Date of reserved for Judgment: 20.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2026 Date of uploading : 17.07.2026 APHC010780322018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3566] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2840/2018 Between: 1. KALISETTI VENKATA SIVA NAGARAJU, R/O. NIMMALAPET, UNDI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, For the State of Telangana and A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. D SANGEETHA REDDY 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 2 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2840 of 2018 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.288 of 2017 on the file of the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on two counts for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 12.01.2017, at about 09.30 a.m., at his house situated at Nimmalapeta, Undi Village, the accused, suspecting the fidelity of his wife by name Kalisetti Ramadevi (hereinafter referred to as 'D1'), beat her on the head with a pestle, causing her death, and thereafter, with the very same pestle, beat his three-year-old daughter by name Prasanna Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'D2'), on the head suspecting the paternity, causing her death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code under two counts. 3. After completion of trial, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC on two counts and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for ‘Life’ in respect of both the counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under each 3 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 count, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: The accused is resident of Nimmalapeta, Undi Village. D1 is the wife of the accused. D2 is the daughter of the accused and D1. P.W.4 is the elder daughter of the accused and D1. P.W.1 is the father of D1, and P.W.3 is a relative of D1. P.W.2 is the landlord of the house in which the accused, along with his family, was residing as a tenant. . ii) Marriage between the accused and D1 was solemnized on 13.03.2008, and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters, namely, P.W.4 and D2. The couple was residing at Undi Village, eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. The accused, however, was in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of D1, and P.W.1, the father of D1, used to admonish him on several occasions for his conduct. iii) In the month of February, 2016, the accused left for the Gulf countries, and on his return to Undi Village in October, 2016, he intensified his harassment of D1 by persistently suspecting her fidelity and disputing the paternity of D2. iv) While the matter stood thus, on 12.01.2017, at about 9.30 a.m., the accused beat D1 on her head with a chutney pounder and, with the very same weapon, beat D2 on her head. D1 succumbed to 4 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 the injuries at the scene of occurrence, whereas D2 was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment. v) At about 9.45 a.m. or 10.00 a.m. on the same day, P.W.3, relative of the deceased, received information about the incident and immediately proceeded to the house of the accused, where he found D1 lying dead. Then P.W.3 informed P.W.1 about the incident. On receiving the information, P.W.1 immediately rushed to the house of accused and found D1 lying in a pool of blood. He also learnt that D2 had been shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the police station and lodged a report, which was scribed by P.W.3 marked as Ex.P1. vi) At about 10:45 p.m. on the same day, P.W.8, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Undi Police Station, received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2017 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P7. vii) On receipt of the information, P.W.9, Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural Circle, took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report, Ex.P2, in the presence of P.W.5 and another. He seized MOs.1 to 6 under Ex.P2 and prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P8 at the scene of offence. He also held inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of P.W.5 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P3. He also photographed the scene of 5 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 offence and the said photographs were marked as Ex.P9. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also recorded statements of the witnesses present at the scene of offence. viii) On the same day, at about 6:00 p.m., P.W.9 arrested the accused near railway station at Akividu Village and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. ix) While undergoing treatment, D2 succumbed to injuries on 13.01.2017 at the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. Consequently, P.W.9 filed a memo altering the section of law from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, P.W.9 proceeded to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, and conducted inquest over the dead body of D2 in the presence of P.W.5 and another. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P4. He sent the dead body of D2 for post-mortem examination. x) P.W.6, Deputy Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bhimavaram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of D1 and opined the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage consequent upon the head injury sustained by her. He issued post-mortem Certificate- Ex.P5. xi) PW.7, Assistant Professor, Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada, conducted autopsy over the dead body of D2 and opined that the cause of death was due to head injury. He issued post-mortem certificate pertaining to D2, which was marked as Ex.P6. 6 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 xii) During the course of investigation, P.W.9 collected blood-stained clothes of both the deceased, which were marked as MOs.7 to 9, and sent them to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL) for examination. xiii) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.10-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram Rural Circle, who is successor of P.W.9. After recording statements, after receiving all the relevant 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 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 5 coupled with the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.6 and 7, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram convicted the Appellant as aforesaid. 8. Heard Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned legal aid 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 P.W.4, the daughter of the accused and D1, is the only eyewitness 7 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 examined by the prosecution. It is submitted that P.W.4 is a child witness and that her evidence is the result of tutoring by her maternal grandmother. It is, therefore, contended that no implicit reliance can be placed on her testimony. Learned counsel further contends that P.Ws.1 to 3 were not present at the time of the occurrence and they reached the scene of offence after the incident was over. It is further argued that the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of P.W.4, which, according to the learned counsel, is wholly unreliable. