APHC010761912018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2888/2018 Between: 1. HARIJANA SHAMSAN, R/O. HALVI VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, A.P ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR 2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THIS THE THIRTEENTH 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: 2888 of 2018 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.216 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, is the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for one month. 2. Substance of the charge is that on the intervening night of 23/24.02.2017, at about 02.30 a.m., the accused hacked his wife, by name Nadumulameti Satyamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) on her neck with an axe, causing her instantaneous death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: i) The accused is a resident of Halvi Village, Kowthalam Mandal, Kurnool District. P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the cousin, and 3 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased respectively. P.Ws.1 to 3 are residents of Adoni Town. ii) About ten years prior to the date of incident, marriage between the accused and the deceased was solemnized, and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with a son and a daughter, who were aged about ten and eight years, respectively. The couple led happy marital life for a period of two years. Thereafter, the accused started harassing the deceased suspecting her fidelity. The deceased used to telephone P.W.1 and inform him about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused. iii) In the month of August, 2016, the accused necked out the deceased from the matrimonial home, and thereafter, she started residing with her parents. In the month of December, 2016, the accused visited the house of P.W.1 along with village elders and assured him that he would look after the deceased properly. Believing the said assurance, P.W.1 sent the deceased back to the matrimonial home. iv) In the month of January, 2017, the deceased telephoned P.W.1 on two occasions and informed him that the accused had once again harassing her. While so, on 23.02.2017, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1, along with P.Ws.2 and 3, went to the house of accused and informed him that he intended to take the deceased back to his house. The accused, however, asked P.W.1 to wait till the next day morning, 4 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 stating that he would convene a meeting of the village elders, after which, P.W.1 could take the deceased with him. v) Thereafter, the accused and the deceased, along with their children, slept inside the house, while P.Ws.1 to 3 slept outside the house. At about 2:30 a.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 heard cries inside the house. Immediately, they woke up and looked inside the house, as the door having been left open. P.Ws.1 to 3 found the accused hacking the deceased on her neck with M.O.3-axe. After hacking the deceased, the accused fled away from the house. P.Ws.1 to 3 then entered the house and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. vi) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a report-Ex.P1. On 24.02.2017, at about 7:00 a.m. P.W.10, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kowthalam Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2017 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P8. vii) On receipt of information, P.W.11, Inspector of Police, Adoni Circle, visited the scene of offence and found the dead body lying inside the house of accused. He secured the presence of mediators, P.W.8 and others, and held inquest over the dead body. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P6. At the inquest, he recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses. He seized the blood-stained slab and the controlled slab (M.Os.1 and 2) at the scene of offence. He also 5 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence- Ex.P9. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for post-mortem examination. viii) P.W.4, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Adoni, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to damage to the major blood vessels of the neck and division of the cord of the neck. He issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.2. ix) After completion of post-mortem examination, P.W.11 collected the blood-stained clothes (M.Os.6 to 8) under a panchanama. On the same day, he also recorded statements of P.Ws.5 and 6. On 02.03.2017, on credible information, P.W.11 apprehended the accused at Kuppagallu Railway Station in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10. He seized M.O.3, blood-stained axe, from the possession of the accused under a panchanama, Ex.P7. He also seized clothes of the accused M.Os.4 and 5. Thereafter, P.W.11 sent the material objects to the RFSL, Kurnool. RFSL report was marked as Ex.P11. x) After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and exhibited MOs.1 to 8. 6 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused as aforesaid. 6. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 7. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 8. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the incident, who witnessed the accused hacking the deceased. Insofar as P.Ws.5 to 7 are concerned, they are residents of the locality and they did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the panch witnesses for the inquest and arrest of the accused. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the investigating officers. 9. Having analysed the entire evidence on record, it is evident that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the material prosecution witnesses. As already pointed out, P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the cousin, and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased respectively. 10. P.Ws.1 to 3, in their evidence, have categorically stated that, on 23.02.2017, they went to the house of the deceased, having come to know from her that the accused had been subjecting her to continuous harassment. They have further stated that, in the month of August, 7 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 2016, the accused necked out the deceased from the matrimonial home, and thereafter she started residing with her parents along with her children. They also stated that, in the month of December, 2016, the accused approached P.W.1 along with the village elders and assured him that he would look after the deceased properly. Believing the said assurance, P.W.1 sent the deceased back to the matrimonial home. However, in the month of January, 2017, the accused once again started harassing the deceased suspecting her fidelity. They further stated that, during the said month, the deceased telephoned P.W.1 on two occasions complaining about the harassment meted out to her by the accused. 11. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it was only after receiving the said telephone calls from the deceased they went to the house of accused at about 7.00 p.m. on 23.02.2017. Their evidence further discloses that the accused and the deceased, along with their children, slept inside the house, whereas P.Ws.1 to 3 slept outside the house. They further stated that, at about 2.30 a.m., they heard cries emanating from inside the house and, immediately looking through the open door, found the accused hacking the deceased with M.O.3-axe. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the house carrying M.O.3-axe and did not return. 8 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 12. The version of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent right from the earliest report. In Ex.P.1 as well as in the inquest report (Ex.P.6), they narrated the very same facts which they subsequently stated before the Court. The occurrence took place at about 2.30 a.m. on 24.02.2017, and P.W.1 promptly lodged Ex.P.1 report at the Police Station at about 7.00 a.m. on the very same day. The Police Station is situated at a distance of 15 kilometres from the scene of offence. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent from the stage of lodging Ex.P.1, and no material contradiction or omission has been elicited in their cross- examination so as to discredit their testimony. 13. Further, the accused remained absconding from 24.02.2017 till 02.03.2017. In terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the deceased met with a homicidal death inside his house. Admittedly, only the accused, the deceased, and their minor children were residing in the said house, and no third person was present there. P.Ws.1 to 3 had arrived at the house at about 7.00 p.m. on the previous evening and were sleeping outside the house. 14. Therefore, the consistent, cogent and convincing evidence adduced through P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly establishes that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased by attacking her with M.O.3-axe. As such, this Court finds no valid or justifiable ground to 9 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.216 of 2017, dated 31.01.2018. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 13.07.2026 Asr 10 Crl.A.No.2888 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.2888 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 13.07.2026 Asr