(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 14-06-2018 in SC.No. 423 of 2013 passed by the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District.

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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence passed in S.C.No. 423 of 2013, Date: 14-06-2018 by the Court of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, pending disposal of CrI.A.No.2044/2018 before this Hon'ble court and 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 pleased to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence passed in S.C.No. 423 of 2013, Date: 14-06-2018 by the Court of the X Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, pending disposal of Crl.A.No.2044/2018 before this Hon'ble court and pass

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to Pleased to suspend the operation of the conviction and sentence passed in SC No 423/2013, dt 14.06.2018, on the file of the X Additional and District and Sessions Judge Gurazala and enlarge the appellant/accused No 1 on bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal and pass

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 Pleased to condone the delay of 345 days in prefering the criminal appeal against the judgment in SC No 423/2013 on the file of the X Additional District and sessions judge, Gurazala, and pass

IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to suspend the operation of the conviction and sentence passed in SC No 423/2013, dt 14.06.2018, on the file of the X Additional District and sessions judge, Gurazala and enlarge the appellant /accused on bail, pending disposal of the criminal appeal and pass

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 pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant after suspending the sentence passing by the X Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Guntur. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt: 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal and pass

IA NO: 2 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 pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant by suspending the sentence passing by the X Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Guntur. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt: 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal and such for other or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the case

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 may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant after suspending the sentence passing by the X Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Gurajala. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt; 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of grounds of Criminal appeal against the judgment dt 14-06-2018 passed in Sc. 423/2013 on the file of the X Additional District and sessions judge, Gurazala

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 Pleased to condone the delay of 263 days in prefering the criminal appeal against the judgment in Sc. 423 of 2013 on the file of the X Additional district and sessions judge, Gurazala

IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the judgment in Sc. 423/2013 on the file of the X Additional District and sessions judge, Gurazala on 14-06-2018

IA NO: 3 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 Pleased to suspend the operation of the conviction and sentence passed in Sc. 423 of 2013 dated 14-06-2018 on the file of the X Additional District and sessions judge, Gurazala

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 pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant after suspending the sentence passing by the X Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Guntur. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt: 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal and pass

IA NO: 2 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 pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant by suspending the sentence passing by the X Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Guntur. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt: 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal and such for other or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

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 may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner/Appellant after suspending the sentence passing by the X Add!. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Gurajala. In Sessions case No: 423/2013 dt: 14-06-2018 against the petitioner/appellant pending disposal of the criminal appeal)

Common Judgment:

K. Suresh Reddy, J.

1. As all the three appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.423 of 2013 on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurazala, are the appellants.

3. Accused No.3 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.2044 of 2018, accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.396 of 2019 and accused No.1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.389 of 2019.

4. The appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:

                  The first charge was under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3;

                  The second charge was under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3; and

                  The last charge was under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. against A1 to A3.

5. Substance of the charge is that on 31.12.2012, at about 10:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 hacked and stabbed one Chennuboyina Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), with a hunting sickle and knife in the fields of Ratchamallapadu village, causing his death and in the same process they also attempted to kill P.W.3 and beat P.W.2 causing them injuries, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 326 r/w 34 I.P.C.

6. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted accused No.2 under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for ‘LIFE’ and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Both the substantive sentences imposed against accused No.2 were directed to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

7. Case of the prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, briefly, is as follows:

                  (i) All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Ratchamallapadu village, Veldurthi Mandal. P.W.1 is the wife, and P.W.4 is brother of the deceased, respectively. P.W.5 is the relative of the deceased. About 3½ years prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the deceased and executed a promissory note in his favour. About 1 ½ years prior to the date of incident, accused No.1 again borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased under another promissory note. About one year prior to the incident, accused No.1 repaid an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the deceased and received promissory note in respect of the second debt. At that time, when the deceased asked the accused No.1 to clear the first debt of Rs.10,000/-, accused No.1 claimed that he had already repaid it, and in that regard, an altercation took place between the deceased and accused No.1.