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that the testimony of P.W.4 is cogent, credible, and trustworthy. It is submitted that, before recording the evidence of P.W.4, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge put preliminary questions to her and, upon being satisfied about her competence to testify, proceeded to record her evidence. It is, therefore, contended that the evidence of P.W.4 inspire confidence and forms a safe basis for sustaining the conviction. As such, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram. 8 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. P.W.1 is none other than the father of D1. In his evidence, he categorically stated that the marriage between the accused and D1 was solemnized on 13.03.2008 and that, out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters, namely, P.W.4 and D2. He further stated that the accused was in the habit of frequently quarrelling with D1 suspecting her fidelity. According to P.W.1, the accused left for the Gulf countries in February, 2016, and returned in October, 2016. He further stated that, after his return from Gulf countries, the accused intensified his harassment towards D1 by persistently suspecting her fidelity. 13. P.W.1 further stated that at about 10.00 a.m. on the fateful day, he came to know about the incident through P.W.3. Immediately, he went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of D1 lying in a pool of blood. He also came to know that D2, the younger daughter of the accused, had been shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada, for treatment. P.W.1 further stated that he came to know about the incident through P.W.4, the elder daughter of the accused. Thereafter, he proceeded to the police station and promptly lodged Ex.P1 report at about 10.45 a.m. on the same day. 14. Coming to the evidence of the eyewitness, P.W.4, it is to be noted that she was a child witness aged about six years at the time of recording her evidence. Before recording her testimony, the learned III 9 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 Additional Sessions Judge put certain preliminary questions to ascertain her competency to testify. Upon being satisfied that she was capable of understanding the questions put to her and of giving rational answers thereto, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to record her evidence. 15. P.W.4, in her evidence, clearly stated that on the fateful day, the accused beat D1 on the head with a pestle, as a result she died on the spot. She further stated that the accused also beat her younger sister, D2, on the head with the same pestle and left the scene of offence. 16. During her cross-examination, P.W.4 stated that her maternal grandmother had tutored her. Placing reliance on the said admission, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the testimony of P.W.4 cannot be acted upon. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.4 would disclose that the mere fact that her maternal grandmother had tutored her does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she was tutored to depose falsely against the accused. At the most, it indicates that her grandmother had instructed her as to the manner in which she should depose before the Court. Except the said admission, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that P.W.4 was tutored to falsely implicate the accused. In the absence of any such material, her testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground that she admitted to having been tutored by her grandmother. 10 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in PRADEEP v. STATE OF HARYANA1, in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 held as follows: 12. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the court with care and caution. 13. Before recording evidence of a minor, it is the duty of a Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to him with a view to ascertain whether the minor can understand the questions put to him and is in a position to give rational answers. The Judge must be satisfied that the minor is able to understand the questions and respond to them and understands the importance of speaking the truth. Therefore, the role of the Judge who records the evidence is very crucial. He has to make a proper preliminary examination of the minor by putting appropriate questions to ascertain whether the minor is capable of understanding the questions put to him and is able to give rational answers. It is advisable to record the preliminary questions and answers so that the appellate court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the trial court. 18. In the case on hand, the testimony of P.W.4 inspire the confidence of this Court. Except the suggestion that she was tutored by her maternal grandmother, nothing worthwhile has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. As already observed, there is no material on record to indicate that she was tutored to falsely 1 (2023) 19 SCC 221 11 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 implicate the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to discard her testimony merely on the ground that she is a child witness. 19. Apart from the evidence of the sole eyewitness, the conduct of the accused also lends support to the prosecution case. The evidence on record discloses that, after attacking D1 and D2 with the pestle, the accused left the weapon in the house and absconded from the scene. Admittedly, the accused, D1, and their two daughters alone were residing in the house, and no third person was present therein. In such circumstances, the burden lay upon the accused, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, to explain the circumstances under which D1 and D2 met with homicidal deaths in the house. Significantly, the accused offered no explanation whatsoever and, instead, absconded immediately after the occurrence. The conduct of the accused, therefore, constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance, which lends further assurance to the case of the prosecution. 20. It is only P.W.1 who set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report. Admittedly, except the accused, D1, and their two minor daughters, aged about three and five years respectively, no other person was residing in the house. The evidence of the sole eyewitness, P.W.4, also corroborated by the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.6 and 7 coupled with the post-mortem certificates, Exs.P5 and P6. P.Ws.6 and 7, in their evidence, categorically stated that both the 12 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 deceased died due to head injuries sustained by them. Thus, the ocular testimony of P.W.4, coupled with the medical evidence on record, inspire confidence and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram. 21. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced the nominal roll pertaining to the appellant. It is mentioned therein that the appellant/accused attacked a co-prisoner with a hammer and caused a bleeding injury on the back of his head, in respect of which C.C. No.2936 of 2018 is pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. However, this Court is not inclined to place any reliance on the said material for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. 22. Having regard to the evidence of P.W.4, the sole eyewitness, coupled with the medical evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/ accused under Section 302 IPC on two counts beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this Court finds that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference. 13 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, under Section 302 IPC on two counts in Sessions Case No.288 of 2017, dated 22.03.2018. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________________ JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA Dt.15.07.2026 ASR 14 Crl.A.No.2840 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.2840 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 15.07.2026 ASR