APHC010156422019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3596] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 422/2019 Between: 1. V.NARESH, S/O. MAREIAH, AGED 24 YEARS, R/O. NEELATUR VILLAGE, VARADIAHPALEM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Puttur through the Public Prosecutor, High Court Bldgs, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to this Memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the Judgment Dt. 27/5/2019 in Special Sessions Case No. 11 /2016 on the file of Special Sessions Judge Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi for the offences under Sections 448 AND 302 of IPC. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner / accused on bail by suspending the Judgment Dt. 27/5/2019 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 11 /2016 on the file of Special Sessions Judge Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupathi pending disposal. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner / accused 2 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 on Bail by suspending the judgment and conviction passed in Special Sessions Case No. 11/2016 on the file of Hon'ble Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati Dt. 27.5.2019 pending disposal of the above Criminal petition and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner / accused on bail by way of Perot for a Limited period a week relating to Sessions Case No. 11/2016 on the file of Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional District Et Sessions Judge, Chittoor in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accused on bail in Special Sessions Case No. 11/2016 on the file of Special Sessions Judge Cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati "on medical grounds" on an undertaking that immediately after undergone surgery in the private hospital he shall rejoined into the prison to receive the sentence till the conclusion of the above appeal i.e, Crl A No. 422/2019 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/ accused on bail by suspending the sentence passed in Special Sessions case No. 11/2016 on the file of Hon’ble Special Sessions Judge cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati dated 27.5.2019 pending disposal of the above criminal appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.11 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor District, at Tirupati is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges: 1st charge was under Section 448 IPC. 2nd charge was under Section 302 IPC. 3rd charge was under Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 18.06.2015 at about 01.00 a.m., accused trespassed into the house of one Gummidi Naraiah situated at Nellatur Village, poured kerosene on one Vaddipalle Ranemma (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”), who belongs to Scheduled Caste and set fire to her, causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 302 IPC and section 3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989. 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.25,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a 4 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 period of three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the accused under Section 448 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for six (06) months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also convicted the accused under Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 (ten) years, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the father and other family members of the deceased U/s.357 Cr.P.C. All the substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed the present appeal. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows: i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nellatur Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal. The deceased was also resident of the same village. P.W.1 is husband and P.W.2 is grand-daughter of the deceased respectively. The accused belong to B.C.(D) caste, whereas, the deceased belong to Scheduled Caste. In the year 2013 during Srirama Navami Festival, the accused lost his mobile phone. On 03.05.2013 the accused along with his friends went to the house 5 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 of son of the deceased to question him. As the son of deceased was not there in the house, they returned. On the same day, at about 05.00 p.m. while the son of deceased was proceeding near reserve forest, the accused caught hold of him and assaulted him with sticks and stones. In this regard, son of the deceased gave a report to police, which was subject matter of C.C.103/2013 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu. While so, the accused called the deceased and her men and asked for compromise of the said C.C.103/2013 before Lok Adalath, but the deceased did not agree for the proposal of the accused, as such, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 17.06.2015, P.W-5 with whom the deceased and her husband were working as farm coolies, asked the deceased and P.W-1 to sleep at their house, as they intend to go to Srikalahasti Temple for Darshan and Pooja. Accordingly, on the night of 17.06.2015, the deceased along with P.Ws-1 and 2 slept at the house of P.W.5. The deceased slept in front of the kitchen room and P.Ws-1 and 2 slept on a cot in front of the gate. ii) At about 01.00 a.m. on 18.06.2015, the deceased having got smell of kerosene, opened her eyes and found the accused. Immediately she noticed the accused lit a match stick and threw it on her. Immediately, the accused escaped from the scene of offence. Hearing her cries, P.Ws-1 to 3 woke up and shifted the 6 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 injured to Area Hospital, Srikalahasti in 108 ambulance. P.W-14/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Srikalahasti admitted the injured in his hospital at about 03.50 a.m. He sent an intimation to II Town Police Station, Srikalahasti under Ex.P-13 and also to Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, for recording dying declaration. Having received intimation/Ex.P-13, P.W-12/SI of Police, II Town Police Station, Srikalahasti went to the hospital and recorded statement/Ex.P-14 from the injured. He sent Exs.P-13 and P-14 to Varadaiahpalem Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Having received Exs.P-13 and P-14, P.W- 15/SI of Police, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.38/2015 U/s.307, 448 IPC and U/s.