Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yedida Anand Kumar vs The State Of Ap., on 4 September, 2025
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010056112018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 650/2018
Between:
1. YEDIDA ANAND KUMAR, R/O.DOOR NO. 7-197,
7
RAMACHANDRARAO PETA, KORUKONDA VILLAGE AND MANDAL,
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...AP
...APPELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at
Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
...RESPO Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to file the appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by the file of the Judge Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, dated 27 27-06- 2017 in SC.No. 241 of 2016 for the following among grounds among other. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 151 days in filing the Crl.a. before this Honourable Court against the judgment of the file of the Judge Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, East GodavarGodavarii District at Rajamahendravaram, dated 27-06-2017 2017 in SC.No. 241 of 2016.
2IA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 to release the petitioner on bail by suspending the sentence of imprisonment and fine passed by the file of the Judge Family Court cum IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram in SC.No. 241 of 2016 dated 27-06-2017, pending disposal of the present appeal before this Honourable Court.
IA NO: 3 OF 2018 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 Counsel for the Appellant:
1. LEGAL AID
2. RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri. Justice K. Suresh Reddy) The sole accused in Sessions Case No.241/2016 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge") is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following four charges:
(i) 1st charge was under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of one Yedida Vijaya Lalitha @ Lalitha (hereinafter referred to as 'D.1')
(ii) 2nd charge was under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Geddam Nagabhushanam (hereinafter referred to as 'D.2')
(iii) 3rd charge was under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Khandavalli Kumari (hereinafter referred to as 'D.3')
(iv) 4th charge was under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to PWs 3, 4 & 6.
After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for "LIFE" and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo Simple 4 Imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 24.12.2015 at about 12.15 P.M., the accused intentionally caused the death of D.1 at her house situated at Ramachandra Rao Peta and when D.2 intervened, the accused also caused his death at the same place and thereafter the accused went to the house of D.3 and caused her death in front of her house and when PWs 3, 4 & 6 interfered, he also caused injuries on them with Iron pipe, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 & 324 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:
(a) The accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Korukonda Village, East Godavari District. PW.2 is none other than the elder brother of the accused. PW.1 is the daughter of PW.2. PWs 3 to 5 are neighbours of the accused. PW.5 is none other than the wife of D.2.
The parents of the accused were having 2 daughters and 4 sons and the accused is the third son. About 12 years prior to the date of incident, the elder brother of the appellant died due to ill-health. His elder sisters by name Sangeetha and Jyothi also died due to ill-health. The appellant is residing along with PW.2, wife of PW.2 (D.1), and PW.1 in their own house at Korukonda Village. The mother of the appellant told him when he was in teenage that his elder brother and elder sisters died due to witchcraft done by their neighbours i.e., D.1 to D.3. As such, the accused developed animosity 5 against them. About 10 years prior to the date of incident, the appellant and his brother PW.2 murdered one Bommi Suresh, which was subject matter of Cr.No.267/2004. The appellant and his brother PW.2 were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for LIFE. After completion of their sentence, PW2 and appellant were released from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam. Since then the accused has been residing along with his father, elder brother PW.2, his sister-in-law D.1 and PW.1. When they were undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, the mother of the appellant passed away. After releasing from the Jail, D.1 was ill-treating the appellant regularly on one pretext or the other and also she used to do bad propaganda about his criminal history. Hence, he remained unmarried as no one is coming forward to give bride to him. As such, the appellant bore grudge against D.1 to D.3.
(b) While so, on the morning of 24.12.2015, the appellant went to the shop of PW.16 and purchased Iron pipe M.O.1. On the same day, PW.2 went to Nellipudi village at about 12.15 P.M. on his business purpose. At that juncture, PW.1, who is the daughter of PW.2, came there. The accused beat PW.1 saying "who killed his mother". On that, D.1 came out and questioned him as to why he is beating her daughter PW.1. The accused became wild and beat D.1 with M.O.1 pipe indiscriminately on her head and other parts of the body. D.1 succumbed to injuries on the spot. Hearing the cries, D.2 along with his wife PW.5 and his daughter PW.6 came to the scene of offence and questioned the appellant. The appellant pounced upon D.2 and beat on his head indiscriminately with same iron pipe M.O.1 and caused severe bleeding 6 injuries to D.2, who died on the spot. He also beat PWs 3, 4 & 6 with M.O.1 Iron pipe. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of D.3 situated in other street and found her cleaning utensils in front of her house. The accused beat D.3 with M.O.1 Iron pipe on the head and face indiscriminately and she succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 2.00 P.M., while undergoing treatment in the Government Headquarters hospital, Rajamahendravaram. At about noon time, PW.20 Sub-Inspector of Police, Korukonda Police Station received telephonic information to the effect that some galata is going on at Ramachandrarao Peta, Korukonda. Immediately, he informed the Inspector of Police PW.22 about the said galata at about 12.45 noon. Immediately, PW.22 went to the scene of offence and found dead bodies of D.1 & D.2. He secured presence of PW.1 and recorded her statement Ex.P1 at about 1.15 P.M. and endorsed the same to PW.20 for registering the crime. On the basis of Ex.P1, PW.20 registered a case in Cr.No.186/2015 under Sections 302, 307 & 324 IPC. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. Ex.P23 is the F.I.R. PW.22 received copy of F.I.R. He recorded a detailed statement from PW.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW.22 secured presence of PW.9 and others and prepared an observation reports Exs.P2 & P3 at the first scene of offence. He also seized blood stained cement floor pieces and control cement floor pieces marked as M.Os 2 to 5 at the dead bodies of D.1 & D.2. He also seized M.O.6 blood stained towel situated at the head of D.2. He got the dead bodies of D.1 & D.2 photographed through PW.17 and photographs were marked as Exs.P12 to 16, 20 & 21. Thereafter, he proceeded to 2 nd scene of 7 offence situated at a distance of 50 meters from 1st scene. He seized M.Os. 7 & 8 blood stained cement road piece and control cement road piece at the 2 nd scene of offence. He got the scene photographed through PW.17 marked as Ex.P21. He also prepared an observation report Ex.P3. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P25 pertaining to both the scenes. Then, he went to 1 st scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of D.1 in the presence of PW.9 and others. He also held inquest over the dead body of D.2 in the presence of PW.9 and others. Inquest reports pertaining to D.1 & D.2 are marked as Exs.P4 & P5. At the time of inquest, PW.22 recorded statements of PWs 2 to 4. He referred PWs 3 & 4 to the Government Hospital for treatment. He sent the dead bodies of D.1 & D.2 to the Government Hospital for conducting Postmortem examination.
