Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pathigulla Chandrasekhar, ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep Pp., on 21 June, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.925 of 2016
Between:
Pathigulla Chandrasekhar, S/o. Gumpaswamy,
Aged about 36 years,
Caste:Kapu, Jannivalasa Village,
Ramabhadrapuram Mandal,
R/o. Pedamedapalli Village of Mentada Mandal.
...... Appellant/Accused
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
...... Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant(s) : 1. Sri B. Paramesewara Rao
2. Legal Aid
Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
JUDGMENT
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2015 on the file of
the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram,
Vizianagaram District, is the appellant in the present Criminal
Appeal. He along with Accused Nos.2 to 5 were tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge under four charges i.e., first charge was
under Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1, second charge was
under Section 201 IPC against Accused No.1, third charge was
under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against Accused Nos.2 to 5 and
fourth charge was under Section 201 read with 34 IPC against
Accused Nos.2 to 5.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 19.10.2014 at about
2.00 P.M Accused No.1 with the common intention of Accused Nos.2
to 5 went to the house of one Korada Ramanamma (hereinafter
referred as the deceased), situated at Jannivalasa Village and beat
her with a stone on her face and head, causing her death and
washed the blood stains with water, thereby committed offences
punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with 34 IPC and Sections
201, 201 read with 34 IPC. After completion of trial, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 under Section
302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and
also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under charge No.1.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.1 and
other accused under charges 2 to 4.
3. Case of the prosecution as per the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, is as follows:-
Accused Nos.1 and 3 are sons of Accused No.2, Accused
Nos.4 and 5 are the wife and son of Accused No.3 respectively. All
the accused are residents of Jannivalasa Village,
Ramabhadrapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The deceased
also residing in the same Village. PWs-1 and 10 are the sons, PW-2
is the husband and PW-3 is the father of the deceased respectively.
All the accused are residing in the same locality. There are
differences between the family of the accused and the deceased as
Accused Nos.2 to 4 suspected that Accused No.5 was having illegal
intimacy with the deceased. Subsequently, Accused No.5 left the
house for a few days and returned back after ten (10) days. Since
then, Accused Nos.1 to 4 bore grudge against the deceased. While
so, on 19.10.2014 at about 11.00 A.M, father of the deceased-PW-3
came to her house and found the deceased went to attend
agricultural work. PW-1-son of the deceased went to the fields and
informed about the arrival of PW-3. Immediately, the deceased
returned home and started cooking food for her father and children.
At about 2.00 P.M, PW-1 was in front of the house and PW-10 was
inside the house. At that juncture, Accused No.1 trespassed into the
house of the deceased, caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and
pulled her to backyard, which is adjacent to the kitchen.
Immediately, Accused No.1 picked up a stone, hit on the head of the
deceased and ran away. Having witnessed the incident, PW-1, 3
and 10 rushed to the backyard and found the deceased lying in a
pool of blood. Immediately, PW-4, who is the younger brother of
PW-2 came there and tied a bandage. PW-4 and others took the
injured to the Community Health Centre, Salur.
4. PW-15-Civl Assistant Surgeon gave First Aid and advised
them to take her to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. He gave an
intimation to Salur Police Station. Ex.P-7 is the hospital intimation.
Ex.P-6 is the extract of accident register. Ex.P-8 is the referral letter.
Immediately, the injured was taken to Government Headquarters
Hospital, Vizianagaram where the doctor declared her brought dead.
Having received the information, Sub-Inspector of Police-PW-17
went to the Village and found blood stains on the back side of the
house of the deceased. Having come to know that the injured was
shifted to the Community Health Centre, Salur, he went there and
came to know that the injured was shifted to Government Hospital,
Vizianagaram. On the same day at about 7.00 P.M, PW-1 went to
the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-1. On the basis of the
said report, PW-17 registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2014 under
Section 302 IPC against Accused No.1. Ex.P-10 is the copy of FIR.
Having received the information, the Inspector of Police-PW-18 took
up further investigation. On 20.10.2014 he went to the scene of
offence along with mediators PW-12 and another, prepared an
observation report -Ex.P-3. He also seized M.Os. 5 to 7 at the scene
of offence. He also prepared rough sketch-Exs.P-11 and 12 at the
scene of offence. Thereafter, he went to the Government Hospital,
Vizianagaram and recorded statements of PW-11 and others.
