CRIMINAL APPEAL 1123 of 2017 on 30 December 2012

1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (PerHon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)

Sole accusedin S.C.No.310 of 2013 onthefileof the CourtofIIIAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati (for shorl,‘learned AdditionalSessions Judge’) is the appellant herein. He was tried and convicted by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentencedto undergo imprisonment for “LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-,indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for a period[of][ one][ month.]

.

2. Substance of the charge is that on 30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., theaccused hacked one Aruru Mohan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’)on his neck with a knife in front of Ramalaya temple, Lakshmipuram villagecausing his death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under:

(a) The accused and material prosecution witnesses are the residentsofLakshmipuramvillage,ThottambeduMandal,ChittoorDistrict.Thedeceased was also resident of the same village. PW.1 is the wife and PW.2 isthe mother of the deceased respectively.PWs 3 to 7 are residents of thesame village. The marriage between PW.1 and deceased was performedabout three years prior to the date of incident and they were blessed withdaughter. The accused is the neighbour of the deceased. The accused usedto suspect that the deceased was having illegal intimacy with his wife,Assuch, there are disputes between the accused and deceased.The deceasedwas working as a Tractor driver under PW.6, who held panchayat between theaccused and deceased with regardto the said dispute.Whilesoon30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., when the deceasedalong with PWs 3 & 4were chitchatting in front of Ramalayam temple, at that juncture, the accusedwas going along with M.0.1 knife in his hand. When the accused reached infront of Ramalayam temple, an altercation took place between the deceasedand accused.During the course of altercation, the accused hacked thedeceased on his neck and on the right leg.On hearing the cries of the deceased, PWs1 & 2 rushed to the scene and found the accused runningaway with M.0.1 knife. The deceased succumbed to the[injuries][ on][ the][ spot.]

(b) Thereafter, PW.1 went to the Police Station and[gave][ a][ report.]Onthesamedayatabout12.30P.M.,PW.10Sub-InspectorofPolice,Thottambedu Police Station, received Ex.P1 report from PW.1 and registereda case in Cr.No.79 of 2012 for the offence punishable[under][ Section][ 302][ IPC.]He issued copies of F.I.R. toall the concerned.Ex.P5is theF.I.R.Heinformedthe sametotheInspectorofPolice PW.11.Havingreceivedinformation from PW.10, Inspector of Police PW.11 went[to][ Lakshmipuram]Village at about 06.00 P.M. and found the dead body.PW.11 instructed Subinspector of Police to stay in the village to avoid[untoward][ incidents.]On thenext day i.e., 31.12.2012 at about 07.00 A.M., he held[inquest][ over][ the][ dead]body of the deceased in the presence of PW.7 and another.Inquest report ismarked as Ex.P2.He recorded statements of PWs1 to[4][ at][ the][ inquest.]Heseized blood stained earth and controlled earth M.O.s[6][ &][ 7 at][ the][ scene][ of]offence.He seized M.Os 2 to 5 in the presence of mediators[under][ the][ cover]of Panchanama Ex.P6. He also prepared Rough sketch[Ex.P7][ at][ the][ scene][ of]offence.He also photographed the dead body and the[photographs][ were]marked as Ex.P8. He sent the dead body for Postmortem[examination,]

(c) PW.9CivilAssistantSurgeon,GovernmentAreaHospital,Srikalahasti conducted Autopsy over the dead body of[the][ deceased.]Heopined the cause of death was due to “incised wound[involving]injuries ofmajorbloodvesselsandtracheainjuredandfilledwithbloodclots.

suffocation, cerebral anoxia, massive blood loss, hemorrhagic shock, cerebraldeath, multi organ failure, death”. He issued Postmortem[certificate][ Ex.P4.]

(d) On04.01.2013,oncredibleinformation,PW.11arrestedtheaccused near Kothakandriga bus stop in the presence[of][ PW.8][ and][ another.]On the confession made by the accused under Ex.P9, PW.11seized M.0.1knife from Arjuna Mandapam situated in Lakshmipuram - Ramapuram Road.He sent material objects to R.F.S.L., Tirupati.R.F.S.L. report is marked asEx.PIO.Afterreceivingalldocumentsandafter completionofentireinvestigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 11, markedexhibits PIto P10 and exhibited MOs1to7.On behalf of the defence.Exhibits D.1 and D.2 relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements ofPWs1 & 4 were marked.exhibits PIto P10 and exhibited MOs1to7.On behalf of the defence.Exhibits D.1 and D.2 relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements ofPWs1 & 4 were marked.

5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he deniedthe incriminating material appearing against him.

6. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned AdditionalSessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid.Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

7. Heard Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, andSri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representingthe State.Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representingthe State.

8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.