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs(PoA) Act, 1989. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P-24. At about 06.15 a.m. on 18.06.2015, P.W-16 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, having received intimation from hospital, went and recorded statement/Ex.P-25 from the injured. iii) On 19.06.2015 P.W.13/Sub Divisional Police Officer, Puttoor, received proceedings under Ex.P.15 from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, to take up investigation of the case. On 20.06.2015, he visited SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and recorded statement from the injured. He also recorded statements of P.Ws-1 and 2 at about 12-00 noon. On the same day, he went 7 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report/Ex.P- 16 in the presence of mediators. He also seized M.Os-1 and 2 at the scene of offence. He prepared a rough sketch/Ex.P-17 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of P.Ws-3 to 6. He also collected caste certificates of the deceased and the accused marked as Exs.P-18 and P-19 respectively. iv) While undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to injuries on 23.06.2015. Section of law was altered from section 307 IPC to section 302 IPC. Alteration memo was marked as Ex.P-20. On the same day, he held inquest over the dead body. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-11. He seized M.O-3 saree after the inquest. On 25.06.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. he arrested the accused near Kaluru Check Post. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination. P.W-11/Assistant Professor, S.V.Medical College, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to consequence of burns. He issued Post Mortem Certificate/Ex.P-12. After collecting all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W-13 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 3. 8 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Accepting the two dying declarations marked as Exs.P-14 and P-25, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused strenuously contends that all the material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution, and they were declared as hostile. He further contends that the only evidence available on record is two dying declarations/Exs.P-14 and P-25 recorded by P.W.12 and P.W.16. He further contends that there are number of inconsistencies in both these dying declarations, and as such, both the dying declarations are liable to be discarded. He further contends that absolutely there is no corroboration to the so called dying declarations/Exs.P-14 and P-25, as such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal, by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 9 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that absolutely there are no inconsistencies in both the dying declarations. He further contends that both the dying declarations with regard to attack on the deceased is consistent, and there is no variance in these dying declarations. Further, P.W.16 is Judicial Officer, P.W.12 is Sub Inspector of Police and both of them recorded the dying declarations after obtaining certification from the Medical Officer/P.W.14, as such, though all the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution would able to establish the guilt of accused through Exs.P-14 and P-25, as such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. All the material prosecution witnesses including husband and grand-daughter of the deceased did not support the prosecution. P.Ws-1 to 10 were declared as hostile by the prosecution, as such, absolutely there is no oral evidence in support of the version of the prosecution in the so called attack by the accused on the deceased. The only evidence available on record is two dying declarations marked as Exs.P-14 and P-25 recorded by P.W-12 and P.W-16 respectively. 10 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 12. We have carefully scrutinized both these dying declarations. In the first dying declaration, the deceased has specifically stated that the accused was demanding her for compromise of case registered against him for attacking her son. As the deceased did not accept for compromise, the accused came on mid-night of the fateful day i.e., at about 01.00 a.m. on 18.06.2015, poured kerosene on her, set fire to her and ran away. In this dying declaration, the deceased has specifically stated that she was sleeping in front of the kitchen room, whereas P.Ws-1 and 2 were sleeping on a cot in front of the gate. 13. In the second dying declaration marked as Ex.P-25, the deceased has stated the very same version, stating that at about 01.00 a.m. on 18.06.2015, the accused poured kerosene on her and set fire to her, while she was sleeping in front of the kitchen. She has also stated that P.Ws-1 and 2 were sleeping along with two others in front of the gate. 14. Having carefully scrutinized both the dying declarations, absolutely there are no variations in both these dying declarations. Both Exs.P-14 and P-25 were consistent and the deceased has specifically stated the manner in which the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her and escaped from the scene of offence, as such, both these dying declarations are consistent. 11 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 15. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Irfan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment held as follows: “62. There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same. Certain factors below reproduced can be considered to determine the same, however, they will only affect the weight of the dying declaration and not its admissibility: - (i) Whether the person making the statement was in expectation of death? (ii) Whether the dying declaration was made at the earliest opportunity? “Rule of First Opportunity” (iii) Whether there is any reasonable suspicion to believe the dying declaration was put in the mouth of the dying person? (iv) Whether the dying declaration was a product of prompting, tutoring or leading at the instance of police or any interested party? (v) Whether the statement was not recorded properly? (vi) Whether, the dying declarant had opportunity to clearly observe the incident? (vii) Whether, the dying declaration has been consistent throughout? 1 AIR 2023 SC 4129 12 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 (viii) Whether, the dying declaration in itself is a manifestation / fiction of the dying person’s imagination of what he thinks transpired? (ix) Whether, the dying declaration was itself voluntary? (x) In case of multiple dying declarations, whether, the first one inspires truth and consistent with the other dying declaration? (xi) Whether, as per the injuries, it would have been impossible for the deceased to make a dying declaration? 63. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind. It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant. 64. It is unsafe to record the conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in the cases where suspicion, like the case on hand is raised, as regards the correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the Court may have to look for some corroborative evidence by treating the dying declaration only as a piece of evidence. The evidence and material available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at an appropriate conclusion. The reason why we say so is that in the case on hand, although the appellant-convict has been named in the two dying 13 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful.” 16. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amol Singh Vs. State of M.P.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment held as follows: “8. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should be consistent. (See: Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P. [ (1993) 2 SCC 684]. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While scruitinizing the contents of various dying declaration, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. 2 MANU/SC/7724/2008 14 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 9. It is to be noted that the High Court had itself observed that the dying declaration (Exh.P11) scribed by the Executive Officer, (PW9) at about 0435 hours in the same night was not in conformity with the FIR and the earlier dying declaration (Exh.P3) scribed by ASI Balram (PW 8) in so far as different motives have been described. That is not the only variation. Several other discrepancies, even as regards the manner in which she is supposed to have been sprinkled with kerosene and thereafter set on fire. 10. Therefore, the discrepancies, make the last declaration doubtful. The nature of the inconsistencies is such that there are certainly material. That being so, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charges. He be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody in connection with any other case.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above two judgments has dealt that “if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the Court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not”. 18. In the case on hand, having carefully scrutinized both the dying declarations, we do not find any inconsistencies, particularly, with regard to as to how the deceased received injuries in the 15 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 hands of the accused. Absolutely there are no inconsistencies in both the dying declaration, as such, both these judgments relied on by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts, as such, they are not applicable to the case on hand. 19. As already pointed out, absolutely there are no inconsistencies and variations in both the dying declarations/Exs.P-14 and P-25, as such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 448 and 302 IPC needs no interference. 20. So far as the offence U/s.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989 is concerned, both the dying declarations are silent, whether the accused was aware of caste of the deceased, or whether the accused committed murder as the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Absolutely there is no averment attracting the provisions of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989. As already pointed out, except these two dying declarations, there is no other material in the present case. According to the deceased, the accused poured kerosene and set fire to her, as the deceased did not agree for compromise of C.C.103/2013 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, and not as the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community. As such, the 16 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence U/s.3(2)(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, is liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in-part. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati against the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No.11 of 2016 dated 27.05.2019 for the offences under Sections 448 and 302 I.P.C. is hereby confirmed. The conviction and sentence recorded for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act, 1989, shall be refunded to him. As the appellant was released on bail by order dated 22.07.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in terms of orders passed by the Combined High Court in Batchu Rangarao and others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011), he is directed to surrender before the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, forthwith to serve the remaining portion of sentence. Failure to do so, the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, at 17 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 Tirupati, is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the appellant by issuing Non-bailable Warrant and commit him to prison to serve the remaining portion of sentence. It is needless to state that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 8th September, 2026 PSK Whether the judgment is: Speaking -- Reasoned √ Reportable -- Non-Reportable √ 18 KSR,J & JS,J CRL.A.No.422/2019 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 67 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.422 OF 2019 8th September, 2026 W PSK