Thereafter, PW-18 conducted inquest over the dead body in the
hospital between 12.00 Noon and 2.30 P.M in the presence of
PW-11 and another. Ex.P-2 is the inquest report. He got the scene
photographed through PW-17. Ex.P-13 is the copies of photographs
and C.D. He sent the dead body for Post-Mortem examination.
PW-16-Civil Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy over the dead
body between 3.30 P.M and 4.30 P.M on the same day. He opined
the cause of death was due to severe head injury, resulting in
internal haemorrhage caused by a blunt object. He issued Post-
Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-9. On 27.10.2014 PW-18 arrested Accused
Nos.1 and 2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have confessed about
the commission of offence in the presence of mediators-PW-13 and
another. Ex.P-5 is the mediators report for arrest and seizure of
M.Os.3 and 4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were remanded to judicial
custody. Further investigation was taken over by PW-19 on
10.11.2014. On 19.11.2014 he sent the material objects to RFSL,
Visakhapatnam. On 03.12.2014 he arrested Accused Nos.3 to 5,
who were remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, PW-20
another Investigating Officer, after receiving Post-Mortem Report
and RFSL Report-Ex.P-14, filed charge sheet.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 20
and marked Exs.P-1 to 14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7.
6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
he denied the incriminating material found against him.
7. Accepting the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, 10 and 14, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge convicted Accused No.1 as aforesaid.
Aggrieved by the same, Accused No.1 filed the present Criminal
Appeal.
8. Heard Sri B. Paramesewara Rao, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Sri K. Anand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
9. We have gone through the entire material on record.
10. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of
PWs- 1 to 3 and 10 with the deceased. It is also not in dispute that
all the accused and the prosecution party are residing in the same
locality. Though the prosecution tried to establish the motive stating
that Accused No.5 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased,
there is no positive evidence. PW-2, who is the husband of the
deceased, vaguely stated in his Chief Examination that Accused
Nos.2 to 4 were having suspicion that the deceased was having
illegal intimacy with the Accused No.5. Except the said vague
statement of PW-2, the prosecution has not at all placed any
material to establish the alleged motive. PW-7 to 9, who were
neighbours of the deceased did not state anything with regard to the
said motive. Of course, the incident was witnessed by PWs-1, 3
and 10. The evidence of PWs-1 and 10, who were none other than
sons of deceased show that on the fateful day, at about 2.00 P.M
they were at the house. PW-1 was in front of the house on the road
while PW-10 was present inside the house. It is the specific
evidence that at about 2.00 P.M, Accused No.1 trespassed into the
house of the deceased and dragged her to backyard and gave a
blow with a stone on the head. It is the evidence of PWs-1, 3, 10
and 14 that immediately after giving the blow, the accused ran away
from the scene of offence. But, the reason for the said attack is not
known.
11. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the accused
dealt only one blow with a stone. It is not the case of PWs-1, 3, 10
and 14 that the accused was armed with any weapon at the relevant
point of time. According to the prosecution witnesses, Accused No.1
trespassed into the house, dragged her to the backyard and gave
one blow on the head of the deceased and ran away. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused gave that blow
with an intention to kill the deceased. If at all, he really intends to kill
the deceased, Accused No.1 ought to have inflected few more
injuries on the person of the deceased. As seen from the evidence,
Accused No.1 also did not try to attack PWs-1, 3 and 10. He only
dealt one blow on the head of the deceased and ran away. In such
circumstances, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that
the accused attacked the deceased with an intention to kill her.
12. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court,
the offence under Section 302 IPC may not be proper, instead he
can be convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
13. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to allow the
Appeal in part by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded
under Section 302 IPC, instead we are inclined to convict him under
Section 304 Part-I IPC.
14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part, setting
aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court under
Section 302 IPC, instead he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I
IPC.
15. So far as the sentence is concerned, according to the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, the accused has already served six (06) years eleven
(11) months and twenty three (23) days. It is also represented by
the learned counsel for the appellant that during pendency of the
appeal, he was granted bail by this Court, by order, dated
22.10.2021 in terms of the order 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).
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as the
appellant has already served nearly seven (07) years of sentence,
we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him
while maintaining the fine amount. However, the appellant/accused
is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam, and complete the formalities as per the guidelines
enunciated in Batchu Rangarao (supra).
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
______________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Date: 21.06.2024
RSI/TSNR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2016
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Date: 21.06.2024
RSI/TSNR