9. As seen from the material available on record, the motivefortheaccused to kill the deceased is that the accused suspected that the deceasedwas having illegal intimacy with his wife.Right from Ex.P1 whichis earliestaccused to kill the deceased is that the accused suspected that the deceasedwas having illegal intimacy with his wife.Right from Ex.P1 whichis earliestversion, the motive for the accused has been indicated.PW.6, whois theVillager,in his evidence also stated that he held panchayat between theaccused and deceased with regard to the illegal intimacy.PW.1 also in Ex.P1has stated about the motive.As such, the prosecution is able to prove themotive on the part of the accused.Villager,in his evidence also stated that he held panchayat between theaccused and deceased with regard to the illegal intimacy.PW.1 also in Ex.P1has stated about the motive.As such, the prosecution is able to prove themotive on the part of the accused.

(a) coming to the other aspect i.e., with regard to[the][ attack][ on][ the]deceased, PWs 3 & 4 are the eye witnesses.According to the prosecution,on 30.12.2012 at about 2.45 P.M., the deceased along[with][ PWs][ 3][ &][ 4][ were]chitchatting in front of Ramalayam temple. PWs 1 &[2][ also][ have][ stated][ in][ their]evidence that the deceased was chitchatting with PWs3 & 4infrontofRamalayam temple.Right from the stage of Ex.P1, the[names][ of][ PWs][ 3][ &][ 4]have been shown as eye witnesses to the attack. Though[these][ two][ witnesses]have been cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited by the defence.PWs 3 & 4 in their evidence have categorically stated that at about 2.45 P.M.,while the accused was going along with sheep, an altercation took placebetween the accused and deceased, which continued for some time.Both theaccused and deceased quarreled for some time and suddenly[the][ accused]hacked the deceased with M.0.1knife on his neck and right toe.On hearingthe cries of the deceased, PWs 1 & 2 rushed to the scene of offence, who saw the attack on the deceased. As such, the evidence of[PWs]1 to 4 establishesthat the accused hacked the deceased at about 2.45[P.M. on 30.12.2012.]

Conclusion

(b) Coming to the nature of offence, according to the[prosecution][ and]eye witnesses, and the opinion incorporated in the[Inquest][ report][ Ex.P2,]it isstated that at the relevant point of time, the accused was going along withsheep to the fields holding a knife. When the accused[reached][ the][ scene][ of]offence, an altercation took place between him and[the][ deceased.]Itis alsostated by the prosecution witnesses that a quarrel took place for quite sometime and thereafter the accused hackedon the neck andright toe of thedeceased and ran away.It is not the case of the prosecution[that][ the][ accused]came to the scene of offence only tokill the deceased[with][ M.0.1]knife.InEx.P2 Inquest report,it is specifically stated that the incident took place whilethe accused was going along with sheep to the fields holding a knife.Assuch, there was no intention on the part of the accused[to]kill the deceased atthe relevant point of time.Further, the incident was preceded by a quarrelwhich took for quite some time andit is only thereafter[the][ accused][ hacked]the deceased with M.0.1knife.But,as seen from the[medical][ evidence]adduced through PW.9, first injury was very severe and certainly after noticingthe injury, the accused must have knowledge that the said injury would causedeath of the deceased.Further, the deceased died on the spot.

(c) As the incident preceded by a quarrel between the[accused][ and]deceased and as only one vital blow was given on the[neck][ and][ the][ other][ was]

on the right toe, the offence committed by the appellant would not fall underSection 302 IPC, but it may fall under Section 304 PartI IPC.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allowthe appealin part by setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC,instead convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part -1 IPC.

In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part[and][ the][ conviction]and sentence recorded by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge,Tirupati in S.C.No.310 of 2013 vide judgment dated[03.03.2017 under][ Section]302 IPC is hereby set aside.Instead, the appellant[is][ convicted][ under][ Section]304 Part -I IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a periodof 10 years while maintaining the fine amount imposed by the learnedtrialjudge.

As the appellant was released on bail by order in I.A.No.1[of][ 2023][ dated]19.01.2023in termsof the order of the combined HighCourt passedinBatchu Ranga Rao v. State of A.P.\ he is directed to[surrender][ before][ the]trial Court to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment.If hefails tosurrender, the learned trial Judge is directed to secure his presence by issuingNon-bailable warrant and commit him to the prison for serving the remainingsentence of imprisonment.It is needless to state that the sentence alreadyundergone by the appellant shall be given set off under[ 428][ Cr.P.C.]With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending,if[any,][ shall][ also][ stand]

closed.

SDI- E.KAMESWARA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To

SECTION OFFICER

1. The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi,

2. The Superintendent, Central Parisian, Visakhapatnam,

3. The Station House Officer, Thottamedu Polaice Station,[Chittoor]

Chittoor District

4. One CC toSri B Paramesewara Rao Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra[Paradesh][OUT][OUT]

6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh][ at]

Amaravathi

7. THREE CD COPIES

psr

TAC

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/04/2025

ORDERCRLA.No.1123 of 2017

OF12 I MArS'★

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL