The High Court · 2025

The State of AP', Rep by its Public Prosecutor High court of AP'' at Hyderabad ...ResPondenUComPlainant Counsel for the Appellant : Ms Krishnaveni representing Mr. A.GaYathri ReddY Counsel for the Respondent: Mr' E' Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL c NA.L APPEAL No .58 0F 2013 ORD ER: This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence awardecl in S.C.No.42 6 of 2Ol2 on the hle of the learned V Additiona,l Sessions Judge (II_FTC), Warangal (for short, ,,the trial Court,,) dated 05.12.2012 wherein and whereby appellant/accused is acquitteri for the offence punishable under Section 3O2 of I.p.C. but convicted uncler Sectio n 235(2) Cr.p.C. for the offence under Section 3O4 part II I.p.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (1O) years. 2. Heard Ms.Krishnaveni, learned counsel representing Mr.A.Gayathri Recldy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent 3 14:30 hours, the The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 10.OI.2012, at complainant Chewa Manikyamma (pW1/wife of the deceased) Iodged a complaint on the file of the Station House Officer, police Station, Sangem stating that on 1O.O1 .2OL2 at 1 1:OO hours, she went to the outskirts of Kota Venkatapur Village along with one Bolla 2 llukomuru (accused herein), by driving their sheep to graze them; that her husband had taken the paddy field from Erukali Isthari on lease to crop it ald after harvesting the floor, her husband- Mallaiah and Ilukomuru loaded the straw on the tractor oi one Raju, which was engaged to unload it with'the help of coolies; that one Kiran, friend of the Tractor driver Raju and Venkatamma were all residents of Katrapalli Village' After loading straw, the Tractor was going towards Katrapalli Viliage with the coolies. It is stated that her husband was going to the road through the paddy land and admonished to llukomuru to graze the sheep, due to which the said llukomuru picked up quarrels with her husband and killed. him by axing to neck, which was .artd Bala Koti Reddy, who rvere witnessed by Venkatamma grazing the Buffaloes nearby the field; that immediately Venkatamma raised huc and cry and rushed there' She found her husbald dead in a pool of blood nearby the road' by axing on the neck. Immediately Bala Kotireddy and Venkatamma informed that the wife of deceased that after axing her husband' the said llukomuru fled away. Basing on the said facts' the present grime is registered

4. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub-Inspector of police, Sangem (LW 16) registered a case vide Crime No.9/2012 under Section 302 of I.P.c., issued FIRs to arl the concerned and rushed to the scene of offence. on receiving the above information on phone, the C.I. of Police, Mamnoor (pW 10) rushed to the scene of offence, collected the CD file from the S.I. Sangem and perused the same. He secured the presence of mediators (LWs.10 and l1), conducted scene of offence panchanama, photographed the dead body of the deceased and scene ol offence rn,ith the help of Photographer (LW B). Later, he seized the blood stained earth, control earth. Subsequentry, he recorded the statements of other witnesses (LWs. 1 to 7), held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of said mediators and referred the dead body of the deceased for postrnortem examination. Upon completion of autopsy, he seized the trlood stained clothes of the deceased at Mortuar5r room, Warangal for examination ald recorded the statement ol witness (LW-g). Later, he also collected the FSL report. On 13.01.2O12 at 10:OO hours, on reliable information he apprehended the accused at his residence at Katrapalli Village, recorded his conlession and seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators (LWs.12 and 13), seized thE axe, blood stained shirt of the accused and also 4 recorded the confession and seizure panchanama by videography with the help of Photographer (LW B) and later' remanded the accused to judicial custody' The Medical Officer' FMD' KMC' Warangal (LW 14) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased ancl issued PME report' in which 'he opined that the deceaseddiedduetohemorrhagicshockConsequenttoneck injury and cervical vertebral fracture dislocation' After completion of investigation and obtaining material documents' the C'I' of Police iaid charge sheet before the learned III Additional iudicial Magistrate of First Class' Warangal' 5. The learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' the case and registered Warangal has taken cogni zance of completion of formalities' she P.R.C.No.22l2Ol2 and committed the case to the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Warangal as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Division ln turn the iearned Principal District Judge' Warangal has assigned S'C'No'426 of 2Ol2 and made over to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law'

