) On 14.12.2013, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur, arrested A1 in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13. At the time of arrest, he seized a licensed revolver and also certain articles from the 6 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 possession of A1. Of course, those articles were neither incriminating nor marked as material objects in the present case. x) The Accused also confessed about killing of two other persons, which were subject matter of Sessions Case No.21 of 2010 and Sessions Case No.313 of 2015 on the file of the same Court. Pursuant to the confession made by A1, A3 was arrested. A3 is stated to have confessed that he had supplied the firearm to A1 and had trained him in handling and firing firearms. Thereafter, A3 was remanded to judicial custody. xi) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.17. P.W.15, Junior Assistant, Collector Office, Kadapa, produced the authorization proceedings marked as Ex.P20 and the sanction proceedings marked as Ex.P21. After collecting all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.17 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P1 to P30 and exhibited MOs.1 to 8. 7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused as aforesaid. 7 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 8. Heard Smt.A.Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. The material prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 9, did not support the prosecution case. Consequently, the prosecution is left with the evidence of P.W.1 alone. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is none other than the elder brother of the deceased. In the earliest report, marked as Ex.P1, P.W.1 categorically stated that he and the deceased were residing in adjacent houses. On the fateful night, at about 12.30 a.m., the deceased was asleep on a cot, while P.W.1 and the daughter of the deceased were watching television. It is further stated in Ex.P1 that, at that juncture, the accused fired at the head of the deceased through the window with a firearm. Thus, according to Ex.P1, while P.W.1 and the daughter of the deceased were watching television, the deceased, who was sleeping on a cot, was shot on the head through the window with a firearm by the accused. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he stated in his chief examination that while he and the daughter of the deceased were watching television, they heard a loud sound and noticed smoke. Immediately, they shouted and the accused ran away. In his chief examination, P.W.1 further stated that Ex.P1 was scribed by P.W.18, 8 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 as he was illiterate. However, in the very same examination-in-chief, P.W.1 made the following statement: "I do not know the contents of Ex.P1." 12. Subsequently, P.W.1 was recalled pursuant to the order dated 15.03.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.138 of 2018. Thereafter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor further examined P.W.1 in chief. In his further examination-in-chief, P.W.1 deposed that he was sleeping on a cot, while the deceased and the daughter of the deceased were watching television. A comparison of Ex.P1 with the deposition of P.W.1 discloses a material inconsistency as to who was sleeping and who was watching television at the relevant point of time. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that he and the daughter of the deceased were watching television, while the deceased was sleeping on a cot. However, in his oral testimony, P.W.1 deposed that he was sleeping, whereas the deceased and the daughter of the deceased were watching television. 13. In his further cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he was sleeping in the veranda and that the room in which the deceased was sleeping was separated by a wall. If that be so, it is difficult to comprehend how P.W.1 could have witnessed the alleged occurrence. Further, though the daughter of the deceased was admittedly present at the time of the incident, the prosecution did not choose to examine her, for the reasons best known to it. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 9 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 suffers from material inconsistencies, and his version has undergone significant changes at different stages of the proceedings. 14. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record, as P.Ws.2 to 9 did not support the prosecution. Further, the prosecution failed to produce the said weapon recovered from the accused. Merely because the weapon was marked in another case, the prosecution could not have withheld its production in the present case. Further, no conviction under the Arms Act was recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, except for the highly interested and inconsistent version of P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record connecting the accused with the offence. As such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge is liable to be interfered with. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajampet under Section 302 IPC against the appellant in Sessions Case No.288 of 2015 vide judgment dated 19.07.2018 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant pursuant to the judgment of the trial Court shall be refunded to him. 16. At the time of hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the nominal roll pertaining to the appellant. Learned 10 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 Additional Public Prosecutor states that the appellant was already convicted in Sessions Case No.313 of 2015 and Sessions Case No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajampet, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for ‘LIFE’. He further states that the appeals arising out of the said Sessions Cases were also dismissed by this Court and the appellant is undergoing life imprisonment in the above said two Session Cases. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 06.07.2026 Asr Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 11 Crl.A.No.3283 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.3283 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 06.07.2026 Asr