Partly allowed

Ambadipudi Jyothi, Prakasamd Dt and Anr., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Mar 2024CRLA/653/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partly allowed criminal appeals against conviction for murder, culpable homicide, and affray. Court acquitted accused 6-11 for lack of specific overt-acts and acquitted accused 1, 3, and 5 due to lack of medical corroboration. Convicted accused 2 and 12 under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Set aside conviction of Appellants 6 to 11 and Appellants 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10; convicted Appellants 2 and 12 under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment (concurrent with time already spent

Ambadipudi Jyothi, Prakasamd Dt and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

- •

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 728 & nr

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 728 OF omr

¶9

mav High Court ^ memorandum of grounds of CrI.A. aggrieved by the Judgment and sentence i the file of the court of the VI - imposed in SC.No. 90/2012 on Additional District and Sessions Judge Markapur, dated 13-6-2016.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Duddu Lazar, Son of late Rangaiah, Aged about 34 years, 2. Duddu Asi @ Aseerwadam, Son of late Rangaiah, Aged about 28

¶12

years,

¶13

Duddu Balaswami, Son of late Rangaiah, Aged about 42 years nndd" Son of late Rangaiah, Aged about 30 years. Duddu Manyamma, Wife of iate Rangaiah, Aged about 59 years,

¶14

Duddu Mariyamma, W/o. Late Rangaiah 59 years. 6. Seelam Nirmala, Wife of Narasaiah Aged about 39 years,

¶15

Duddu Bharathi, Wife of Baia Swami, Aged about 35 years,

¶16

Duddu Rani, Wife of Asi @ Aseerwadam, Aged about 24 years, 9. Duddu Lakshmi, Wife of Mariyadasu, Aged about 26 years, 10. Seelam Venkata Rao @ Venkataiah Son of Narasaith, Aged about 24 years. [Ait are beiong to SC Maia Community, live on Coolie Works, Resident of Bogolu Viiiage, Ardhaveedu Mandai Prakasam District]

¶17

I ' ■

¶18

...Petitioners / Accused 1 to 8,10 & 12 AND

¶19

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through Ardhaveedu Police Station.

¶20

...Respondent (Since Duddu Mariyadasu (A4) i.e.. Appellant No.4 died. Criminal Appeal against A4 stands abated.)

¶21

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016fCRLAMP. NO: 1137 OF 201fi)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances s ated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 13-6-2016 passed in SC.No 90/2012 on the file of the court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant :SRI. G VIJAYA SARADHI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 653 OF 201R

¶26

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment Dt. 13.6.2016 passed in S.C.No. 90 of 2012, on the file of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Markapur.

¶27

Between:

¶28

Ambadipudi Jyothi, W/o. Ambadipudi Deveedu, Occ; Coolee,

¶29

Ambadipudi Daveedu, S/o. Rajaiah, Occ; Pastor,

¶30

(Both are R/o. Birudulanarava Village, Thippayapalam Post. Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District.)

¶31

...Appellant / Accused No. 9 & 11 AND

¶32

h h > i

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad.

¶34

...Respondent / Complainant

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶37

The Court made the following: Common Order

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶39

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶40

PRESENT:

¶41

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶42

AND

¶43

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

¶44

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.728 & 653 OF 2016

¶45

CrI.A.No.728 of 2016: Between:

¶46

Duddu Lazar, S/o. Late Rangaiah, 34 years.

¶47

Duddu Asi @ Aseerwadam, S/o. Late Rangaiah, 28 years.

¶48

Duddu Balaswami, S/o. Late Rangaiah, 42 years.

¶49

Duddu Mariyadasu, S/o. Late Rangaiah, 30 years.

¶50

(Since 4* appellant/Accused No.4 died, appeal against A4 stands abated as per the Court Order dated 01.09.2023)

¶51

Duddu Mariyamma, W/o. Late Rangaiah, 59 years.

¶52

Seelam Nirmala, W/o. Narasaiah, 39 years.

¶53

Duddu Bharathi, W/o. Bala Swami, 35 years.

¶54

Duddu Rani, W/o. Asi @ Aseerwadam, 24 years.

¶55

Duddu Lakshmi, W/o. Mariyadasu, 26 years.

¶56

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03.2024

¶57

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶58

Page 2 of 16

¶59

Seelam Venkata Rao @ Venkataiah, S/o.Narasaiah, 24 years.

¶60

(All are living on coolie works and residents of Bogolu village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District)

¶61

... Appellants/Accused Nos.l to 8, 10 86 12

¶62

And

¶63

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh through Ardhaveedu Police Station.