                  (ii) L.Ws.13 and 14, Pinnaboina China Mala Kondaiah and Garlapati Venkata Ramaiah intervened and conveyed panchayat. They found fault with accused No.1 and directed him to repay Rs.10,000/- along with interest amount of Rs.7,000/-, totaling to Rs.17,000/- to the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 paid Rs.17,000/- to the deceased and took back his pro-note. Accused No.1 challenged the deceased for collecting the amount twice, and it led to a quarrel, during which accused No.1 received injuries in the hands of the deceased. While such was the position, at about 10:00 p.m. on 31.12.2012, the deceased, accused Nos.2 and 3 & P.Ws.2 and 3 met in the village and decided to consume arrack on the eve of New Year.

                  (iii) At about 9:00 p.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the house of deceased and took him to the fields of P.W.2, where they, along with accused Nos.2 & 3 consumed arrack till 12:15 in the midnight. At that time, a minor altercation took place between accused No.2 and the deceased. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 left the place. As it was late in the night, P.Ws.2, 3 and the deceased, with a fear of admonition from elders, slept in the fields under a Neem tree. At about 3:00 a.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 woke up on hearing some noise and found accused Nos.1 to 3 armed with a hunting sickle, stout stick and large knife, respectively, who said to have attacked, hacked and stabbed the deceased. At that time, accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his head with a stout stick. On the cries raised by P.Ws.2 and 3, all the accused left the scene of offence. Immediately, P.W.2 informed P.W.6, a villager that the deceased received injuries in the fields and P.W.6 in turn, informed the same to P.W.4, brother-in-law of the deceased, who, in turn, informed the same to P.W.1. P.Ws.1, 4, 6 and others reached the spot in an auto of P.W.7. By that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 shifted the deceased (injured) to the road point by carrying him on the shoulders of P.W.2. From there P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others shifted both the injured to the Government Hospital, Macherla at about 4:15 a.m. in 108 ambulance. The duty Doctor examined and declared the deceased dead. P.W.3 - another injured, was admitted as an inpatient in Government Hospital, Macherla, who was treated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, P.W.8. On the same day, P.W.1 went to Veldurthi Police Station at about 2:00 p.m. and gave a report.

                  (iv) P.W.12, S.I. of Police, Veldurthi Police Station, received Ex.P1, report from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.1 of 2013 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P14.

                  (v) P.W.13, Inspector of Police, Macherla Rural Circle, having received information from P.W.12, visited the scene of offence. He collected copy of F.I.R. from P.W.12 at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he secured the presence of P.W.9 and another and prepared an observation report, Ex.P8. P.W.13 seized M.Os.5 and 6, mobile and a pair of cheppals respectively, which belong to P.W.3, under Ex.P8, in the presence of mediators. He also prepared a rough sketch, Ex.P16 and got photographed the scene of offence through L.W.7, Srinivasa Rao. Photographs were marked as Exs.P17 to P19 and C.D. was marked as Ex.P20. Later, he visited the Government General Hospital, Macherla, and photographed the dead body of the deceased under Exs.P21 to P23. On the same day, P.W.13 examined and recorded the statement of P.W.3, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital. From there, he went to Rachamalapadu village and recorded statements of P.Ws.5 to 7. On 02.01.2013, P.W.13 took up further investigation, visited mortuary at Government General Hospital and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators, P.W.9 and others. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P9. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

                  (vi) P.W.8, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Macherla conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to severation of neck vessel and spinal card with haemmorrhage and shock. He issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P7.

