APHC010980462018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 3332/2018 Between: PALETI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. PAKEERAIAH, 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 7-20-834, 18TH LANE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR, NALGONDA DIST., NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, C.T.NO. 7223 ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep., by its Inspector of Police, Arunadelpet Police Station, through Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. - 2. LEGAL AID 3. RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.164 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs STs (PoA) Act- cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 03.04.2017 at about 12.00 mid night, the accused beat his wife by name Paleti Jyothi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), with a chutney pounder on her head while she was sleeping, causing her death in his house situated at Sarada Colony, Guntur, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, the accused/appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly is as follows:- (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Sarada colony, Guntur Town. The deceased is none other than the wife of accused. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.2 to 5 are closely related to the accused and the deceased. P.Ws.6 and 7 are neighbours of the accused and the deceased. As the accused was not keeping good health, he was sitting 3 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 idle at home. In due course of time, the accused addicted to consume liquor and he used to demand money from the deceased and they used to quarrel frequently in that regard. As the accused is not earning any money, his sons P.W.1 and another used to attend painting work. On 30.03.2017 the elder son of the accused and the deceased went to Tirupathi for pilgrimage. P.W.1 was alone attending painting work. On 03.04.2017 after completion of his work, P.W.1 returned home in the evening. At about 9.00 P.M. P.W.1 went to a movie by informing his parents i.e., the accused and the deceased. At about 12.00 mid night, P.W.1 returned home. After some time, P.W.1 called his mother and there was no response. He also called his father the accused, but there was no response. As such, P.W.1 entered into the room of the deceased and found his mother covered with quilt. He removed quilt from the face and found injury on her head with full of blood. Immediately, he came out and raised hue and cry. On hearing his cries, relatives-P.Ws.2 to 5 who are residing nearby and also neighbours-P.Ws.6 and 7 came there. They went inside the house and found the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. Having come to know of the same, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report- Ex.P1. (ii) At about 2.00 A.M. on 04.04.2017 P.W.11-Sub Inspector of police, Arundelpeta Police Station, Guntur, received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2017 under Section 302 IPC. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR is marked as Ex.P6. Having received information from P.W.11, the Station House Officer, Arundelpeta Police Station, proceeded to the scene of offence along with mediators P.W.9 and another. He prepared an observation report-Ex.P4 in the presence of mediators. He also prepared a rough 4 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 sketch-Ex.P8 at the scene of offence. He has also taken photographs marked as Ex.P7. He also held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.9 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P2. He recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the inquest. He also recorded statements of P.Ws.4 to 6. He sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. (iii) P.W.10-Assistant Professor, Guntur Medical college, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. He issued post-mortem certificate-Ex.P5. (iv) On 13.04.2017 P.W.12 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.8 and another. On the confession made by the accused, P.W.12 seized M.Os.1 to 3, under a panchanama-Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.8 and another. He arrested the accused who was remanded to judicial custody. He sent viscera to RFSL. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P10. After securing all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12, marked Exs.P1 to P10 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. 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 prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 5 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 8. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, learned 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 there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and that the prosecution has sought to establish the guilt of the accused solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. He further contends that the prosecution has failed to establish even a single incriminating circumstance forming the chain of circumstances. He also submits that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive for the accused to commit the offence. Therefore, he prays this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that P.W.1, who is none other than the son of the accused and the deceased, categorically deposed that the accused, the deceased, and P.W.1 were residing in the house and that no other person was residing with them. He further contends that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly establish that, at about 9.00 p.m. on the fateful day, the accused and the deceased were alone present in the house. He further contends that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly establish that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased whenever the latter refused to give money to him for consuming liquor. Thus, according to the prosecution, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 clearly established the motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. He also submits that the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, who are neighbours of the accused, corroborates the prosecution case regarding the motive. Therefore, he contends that the prosecution has 6 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, he prays this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. P.W.1, in his evidence, categorically stated that as the accused was sitting idle at home, he and his elder brother had discontinued their studies and were eking out their livelihood by doing painting work. According to P.W.1, his elder brother went to Tirupati on a pilgrimage on 30.03.2017 and, therefore, he alone was attending the painting work. P.W.1 further deposed that on the evening of 03.04.2017, after completing his work, he returned home. He further stated in his evidence that at about 9.00 p.m., after informing the accused and the deceased, he went to watch a movie with his friends. He further deposed that at about 12.00 midnight, he returned home and found that the accused was not present in the house. As there was no response from the deceased, he went into the bedroom and found her lying dead. Immediately, he came out of the house and raised hue and cry. On hearing his cries, P.Ws.2 to 7 rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. 13. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, when P.W.1 returned home, the accused was absent and the deceased was found lying dead in a pool of blood. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that, at about 9.00 p.m. on the fateful day, when he left the house to watch a movie, the accused and the deceased were present in the house. 7 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 When he returned home at about 12.00 midnight, he found that the accused was absent and the deceased was lying dead in a pool of blood. Further, the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W.12 discloses that the accused was apprehended only on 13.04.2017. Thus, the accused remained absconding for a period of ten days, i.e., from 03.04.2017 to 13.04.2017. The evidence of P.W.1 is crystal clear that the accused was very much present in the house along with the deceased at about 9.00 p.m. on 03.04.2017. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 also established that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased frequently. Admittedly, except P.W.1, the accused and the deceased, no other person was present in the house. As already stated above, the elder brother of P.W.1 went to Tirupati on a pilgrimage and was not in the town at the relevant point of time. 14. Further, the deceased met with a homicidal death in the house of the accused. Once the prosecution has established the presence of the accused in the house at the relevant point of time, it is incumbent upon the accused to offer an explanation in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, instead of offering any explanation, the accused remained absconding for a period of ten days. 15. Further, there is no reason whatsoever for P.W.1 to falsely implicate his own father. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased on the fateful day and thereafter absconded for a period of ten days. Further, the testimony of P.W.1 also stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.10 and the post-mortem certificate marked as Ex.P5. 8 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 14.11.2018 vide Sessions Case No.164 of 2018 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Case under SCs STs (PoA) Act- cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Section 302 IPC. It is needless to state that the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Dt. 22.07.2026 SAB 9 Crl.A.No.3332 of 2018 106 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Criminal Appeal No.3332 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) Date: 22.07.2026 SAB