APHC010965382018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3271/2018 Between: 1. ANDE NARASIMHA RAO @ NARASAY, S/O MANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS VENKANURU VILLAGE, AVANIGADDA MANDAL ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH 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: 3271 of 2018 JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the X Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. 1) First charge was under Section 302 IPC. 2) Second charge was under Section 506 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that, on 11.05.2015, at about 5.30 p.m., the accused hacked one Narasimha Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) with M.O.5-knife near his mango garden, causing his death, and, in the course of the same transaction, criminally intimidated P.W.1 by threatening her with the very same 3 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 knife when she attempted to rescue the deceased, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 506 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows: i) The accused as well as the prosecution witnesses are all residents of Vekanuru Village, Avanigadda Mandal. The deceased was also the resident of same village. P.W.1 is wife, P.W.2 is son and P.W.3 is mother-in-law of the deceased respectively. P.Ws.4 and 5 are relatives of the deceased. ii) The deceased had purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 of land in Vekanuru Village in the year 2011, wherein he developed a mango garden. The accused had also purchased an extent of Ac.0.70 cents of land from P.W.6 and raised a mango garden therein. The land 4 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 belonging to the accused was situated adjacent to that of the deceased. iii) About fifteen days prior to the date of incident, the accused requested the deceased to supply water from the latter's irrigation engine for irrigating his mango garden. However, the deceased declined the request. Aggrieved by the refusal of the deceased to supply water for irrigating his garden, the accused developed grudge against him. iv) While so, on the morning of 11.05.2015, the deceased went to his paddy field and returned home in the afternoon. After having his lunch, he took rest for a while. Thereafter, at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased, along with his wife, P.W.1, proceeded to their mango garden situated on the other side of the Krishna River. After collecting mangoes, the deceased also gathered some grass, and at about 5.30 p.m., while they were returning home, the accused emerged all of a sudden and hacked the deceased on his neck with M.O.5–knife. When P.W.1 attempted to intervene and rescue the deceased, the accused threatened her with the very same knife with dire consequences, Due to fear, P.W.1 went behind a tree and witnessed the accused hacking the deceased. After the deceased fell to the ground, the accused continued the attack by hacking him again on the neck with M.O.5-knife. According to P.W.1, the accused inflicted two blows on the neck of the deceased before fleeing from the scene of offence. 5 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 v) Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the deceased and found him lying dead. She then returned home and informed P.W.2 and the other family members about the incident and she fainted. On receiving the said information, P.W.2 and the other family members proceeded to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, at about 1.00 a.m. on 12.05.2015, P.Ws.1 and 2, along with others, went to Avanigadda Police Station and lodged a report- Ex.P1. On receipt of the said report, P.W.13, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.96 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of First Information Report to all the concerned. First Information Report was marked as Ex.P12. vi) On receipt of the information from P.W.13, P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Circle, took up investigation. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the police station. Immediately he visited the scene of offence along with P.Ws.1, 2 and 13. He found the dead body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He posted a constable and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) to guard the scene of offence. He noticed the house of the accused locked. vii) On the same day, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.15 secured the presence of P.W.7 and others and visited the scene of offence. In the presence of the said mediators, he prepared an observation report- Ex.P2. He also got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.9. 6 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 Photographs were marked as Ex.P6. He also seized M.Os.1 to 4 at the scene of offence under a cover of Panchanama-Ex.P2 and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence- Ex.P13. He held inquest over the dead body in the presence mediators-P.Ws.7 and others. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P3. Subsequently, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. viii) P.W.8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Machilipatnam, who was on deputation to Avanigadda, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found five external injuries. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to severed carotid arteries and other structures of the neck caused by a sharp-edged weapon applied with force. ix) On 14.05.2015, P.W.15 apprehended the accused at his house in the presence of P.W.7 and other mediators. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, M.O.5–knife, along with the blood- stained clothes of the accused, i.e., M.Os.8 and 9, were recovered under a cover of panchanama-Ex.P4. Then, P.W.15 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. On 15.07.2015, the Investigating Officer forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical analysis. x) On 17.07.2015, P.W.15 recorded statement of P.W.9. On 06.08.2015, he recorded statement of P.W.6. During the course of investigation, he also collected copies of sale deeds pertaining to the 7 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 lands owned by the accused and the deceased marked as Exs.P14 and P15. He sent a requisition to P.W.11 under Ex.P7. xi) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited MOs.1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D1- News item published in daily newspaper was marked. 6. 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. Heard Sri B.Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 9. In the present case, P.W.1 is sole eyewitness to the incident. The remaining witnesses were examined to speak about the events that transpired subsequent to the incident and the information furnished to them by P.W.1. P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that on the morning of 11.05.2015, the deceased went to his paddy field and returned home in the afternoon. After having lunch, at about 4.00 p.m., she accompanied the deceased to their mango garden. At about 5.30 p.m., while they were returning home, the deceased was walking ahead of her and she 8 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 was following him after locking the gate of the garden. At that juncture, the accused emerged all of a sudden and hacked the deceased on his neck with M.O.5-knife, causing him to fall to the ground. When P.W.1 attempted to intervene and rescue the deceased, the accused threatened her with the very same knife. Due to fear, she stood behind a nearby tree and witnessed the incident. She further stated that, after the accused fled away from the scene, she approached the deceased and found him lying dead. Thereafter, she returned home, informed her son, P.W.2, and the other family members about the incident and, according to her, lost consciousness. At about 1.00 a.m. on 12.05.2015, she, along with P.W.2 and other family members, proceeded to Avanigadda Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1-report. 10. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, however, discloses certain material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that the accused hacked the deceased twice on the neck, whereas, in her evidence, she stated that the accused hacked the deceased thrice on the neck. This material inconsistency relates to the manner of attack and cannot be lightly brushed aside. 11. It is also significant to note that, though the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m., Ex.P.1 came to be lodged only at about 1.00 a.m. on the next day, despite the police station being situated at a distance of only nine kilometres from the place of incident. Thus, there is a considerable delay in setting the criminal law into motion. The 9 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 explanation sought to be offered by the prosecution is that P.W.1 became unconscious immediately after returning home. The said explanation does not appear to be wholly convincing and give rise to a legitimate doubt as to whether it was introduced only to account for the delay in lodging the report. 12. It is the version of the prosecution that P.W.1 crossed the Krishna River at the relevant point of time also appears to be inherently improbable. Consequently, the testimony of P.W.1, suffers with material inconsistencies and improbabilities, requires careful scrutiny before it can be safely acted upon. 13. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased removed his shirt and lungi before crossing the Krishna River and crossed the river wearing only banian and underwear. Curiously, the shirt and lungi of the deceased were found in his hands at the scene of offence. If that be so, the prosecution version that P.W.1 alone crossed the Krishna River without any assistance appears to be highly improbable and does not inspire confidence. 14. It is evident from the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the other prosecution witnesses that there were several houses situated on either side of the road leading to the house of P.W.1. Despite allegedly witnessing the brutal attack on her husband, P.W.1 admittedly did not raise any alarm or hue and cry while returning home, nor did she inform any of the villagers residing in those houses about the incident. 10 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 The evidence further discloses that there was a temple situated at a distance of about 500 metres from the place of incident where people usually assemble. Even then, P.W.1 did not seek help from anyone or disclose the incident to the persons present there. Such conduct is wholly unnatural and inconsistent with the normal human behaviour expected of a person who had just witnessed the brutal murder of her husband. This circumstance also creates a serious doubt as to whether P.W.1 had, in fact, witnessed the incident in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 15. Another significant circumstance, which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case is the admission made by P.W.2, the son of P.W.1, during his cross-examination, which reads as follows: "At about 1:00 a.m. in the midnight, we reported the matter to the police. Till that time we were not having knowledge about the whereabouts of my father." 16. The aforesaid admission made by P.W.2 assumes considerable significance. If, as deposed by P.W.1, she had actually witnessed the incident and informed P.W.2 and the other family members immediately after returning home, there was no occasion for P.W.2 to state that, till lodging the report at about 1.00 a.m., they were not aware of the whereabouts of his father. This material admission renders the version of P.W.1 highly doubtful and lends support to the defence 11 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 contention that she was not present at the scene of offence and had not witnessed the actual occurrence. 