                  (vii) On 02.01.2013, P.W.13 examined and recorded the statement of P.W.11. Subsequently, P.W.13 added Section 307 I.P.C. besides Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Subsequently, P.W.13 made a requisition to P.W.10, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, with a request to record statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, P.W.10 recorded statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 19.01.2013. The said statements were marked as Exs.P3 and P5. On 09.01.2013, P.W.13 apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of P.W.9 and another and recorded their confessional statements, Exs.P10 and P11. The accused said to have confessed the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused, P.W.13 recovered M.O.6, hunting sickle from accused No.1, M.O.7 stout stick from accused No.2 and M.O.8 knife from accused No.3. M.Os.6 to 8 were recovered from the house of accused No.1 and were seized under seizure report, Ex.P12, in the presence of mediators, P.W.9 and another. He sent M.Os.1 to 8 to RFSL. RFSL report was marked as Ex.P25.

                  (viii) After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.13 filed charge sheet. As the investigation did not disclose participation of P.W.2 and one K. Nagaiah, in the alleged commission of offence, he deleted their names from the charge sheet.

8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13, marked Exs.P1 to P25 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked.

9. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them.

10. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

11. Heard Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy and Sri Srinivasa Rao G.Ch, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contend that there is an abnormal delay in giving report, Ex.P1 to the Police by P.W.1 and there are number of improvements in the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3, from stage to stage. Hence, they are not reliable witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony. The prosecution has not placed any material to establish the so-called motive for accused No.1 to kill the deceased. Learned counsel further contend that P.W.1, in her earliest report, has stated that some unknown persons attacked the deceased. P.W.13, Investigating Officer ought to have recorded the statement of P.W.3, who was conscious and was taken to the hospital along with the deceased in the same ambulance. No grounds have been shown by the Investigating Officer to delete the names of P.Ws.2 and 3 and K. Nagaiah from the charge sheet. As such, he requests this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by allowing these three appeals.

13. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals, contending that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Mere delay in giving report to the Police cannot be taken serious note of. P.W.1, being wife of the deceased, was in a shock. He further contends that P.W.3 is an injured witness and he received fracture to his scalp. The injury received by P.W.3 is serious in nature, and there is nothing to disbelieve his version. He further contends that the ocular version spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 was corroborated by medical evidence, by examining P.W.8, Civil Assistant Surgeon. He further contends that during the course of investigation, since the participation of P.Ws.2 and 3 and K. Nagaiah is not established, P.W.13 deleted their names. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeals, by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

14. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record.

15. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.2, 3 and accused Nos.2 and 3 and the deceased went to the fields in the night of 31.12.2012 to consume liquor in view of New Year celebrations. Even according to the prosecution and eyewitnesses, accused No.1 did not join them. However, the prosecution went to the extent of planting P.W.11 to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 purchased liquor from his belt shop. P.W.11, in his evidence, stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 purchased liquor from his shop, whereas P.W.2 has stated that he, along with accused No.3 went and brought two liters of arrack from Sreerampuram Thanda. Further, according to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 3:00 a.m. on 01.01.2013 and at about 4:00 a.m., P.W.1 came to know about the incident. Immediately, P.W.1 along with P.W.4 and other relatives, went to the fields and found the deceased lying with injuries. Thereafter, they shifted both the injured i.e. P.W.3 and the deceased in auto rickshaw belonging to P.W.7 to the Government Hospital, Macherla, where, the deceased was declared ‘brought dead’. But no report was given to the Police till 2:00 p.m. on the same day. It is only at about 2:00 p.m. P.W.1 gave a report. P.W.1 has not explained any reason as to why she kept quiet till 2:00 p.m. without giving any report, though she reached Government General Hospital, Macherla by 5:00 a.m. itself, by which time, duty Doctor confirmed the death of the deceased. Further, though Ex.P1, report was given about 2:00 p.m. on 01.01.2013, the said report reached the Magistrate at about 8:10 p.m. on the same day, though the Court is situated at Macherla, which is 15 k.m. form the Police Station. As such, absolutely there is inordinate delay in giving the report to the Police by P.W.1. Even in Ex.P1, P.W.1 has stated the names of accused Nos.1 to 3, P.Ws.2 and 3 and K. Nagaiah, as assailants.

16. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, they, in their evidence, stated that on 31.12.2012 night, they along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and the deceased, went to the fields of P.W.2 and consumed arrack till 12:15 p.m. During that time, a minor altercation took place between accused No.2 and the deceased. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 left the scene of offence. P.Ws.2 and 3 and the deceased slept in the fields under a Neem tree. P.Ws.2 and 3, in their evidence have stated that at about 3:00 a.m., they woke up on hearing some noise and found accused Nos.1 to 3. P.Ws.2 and 3, in their evidence further stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the deceased and accused No.2 also beat P.W.3 with a stout stick. The overtacts attributed to accused Nos.1 to 3 were spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 for the first time, during the course of trial and the same were not attributed to accused Nos.1 and 3, in their statements before the Investigating Officer. In their statements, P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 were present holding hunting sickle and knife respectively and accused No.2 gave a blow with a stout stick. Except stating so, nothing has been stated by P.Ws.2 and 3, in their statements. As already pointed out, P.Ws.2 and 3 attributed overtacts to accused Nos.1 and 3 for the first time during the course of recording evidence, at the time of trial and except their evidence, there is no evidence available on record. Admittedly, even according to P.Ws.2 and 3 accused No.1 was not present when they consumed arrack.

17. So far as the motive aspect is concerned, P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses have stated that there are financial disputes between accused No.1 and the deceased. However, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence in that regard. To establish the so-called motive, the prosecution, at one stage has stated that the deceased has given report to the Police about accused No.1 threatening him. But, no such report was produced by the prosecution. As they were not able to establish motive for accused No.1 to kill the deceased, prosecution came up with another version stating that accused No.2 insulted the deceased for consuming small quantity of arrack. As such the prosecution came up with two different versions with regard to motive.

18. So far as participation of accused Nos.1 and 3 is concerned, the prosecution kept quite from 01.01.2013 till 19.01.2013, on which date the statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 were recorded by P.W.10 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, the prosecution developed its case. However, no specific overt acts have been attributed against accused Nos.1 and 3. The only consistent allegation is regarding accused No.2 beating on the head of P.W.3 with a stout stick. Admittedly even according to P.Ws.2 and 3 all of them, except accused No.1, consumed arrack along with the deceased. As P.Ws.2 and 3 came forward attributing overt acts to accused Nos.1 and 3 for the first time during the course of trial, we are not inclined to place any reliance on their evidence with regard to the participation of accused Nos.1 and 3. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, right from the stage of investigation P.Ws.2 and 3 consistently stated that he beat P.W.3, on his head with a stout stick. As such the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is consistent so far as the attack made by accused No.2 is concerned.

19. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 302 I.P.C. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, we are inclined to confirm the conviction and sentence recorded for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

20. In the result, Criminal Appeal Nos.2044 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 are hereby allowed by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded against accused Nos.1 and 3, by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurzala, in Sessions Case No.423 of 2013, dated 14.06.2018, for the offences under 302 I.P.C. Accordingly they are acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to them. As accused Nos.1 and 3 were already enlarged on bail by order dated 29.07.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.389 of 2019 and by order dated 19.04.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.2044 of 2018, they are directed to appear before the concerned for completing the legal formalities in terms of the order rendered by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao & others Vs. State of A.P.( 2016(3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (AP)).

21. Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2019 is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence recorded against accused No.2, by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurzala, in Sessions Case No.423 of 2013, dated 14.06.2018, for the offence under 302 I.P.C. is hereby set aside. However, the conviction and sentence recorded for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is upheld, while reducing the sentence of imprisonment for life to seven years and also maintaining the fine amount. As accused No.2 was already enlarged on bail by order dated 29.07.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.396 of 2019, in terms of order rendered by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao’s case, accused No.2 is directed to surrender before the trial Court, who will commit him to the prison for serving the remaining portion of imprisonment, failing which, the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gurzala is directed to secure his presence by issuing non-bailable warrants and commit him to the prison for serving the remaining portion of the sentence. The period already undergone by accused No.2 shall be given set off as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.