APHC010988542018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3331/2018 Between: 1. MANDHA ALISHAMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. LATE.M.SRINIVASULU, OCC-COOLIE, R/O.H.NO.39/84/45, BAPUJI NAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN 2. MANDHA VENKATESWARALU, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. LATE.M.SRINIVASULU, OCC-STUDNET, R/O.H.NO.39/84/45, BAPUJI NAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN 3. MANDHA LAKSHMI, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. LATE.M.SRINIVASULU, OCC-STUDENT, R/O.H.NO.39/84/45, BAPUJI NAGAR, KURNOOL TOWN ...APELLANT(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SHO., Kurnool I Town Police Station, Kurnool District, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 The Court made the following JUDGMENT :- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) A.2 to A.4 in Sessions Case No.89 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are the appellants. During pendency of the trial, A.1 died on 12.03.2018 and case against A.1 was abated. Consequently, the appellants/A.2 to A.4, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge under the following charges :- i. The 1st charge was under Section 498-A IPC against A.1 to A4; ii. the 2nd charge was under Section 304-B IPC against A.1; iii. the 3rd charge was under Section 302 IPC against A.1; iv. the 4th charge was under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC against A.2 to A.4; v. the last charge was under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A.2 to A.4. 2. Substance of the charge is that prior to 24.04.2014, A.1 to A.4 subjected one Manda Aruna (herein after referred to as ‘the deceased’), to cruelty, demanding her additional dowry from her parents and on the intervening night of 23/24-04-2014 between 11.00 P.M. and 11.30 P.M., A.1 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on her neck with a knife, causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 304-B read with 34, 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted them for the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 IPC. 3 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly is as follows:- (i) All the accused are residents of Bapuji Nagar, Kurnool Town. P.W.1 is the father, P.W.2 is the mother, P.Ws.3 and 4 are relatives of the deceased respectively. A.1 is husband, A.2 is mother-in-law, A.3 is brother-in-law and A.4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased respectively. P.Ws.1 to 4 are residents of Kasapuram. The marriage between the accused and the deceased was performed in the year 2012. At the time of marriage, P.Ws.1 and 2 presented one tula of gold and Rs.40,000/- cash as dowry to the accused. For a period of two months, the accused looked after the deceased properly. Thereafter, the accused used to harass the deceased asking her to bring additional dowry from her parents as they spent expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage. The accused sent the deceased to her parents’ house. On that the parents held panchayat in the presence of elders and gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and dropped the deceased at her in-laws house. Inspite of the same, the accused used to harass her. The deceased informed P.Ws.1 and 2 about the harassment. On 23.04.2014 P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of accused and tried to pacify the issue. They stayed in their house on that night. After having dinner, A.1 and the deceased went upstairs and slept there. P.Ws.1 and 2 along with A.2 to A.4 slept on the ground floor. On the next day early morning, P.Ws.1 and 2 woke up and they did not find A.2 to A.4. After some time, A.2 to A.4 were found coming down from the upstairs and they noticed blood stains on the hands of A.2 to A.4. At that juncture, P.Ws.1 and 2 went upstairs of the house to inform A.1 about the blood stains on the hands of A.2 to A.4. They knocked the door where A.1 and the deceased were sleeping. Initially, A.1 did not open the door, after some time, A.1 opened the door and blood stains were found on his hands. Immediately, A.1 pushed them away and ran away. They entered into the room and found the deceased lying dead 4 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 in a pool of blood. They also found steel knife on the cot. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report-Ex.P1. (ii) At about 9.30 A.M. on 24.04.2014, P.W.12-Inspector of police, Kurnool I Town Urban Police Station received Ex.P1 report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.73 of 2014 under Section 304-B and 302 read with 34 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P8. He made a requisition to the Mandal Executive Magistrate-P.W.11 to hold inquest over the dead body of the deceased as she died within seven years of her marriage. Accordingly, P.W.11 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators P.W.6 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. (iii) On the same day at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.13-S.D.P.O. Kurnool received copy of Ex.P8 from PW.12. He went to the police station collected mediators P.W.6 and others and reached the scene of offence at about 12.00 noon. After inquest, P.W.13 recorded statements of P.Ws.2 to 4. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P9 in the presence of mediators P.Ws.7 and 9. He also seized M.Os.1 to 5 under Ex.P9. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. After completion of inquest, P.W.13 sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. (iv) P.W.10-Assistant Professor, Kurnool Medical college, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from stab injuries. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P7. (v) On 27.04.2014 on credible information, P.W.13 apprehended A.1 to A.4 in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8. A.1 to A.4 said to have confessed about the commission of offence. P.W.13 seized M.Os.12 5 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 to14 from the possession of A.1 under a panchanama. He arrested the accused who were remanded to judicial custody. On 03.07.2014 the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class collected finger prints of A.1 marked as Ex.P11. He forwarded material objects to RFSL, Kurnool under a letter of advice-Ex.P12. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P13. (vi) Further investigation was taken over by P.W.14 the successor of P.W.13. After perusing all the record and after receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 14. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. 6. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence found against them. 7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with medical evidence adduced through P.W.10, the learned Principal Sessions Judge convicted the appellants/A.2 to A.4 as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent-State. 9. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 10. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident in the present case. The prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their 6 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 evidence have stated that after taking dinner on 23-04-2014, the deceased along with A.1 went upstairs and were sleeping there, while P.Ws.1 and 2 along with A.2 to A.4 were sleeping in the ground floor. They further stated in their evidence that on the early morning on 24.04.2014 when both of them woke up, they found A.2 to A.4 absent in the ground floor. P.W.1 and 2 further stated that after some time, both of them found A.2 to A.4 coming from the stair case from the 1st floor. They further stated that the hands of A.2 to A.4 were stained with blood. They further stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned A.2 to A.4, they pushed P.Ws.1 and 2 with their blood stained hands and ran away from the house. The cloths of P.Ws.1 and 2 were stained with blood. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 went upstairs to inform A.1 and they knocked the doors, as the doors were bolted from inside. Initially, A.1 did not open the doors and after some time, A1 opened the doors with blood stained hands. After seeing P.Ws.1 and 2, A.1 pushed them with blood stained hands and ran away from the house. P.Ws.1 and 2 have specifically stated that their clothes were also stained with blood. P.Ws.1 and 2 further stated that they entered into the room and found the deceased in a pool of blood. Thereafter, PW.1 went to the police station and set the criminal law into motion. Subsequently, P.Ws.12 to 14 conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. 11. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the material witnesses are P.Ws.1 and 2. So far as P.Ws.3 to 5 are concerned they are relatives of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution in establishing the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 is hearsay and the same is not helpful. So far as P.W.6 is concerned he is panch witness for inquest. P.Ws.7 to 9 are the other panch witnesses and did not support the prosecution. P.W.10 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the 7 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 dead body. P.W.11 is the Mandal Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the dead body as the deceased met with homicidal death within seven years of marriage. P.Ws.12 to 14 are the Investigating Officers. 12. Having analyzed the entire evidence, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that P.Ws.1 and 2 alone are material prosecution witnesses. As already pointed out, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the incident. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 specifically stated that A.1 and the deceased went and slept on the upstairs and P.Ws.1 and 2 along with A.2 to A.4 slept on the ground floor. It is further stated that it is A.1 who committed murder of the deceased. P.W.1 in his earliest report-Ex.P1, has categorically stated that it is A.1 who killed the deceased and the allegation made against A.2 to A.4 is only that they used to harass the deceased. But the learned Principal Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and also for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence did not attribute anything to the appellants except stating that their hands were stained with blood. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated that when the accused pushed them, their clothes were also received blood stains. But the investigating officers have not at all taken any steps to seize the blood stained clothes of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that they did not handover their blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officers. 13. Therefore, having analyzed the entire evidence carefully and having scrutinized the same scrupulously, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool against the appellants is not sustainable in law. 8 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 14. On the above analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants is liable to be set aside and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded against appellants/A.2 to A.4 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, vide S.C. No.89 of 2017, dated 16.11.2018. Accordingly, the appellants/A.2 to A.4 are acquitted. As the appellants were already released on bail by order, dated 28.08.2024, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dt. 21.07.2026 SAB 9 Crl.A.No.3331 of 2018 137 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Criminal Appeal No.3331 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 21.07.2026 SAB