¶64

... Respondent

¶65

Crl.A.No.653 of 2016: Between:

¶66

Ambadipudi Jyothi, W/o. Ambadipudi Daveedu, 38 years. Coolie.

¶67

Ambadipudi Daveedu, S/o. Rajaiah, 45 years. Pastor. (Both are residents of Birudulanarava village, Thippayapalam Post, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District)

¶68

... Appellants/Accused Nos.l to 8, 10 86 12

¶69

And

¶70

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh through Ardhaveedu Police Station.

... Respondent

1 ^

KSR, J & & BVLNC, J

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 KSR, J & & BVLNC, J Dt: 12.03.2024 Page 3 of 16 Counsel for the Appellant(s) ; Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/State : Sri Y.Nagi Reddy Public Prosecutor

¶76

This Court made the following:

¶77

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶78

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)

¶79

As both these criminal appeals arise out of same Sessions Case, they are being disposed of by way of^common judgment.

¶80

Accused Nos.l to 8, 10 and 12 in Sessions Case No.90 of 2012 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur, Prakasam District are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2016. Whereas, Accused Nos.9 and 11 in the said Sessions Case, are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.653 of 2016.

¶81

All the twelve (12) accused were tried by the learned^VI Additional District and Sessions Judge under three (03) charges. The first charge is under Section 148 Indian^Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) against Accused Nos.l to 12. The second charge is under Section 302 read with 149^IPC

¶82

¶83

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03,2024 ksr, j& bvlnc, j Page 4 of 16

¶84

against accused Nos.l to 12 and the last charge is under Section 307 read with 14Q TPr' i t4y ipc against accused Nos.l to 12.

¶85

The substance of the charge i IS that, on 04.07.2011 around 4.00 pm, all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object, went to the house of one P.Daveedu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) armed with deadly weapons and attacked him causing his death and in the same process they caused injuries to the wife of the deceased, P.W.2 and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with 149 IPC.

¶86

After completion of

¶87

trial. the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.l to 12 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for Life and also

¶88

to pay a fine of Rs.lOO/each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each.

¶89

Accused Nos.l to 12 were further convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also

¶90

¶91

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03.2024 Page 5 of 16

¶92

KSR, J & BVLNC, J

¶93

to pay a fine of Rs.lOO/- each, in default, to suffer^simple

¶94

imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each.

¶95

Accused Nos.l to 12 were also convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and were sentenced^to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five^(05)years and also to pay a fine of Rs.lOO/- each, in default,^tosuffer simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month^each.All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶96

The facts of the case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are as follows:

¶97

All the accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses and the deceased are residents of Bogolu^village, Ardhaveedu Mandal, Prakasam District. P.Ws 1 and 8 are the sons, P.W.2 is the wife and P.W.9 is the relative^ofthe deceased, respectively. P.Ws 3 to 7 are the persons^belonging to the prosecution group.

¶98

P.W.2 was working as a leader of Indira Dwacra Savings Group and A5 was working as Animator for several such groups. P.W.2 obtained a loan of Rs.70,000/- in^the said group. At that juncture, A5 said to have helped^P.W.2

¶99

'il:

¶100

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024 XSJt, J& BVLNC, J Page 6 of 16

¶101

for getting loan sanctioned in her favour, as such, A5 asked P.W.2 an amount of Rs.500/towards commission for arranging the loan. But, P.W.2 and her husband i.e., the deceased refused to giveei an amount of Rs.500/- to A5. On that, disputes arose between both the groups and they filed cases against each other.

¶102

On 25.03.2011, the security proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) were initiated before the Revenue Division Officer, Markapur uide M.C.4 of 2011 against both the groups.

¶103

While so, on 04.07.2011 both parties attended the office of RDO, Markapur i in connection with the above proceedings under Section 107 CrPC and returned to their village. At about 4.30 or 5.00 pm, all the accused went to the house of the deceased and attacked the deceased and his wife, P.W.2. After seeing the accused, P.W. 1 went inside the house due to fear. A12 beat P.W. 2 with an axe on her head and on her left hand; A2 stabbed her with a knife on her both hands; A4 hacked the deceased with an axe on his head; A1 beat the deceased with a stick; A5 beat the

¶104

''r

¶105

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Page 7 of 16 deceased and P.W.2 with stick; A6 to A11 said to have pelted stones and then, the accused left the scene of offence.