6. On appearance and hearing' the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained in Telugu to the I I I .-7 5 appellant. When questioned, the he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The trial Court vide impugned judgment, acquitted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. but convicterl him uncler Section 235(2) Cr.p.C. for the offence under Section 3O4 part_il I.p.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the present Appeal. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence of pWs.2, 3 and B and the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned judgment Therefore, he seeks to allon, the Criminal Appeal. 9 Learned Assistant public prosecutor contends that all the qrttnesses corroborate with each other with regard to the commrssion of offence by the appellant ald the material objects recovered also demonstrate the said aspect. Therefore, he submits that, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court had rightly and appropriately passed the 6 impugned jud'gment and interference of this Court' at this stage is not warranted" Therefore' he seeks to dismiss the Appeal' I O. On behalf of the prosecution' the trial Court examined PWs.1 to i0 and marked' Exs'P1 to P14' On behalf of the defence' none were examined and no document was marked' In order to establish his case, the appellant relied on the evidence of PW8 who is the eye witness to the incident' It is an admitted fact that PWs.2 and 3 are not the eye witnesses to the incident but they have stated in the deposition that they have seen the incident; But as per the deposition of PW8' it is he wtro has witnessed the incident at the distance of twenty (2O) yards from the scene of offence 'and he has not stated in his deposition about the of PWs.2 and 3' PWf in his deposition' as well d that the axe shown to him is that of the one used by sed and. it was used by the accused to cut the branches of the trees to gtaze the sheeP Therefore, the trial Court rendered its judgment. 11. This Court vide order dated 04'12'2013' suspended the the accu submitte presence sentenceofimprisonmentimposedagainstthepetitioner'bythe trial Court, pending Appeal and released him on bail on condition of his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs'S'OOO/- with one I 7 surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, and on further con dition that the petitioner shalr appear before the triar court every month on first Monclay, until further orders.

12. Having regard vrctim to the submissions of both the learned counsel, trpon careful scrutiny of the materiai available on record and the evidence of pWs.1 and g, it is clear that pWg is the eve u,ltness to the incident ,"vho has seen the accused axing the at a distance of twenty yards and thereby., causing his death. The recovery ol- MOs.2 to 4 also corroborate u.ith the factum of occurrence of the incident. Therefore, the evidence ol aforecited witnesses and the Material Objects, clinchingly establish the fact that the accused had committed the alleged offences. Hence, this Court is convinced that the accused is guiity of the offence under Section 304 part_Il I.p.C. and this Criminal Appeal lails

13. It is found that the appellant had already undergone about tlr'o (2) years of imprisonment in jail. There is no pre_meditatecl mind on the part of the appellant at the point of commission of the offence and he had already undergone mental agony and hardship by roaming around the trial Court. Considering the {act 8 that twelve long years have already elapsed from the date of filing of this Appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed against the appellant' by the trial Court, from ten (10) years to five (5) years' The appellant is directed to surrender before the concer:ned Court to serve out the remaining Period of sentence'

14. Except the above modification, in all other aspects' the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed The bail bonds executed by the appellant if any, shall stand cancelled' I I Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed' sd/- N. C ANDRA SEKHAR RAO SI TANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER to,.,. an" V Additionar sessions Judge, (1 FTC) warangar.(with r.ecords) i. in" fir nOJitionat Judiciat First Ctass Magistrate, Warangal. 5. fh" Sup"rintendent, Central Prison' Warangal' 4. The station Hor"" Otri""i, bangem Police_staton, warangal Districl' . .. 5. Two CCs to the Pub[;;;";;;i*' stut" of Telangana' High Court Buildings' 6 o.;'ca to Vtr. R. Gayathri Reddy' Advocate ioPUCl 7. Two CD Copies at HYderabad (OUT) DUPSLM HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 )/ ( R 1il _-s- (r/\\ .a \\ 2\\ ()\ I L) 16 SEP 206 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.58 ot 2013 {. ,, DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL l I i I q xK \