(c) PW.21 Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.1. He opined the cause of death was due to injury to vital organ brain. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P24 pertaining to D.1.
(d) PW.12 Deputy Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.2. He opined the cause of death was due to injury to vital organ brain. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P7 pertaining to D.2.
(e) On the same day, at about 3.45 P.M., PW.22 received death intimation of D.3 who died in the Government Hospital while undergoing 8 treatment. He instructed PW.19 to conduct inquest over the dead body of D.3 at Government Hospital. Inquest report pertaining to D.3 was marked as Ex.P6. At the inquest, PW.22 recorded statements of PWs 5 & 6 and others. PW.22 sent the dead body for Postmortem examination.
(f) PW.13 Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of D.3. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to crenio cerebral injury. He issued Postmortem certificate Ex.P8 pertaining to D.3.
(g) On 25.12.2015, PW.22 apprehended the accused in Simhapuri Nagar in the presence of PW.18 and another. He found blood stains on the clothes of the accused. On the confession made by the accused, he seized M.O.1 Iron Pipe from the bushes. He also seized clothes of the accused MOs.17 & 18 in the presence of mediators. Admissible portion of the confession which led to the recovery of M.O.1 was marked as Ex.P22. On the same day, the accused was remanded to judicial custody.
(h) PW.14 Civil Assistant Surgeon examined PW.3 and issued Wound Certificate Ex.P9. He also examined PW.4 and issued Wound Certificate Ex.P10. PW.15 Civil Assistant Surgeon examined PW.6 and issued Wound Certificate Ex.P11.
(i) PW.22 sent MOs 1 to 18 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (R.F.S.L.) under a letter of advice Ex.P26. R.F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P27. PW.22 also obtained certified copy of the judgment in 9 Sessions Case No.206/2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry which was marked as Ex.P28. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, PW.22 filed charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 22, marked exhibits P.1 to P.27 and exhibited MOs.1 to 18. On behalf of the defence, DW.1 was examined and Ex.X.1 was marked.
5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
6. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid.
7. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the mental health condition of the appellant was not good and he is suffering from mental illness. In support of his contention, the Doctor D.W.1 was examined and also Ex.X.1 case sheet pertaining to the appellant's mental health is marked. He further contended that the appellant was suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder (mood disorder and psychotic disorder). Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that even while undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail in Sessions Case No.206/2006 he was referred to the Government Hospital for mental care, Visakhapatnam. As such, learned counsel for the appellant 10 contends that the present case falls within the exceptions particularly section 84 IPC.
9. Earlier when the matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2025, learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested time to obtain instructions from the Jail authorities to find out the mental health condition of the appellant.
10. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the written instructions furnished by the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. In the annexure to the said written instructions the certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, it is stated as follows:
"The Prisoner is suffering with BPAD since more than 9 years and Diabetes since 2½ years and on Medication, Symptomatic treatment was given when required.
The AP Prisons Department can provide the required medical treatment to this prisoner.
This institution is taking all required care and precautions with regard to the health of the prisoner."
In view of the above instructions furnished by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Central Prison Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, the health condition of the appellant is stable.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for taking aid of Section 84 IPC. He contends that DW.1 Doctor in her evidence stated as follows: 11
"I did not treat the accused personally, but my assistants treated the accused under my supervision. When the accused is having episode of Bipolar affective disorder he is conscious and he is aware what he is doing. Even the accused is having personality disorder he is conscious and he is aware what he is doing."
In view of the specific admission made by DW.1 in her cross-examination, it is stated that the health condition of the appellant is normal, but the behavior of the appellant is aggressive.
(a) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that earlier also, the appellant was involved in a murder case which was the subject matter of Sessions Case No.206/2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry and he along with PW.2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for LIFE. After releasing from the Jail after completing his imprisonment, again he is involved in the present murder case, in which he killed three persons and caused injuries to PWs 3, 4 & 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor finally contends that the appellant is very much aware of the acts for which he is doing. The evidence of PW.1 is crystal clear as to how the accused killed D.1 & D.2.
12. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
13. The evidence of PWs 1 to 6 & 8 established the attack made by the appellant on D.1 to D.3. PWs 3, 4 & 6 are injured witnesses in the hands of the accused. Though PWs 1 to 6 & 8 were cross-examined at length, nothing adverse has been established by the defence. The ocular version adduced through PWs 1 to 6 & 8 was corroborated by the medical evidence of PWs 12, 12 13, 14, 15 & 21. Further, there is no evidence to show that at the time of attacking D.1 to D.3, the appellant was suffering from mental disorder. DW.1 in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that the appellant is capable of understanding the things what he was doing.
14. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove that the accused killed D.1 to D.3 and caused injuries to PWs 3, 4 & 6.
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram in Sessions Case No.241/2016 vide judgment dt. 27.06.2017.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram in Sessions Case No.241/2016 vide judgment dt. 27.06.2017. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 04.09.2025 MVA