¶106

Immediately, both the injured were shifted to the Government Hospital, Cumbum in 108 ambulance. On 04.07.2011 at about 8.00 pm P.W. 17/Civil Assistant Surgeon of Government Hospital, Cumbum gave first aid to both the injured and issued wound certificate of P.W.2, which is marked as Ex.P9. Later, both the injured were shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. In the meanwhile, on the same day, at about 9.00 pm, P.W. 12/Head Constable visited Community Health Centre, Cumbum and recorded statement of P.W.l under Ex.PI and sent the same to Ardhaveedu PS on point of jurisdiction. On the basis of Ex.PI, P.W. 15 registered^acase in Crime No.59 of 2011 under Section 147, 148, 307 and 324 read with 149 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P4 is the copy of FIR.

¶107

P.W. 15 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report Ex.P6 in the presence of mediators. He also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P5. He seized the blood

¶108

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024

¶109

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶110

Page 8 of 16

¶111

Stained earth and controlled earth M.0.4 at the scene of offence. He also seized broken pieces of bangles M.0.5^atthe scene of offence. Then, he recorded the statements of P.Ws 1 to 7. Thereafter, he visited the Government Hospital,^Guntur and recorded the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2. He seized M.Os 7 to 10, blood stained clothes.

¶112

On 10.07.2011, P.W.16 took up further investigation and arrested accused Nos.l, 2, 4 to 10 and 12 at Sivalayam temple, Bogolu village and recorded their confession statements in the presence of P.W.12 and another. In pursuance of their confession, P.W.16 seized M.Os 1 to 3 and also an auto bearing registration No.AP27 T/R 7629^under Ex.P8. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died in the hospital. P.W.20 received death intimation from P.W.18, which is marked as Ex.P. 11.

¶113

On 22.07.2011 P.W.20 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.ll and another. Ex.P12 is the Inquest Report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws 1, 8 and 9 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the material objects to the Forensic Science

¶114

r ’

¶115

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Page 9 of 16

¶116

¶117

Laboratory. Ex.P. 13 is the FSL Report. On 22.07.2011, P.W.14 conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased who opined the cause of death was due to complications of head injury. He issued Ex.PS, Post-Mortem Certificate. After completion of investigation, P.W.20 filed charge sheet.

¶118

In support of its case, prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 20 and marked Ex.Pl to Ex.PlS and M.Os 1 to 10. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC and they denied the incriminating evidence found against them from the prosecution witnesses, but they did not choose to examine any witness in their defence.

¶119

Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted^the accused as stated above.

¶120

Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi and Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsels appearing for the appellants^and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶121

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶122

¶123

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03.2024 Page 10 of 16

¶124

As seen from the proceedings, dated 01.09.2023 the case against accused No.4 stands abated, as he died during the pendency of criminal appeal.

¶125

Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the accused Nos.l to 8, 10 and 12 strenuously contends that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7, who are shown as eye-witnesses^to the incident, suffers from number of contradictions^andtheir evidence is not tallying with each other and further, there was no corroboration to the ocular version of P.Ws 1 to 7 with the medical evidence adduced by P.Ws 14 and 17.

¶126

He further contends that so far as the deceased is concerned, the Doctor, P.W.14 found only two injuries^onthe body of the deceased and out of that, only one injury^was found to be fatal, which was attributed to A4. So far^asthe other accused are concerned, no specific overt-act^hasbeen attributed to them in respect of the attack on deceased.^So far as the overt-acts attributed to A1 and A5 are concerned. no corresponding injuries were found either on the^deceased or on P.W.2.

¶127

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024

¶128

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶129

Page 11 of 16

¶130

Sri P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A9 and All states that the only allegation made against A6 to All is that they pelted stones. An omnibus allegation was made against to A6 to All that they pelted stones, but no injuries were found either on the deceased or P.W.2. As such, as there are two rival groups in the village, the prosecution party implicated A6 to All^after due deliberations. They have implicated all the people belonging to opposite group without there being any specific overt-act attributed to them by making an omnibus allegation stating that A6 to All pelted stones on^P.W.2. As rightly pointed out, no corresponding stone injuries are found either on the deceased or on P.W.2.

¶131

We have perused the entire material on record. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7, there are number contradictions with regard to the specific overt-acts attributed to A1 to A5. Except with regard to overt-act attributed to A4 on the head of the deceased; so far as A2 and A12 are concerned, all the witnesses consistently^stated that they beat P.W.2 and the medical evidence also supports

¶132

i *

¶133

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024 ksr, j&bvlnc, j Page 12 of 16 the said version as per the corresponding injuries on P.W.2. Except these three persons, no overt-act has been shown by the prosecution with the medical evidence. No corresponding injuries were found either on the deceased or on P.W.2 with regard to other accused. As already pointed out, during the pendency of the present appeals. A4 died and appeal by A4 was already dismissed as abated.