17. Further, the ocular testimony of P.W.1 does not receive due corroboration from the medical evidence adduced through P.W.8. P.W.8, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased, noticed as many as five external incised injuries. He further admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased might have consumed food about two hours prior to his death, as partially digested rice was found in the stomach. 18. According to P.W.1, after taking lunch, the deceased took rest for some time and thereafter, at about 4.00 p.m., both of them proceeded to the mango garden, where the incident allegedly occurred at about 5.30 p.m. The aforesaid version is not in consonance with the medical evidence of P.W.8, who opined that the deceased had consumed food about two hours prior to his death. The medical evidence, therefore, creates a serious doubt with regard to the time of incident spoken to by P.W.1 and probabilises that the incident might have taken place much earlier than 5.30 p.m. 19. Another circumstance which creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case pertains to the arrest of the accused. According to P.W.15, Investigating Officer, the accused was arrested on 14.05.2015. However, P.Ws.1 and 2, in their cross-examination, categorically admitted that the accused had been taken into police custody on the 12 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 very date of the incident, i.e., 11.05.2015. This material contradiction with regard to the date of arrest remains unexplained by the prosecution. Such an inconsistency assumes significance, as it casts a serious doubt on the prosecution version relating to the arrest of the accused and the subsequent investigation carried out pursuant thereto. 20. Another material circumstance which casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case is the forensic evidence. P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the blood-stained clothes of the accused and the blood-stained knife were seized and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. However, Ex.P.11, report issued by P.W.12, Scientific Officer, categorically discloses that no blood stains were detected on M.O.5-knife or on M.Os.8 and 9, the clothes seized from the accused. This material contradiction between the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the scientific evidence remains wholly unexplained. The absence of blood stains on the alleged weapon of offence and the clothes of the accused considerably weakens the prosecution case and renders the recovery and seizure highly doubtful. 21. Coming to the aspect of motive, the prosecution alleged that the accused bore a grudge against the deceased, as the latter had refused to supply water to the fields of the accused. However, the said allegation is not borne out by the evidence on record. On the contrary, the prosecution witnesses themselves, including P.Ws.2 and 3, 13 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 categorically admitted in their evidence that, prior to the incident, the accused and the deceased were on cordial terms and used to move closely with each other. In the absence of any convincing evidence establishing prior enmity, the motive attributed by the prosecution loses its significance. 22. Except the shaky evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence connecting the accused with the commission of offence. As already discussed, the evidence of P.W.1 suffers from material inconsistencies, inherent improbabilities and lacks corroboration on material particulars. It is highly improbable that P.W.1 could have crossed the Krishna River alone without the assistance of anyone. Equally significant is her conduct in not raising any alarm or hue and cry despite allegedly witnessing the brutal murder of her husband. Such conduct is wholly unnatural and inconsistent with the normal behaviour expected of a person placed in such circumstances. These circumstances substantially impair the credibility of her testimony. 23. Having carefully analysed the evidence of P.W.1 in the light of the entire material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that her testimony does not inspire confidence of the Court. The material contradictions, inherent improbabilities, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the significant admission made by P.W.2, the inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence, the doubtful circumstances surrounding the arrest of the 14 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 accused, the absence of corroborative forensic evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive cumulatively create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion and the circumstances brought on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, against appellant is liable to be set aside. 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam under Sections 302 and 506 IPC against the appellant in Sessions Case No.127 of 2016 vide judgment dated 31.08.2018 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the offences under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. 26. As the appellant was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.04.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 15 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _____ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY ____________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 20.07.2026 Asr 16 Crl.A.No.3271 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM JUDGMENT Criminal Appeal No.3271 of 2018 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 20.07.2026 Asr