Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 474

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K. SURESH REDDY, K. SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ.
D. Naga Gopal Reddy, S/o. D. Krishna Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP., Rep PP., Rep by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.383 of 2017, 505 of 2017 & 806 of 2017
Decided On : 31-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Varun Byreddy
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP)

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on a solitary witness's testimony requires it to be unimpeachable and corroborated.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, and 427 - Criminal Appeals against conviction and acquittal - The Sessions Judge convicted A.1 and A.10 for murder and attempted murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment and fines, while acquitting others - The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of P.W.4, the deceased's father, who was also injured - The court found significant doubts regarding P.W.4's reliability as a witness due to inconsistencies in his statements and lack of corroborating evidence - The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and noted the prosecution's failure to establish the presence of P.W.4 at the scene - The conviction was set aside, and A.1 and A.10 were acquitted. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 45)

JUDGMENT :

(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.)

These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 09.03.2017 in Sessions Case No.379 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. Originally, a case in crime No.56 of 2013 of Dhone Rural Police Station was registered against A.1 to A.13. Police, after completion of investigation, deleted names of A.2 to A.4 and A.6, and filed charge sheet against the other accused viz. A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences - punishable under Sections 148 read with 149; 302 read with 149; 307 read with 149 and 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13. After full-fledged trial, vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found A.5, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.11, A.12 and A.13 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC; 307 read with 149 IPC and 148 read with 149 IPC and found A.1, A.5, A.7 to A.13 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 427 read with 149 IPC, and accordingly, acquitted them of the respective charges.

3. The learned Sessions Judge found A.1 and A.10 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC, 148 read with 149 IPC and 326 read with 149 IPC and accordingly convicted them of the said offences. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 read with 149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced A.10 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 148 read with 149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, A.10 preferred Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2017 and A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.505 of 2017 before this Court. Challenging the acquittal of A.5, A.7 to A.9 and A.11 to A.13, P.W.4 preferred the Criminal Appeal No.806 of 2017.

5. Substance of charge against the accused is that on 14.04.2013 at about 10.00 PM, near in the outskirts of Yerraguntla village after crossing Dhone, at water-pipes causeway near culvert on Yerraguntla village-Dhone road, all the accused formed themselves into unlawful assembly and caused death of Mallu Sreenivasa Reddy (deceased), and in the course of same transaction, the accused attempted to commit murder of P.W.4.

6. Case of the prosecution is as follows:

(a) P.W.4 is father of Mallu Sreenivasa Reddy (deceased). Marriage of the deceased was formed with L.W.5-Sujatha about 14 years prior to the incident. P.W.1 is co-brother of the deceased. P.W.3 is sister of the deceased. She was married in the year 1998 to one Sivasankar Reddy, son of Chinna Subba Reddy of Chinna Malkapuram village, Dhone mandal. In the year 2002, her husband and her father-in-law died, leaving Sudheendranatha Reddy, brother-in-law of the deceased, who is of unsound mind, and sister-in-law of the deceased by name Bhavani, who is deaf and dumb by birth. In the year 2004, in the panchayat at the behest of the deceased and A.6, partition of the properties was effected between P.W.3, Sudheendra Reddy and