¶134

Coming to the overt-acts attributed to A2 and A12, the injuries attributed to them are said to have been caused with an axe and knife. Of course, the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.17, in his evidence. gave the description of the injuries on P.W.2. He found two (02) injuries, (1) laceration over the scalp measuring 6 x 2 cms and (2) a small laceration over the irght had finger measuring 5 x 1 cms. He issued Ex.P.9, wound certificate. In Ex.P.9, he has stated that the injuries received by P.W.2 are simple mi nature. In view of the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution through P.W.17, we are of the opinion that A2 and A12 are liable for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

¶135

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024 KSR, J&BVLNC, J Page 13 of 16

¶136

To determine the existence of common object, the Court IS required to see the ci circumstances in which the incident had taken place and conduct of members of unlawful assembly including weapons they carried or used. Except a bald allegation that A6 to All pelted stones, nothing has been made out during the course of evidence connecting them for the offence under Section 149 IPC.

¶137

In view of the above facts and circumstances, so far as A6 to All are concerned, absolutely, prosecution is not able to prove their case. As such, A6 to All are entitled to be acquitted.

¶138

So far as Al, A3 and A5 are concerned, the overt-act attributed to them, have not been corroborated by the medical evidence and the Doctor, P.W.17 did not find any corresponding injuries on P.W.2 and deceased. The evidence of P.W. 14/Professor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, also did not find any corresponding injuiy attributed to A.l, A3 and AS. As such, Al, A3 and A5 are also entitled for benefit of doubt.

¶139

1^1

¶140

Crl.A.Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03.2024 ^SJt, J & BVLNC, J Page 14 of 16 28. So far A2 and A12 are concerned, as they are attributed with specific overt-acts and as there are corresponding injuries on the vital part of P.W. 2 i.e., head, they are liable for the offence under Section 307 IPC. So far as the deceased i concerned, only overt-act was attributed to A4, who is no more. Except that there are no other injuries on the person of the deceased.

¶141

In view of the above facts and circumstances, Criminal Appeal No.653 of 2016 is Allowed, setting-aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur against A9 and 11 i„ Sessions Case No.90 of 2012, dated 13.06.2016 and they are acquitted of the charges. As accused Nos.9 and 11 are already on bail, they are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapah of YSR Cuddapah District and comply the formalities in terms of the Judgment of the Batchu Kangaroo and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^.

¶142

2016 (3) ALT (Crl.) 505 (DB) (A.P.)

/ /

Crl,A,Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt: 12.03.2024

¶147

KSR, J&BVLNC, J

¶148

Page 15 of 16

¶149

So far as Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2016 is concerned, the same is Allowed in part setting aside the conviction^and sentence recorded by the learned VI Additional District^and Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Markapur for the offences under Sections 148, 307 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Instead, A2 and A12 are found guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted under Section 235 (2) CrPC.

¶150

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2016 states that the appellants/ accused Nos.l to 8, 10 and 12 have already served more than five years eight months of imprisonment.

¶151

In view of the said submission, A2 and A12 are sentenced to period already undergone by them for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Accused Nos.l to 3, A5 to A8, AlO and A12 are also directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddapah, YSR Cuddapah District and comply the formalities in terms of the Judgment of the Batchu Rangarao case.

¶152

CrI.A Nos.728 & 653 of 2016 Dt; 12.03.2024 KSR, J & BVLNC, J Page 16 of 16

¶153

Criminal Appeal No.728

¶154

of 2016 against A4 was already dismissed as abated as per the orders dated 01.09. 2023.

¶155

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these

¶156

criminal appeals, shall stand closed.

<br>

depu^reg[strar

//TRUE COPY//

To.

SECTION OFFICER

T The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge records) - Markapur. (with 2- The Superintendent, District. Central Prison, Cuddapah, YSR Cuddapah

¶163

One CC to Sri. 4. One CC to Sri. G ViJayTsaradr^An®'^^''' fOPUC] 5. Two CCS to Public Prn?»^ , 7 Advocate [OPUC] Amaravati.[0(JTJ of Andhra Pradesh at 7. Three CD Cop^?'’ of A.P. at Amaravati.

vna

-■

H,<3H COURT

'DATED:12/03/2024

COMMON ORDER