Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Public Prosecutor (Ap) on 16 December, 2025
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010575962018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2200/2018
Between:
1. DODDI GABRAYALU, OCC. UN EMPLOYEE, R/O. GAVARA,
GAVARASTREET,CHOWDUVADA (V), K. KOTAPADU MANDAL
...APELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad. Through SHO,
...RESPODENT
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the
High Court may be pleased to to allow the Crl., Appeal by setting aside
the judgment made in S C 9 of 2017 dt.21-03-20 on the file of the court of
the IX Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chodavaram, against
Appellant and pass.
IA NO: 1 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 condone the delay of 72 days in filing the above Criminal
Appeal against the Judgment made in SC.No.9/2017 dt.,21-03-2018 on
Page 2 of 12
the file of the Court of the IX Addl. District Sessions Judge (FTC)
Chodavaram and pass
IA 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 suspend the sentence of the judgment made in S C 9 of
2017 dt.21-03-2018 on the file of the court of the IX Addl. Dist. and
Sessions Judge (FTC) Chodavaram, Vishakapatnam and enlarge the
petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal and to
pass.
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. K SAI SWAROOP
2. LEGAL AID
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
Page 3 of 12
APHC010800672017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3547]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2200 of 2018
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Sole accused in Sessions Case No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chodavaram, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following two charges:
The first charge was under Section 509 I.P.C. and The Second charge was under Section 302 I.P.C.
2. Substance of the charge is that on 15.07.2016 evening, when father of the accused by name Doddi Nageswara Rao @ Yebu (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), chastised the accused for not doing any work, the accused abused the deceased and P.W.1 and on Page 4 of 12 16.07.2016, at about 6:00 a.m., the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased, broke the cot, chased the deceased with its cross bar and beat the deceased indiscriminately, causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 509 I.P.C.
3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 'life' and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C.
4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:
(i) The accused and all the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Chowduvada Village, K. Kotapadu Mandal. The deceased was also a resident of the same village. The accused is none other than the son of the deceased. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased and mother of the accused. On 15.07.2016 evening, when the deceased chastised the accused for moving like a vagabond, the accused abused both the deceased and P.W.1. On the next day i.e. on 16.07.2016, at about 6:00 a.m., P.W.1 served tea to the accused as well as to the deceased. At that juncture, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased, broke the Page 5 of 12 cot and took its cross bar. Due to fear for life, the deceased and P.W.1 ran away in different directions. But the accused chased the deceased and beat him indiscriminately on his head repeatedly, causing his instantaneous death. Later, the accused left the village. On the same day at about 9:00 a.m., P.W.1 went to Police Station and presented a report, Ex.P1.
(ii) On 16.07.2016, P.W.11-S.I. of Police, K. Kotapadu Police Station received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.43 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 509 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P8.
(iii) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, Chodavaram, after receiving information on 16.07.2016 at about 9:00 a.m., took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of offence, where he prepared scene observation report-Ex.P2 and seized M.O.1-cross bar in the presence of P.W.7. He also prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P9. He examined and recorded statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and another at the scene of offence. P.W.12 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W.8 and another.
Inquest report is marked as Ex.P3. He got the scene of offence photographed through P.W.9. Photographs were marked as Ex.P4. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem. Page 6 of 12
(iv) P.W.10, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Yellamanchilli, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to head injury. He issued a preliminary postmortem report- Ex.P5 and final report under Ex.P7.
(v) On 17.07.2016, at about 11:00 a.m., on receipt of information, P.W.12 apprehended the accused at Venkannapalem junction, seized his blood-stained clothes, arrested him and remanded him to judicial custody. On the same day, P.W.12 visited Chowdavada village and recorded statements of P.Ws.5, 6 and others. He sent material object to RFSL. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P6. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation, P.W.12 laid charge sheet.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, marked Exs.P1 to P9 and exhibited M.O.1.
6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him.
7. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 6, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Page 7 of 12
8. Heard Sri K. Sai Swaroop, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that P.W.1 is an interested witness and no reliance can be placed on her evidence. Insofar as P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 are concerned, learned counsel contends that their presence was not spoken to by P.W.1 either in her deposition or in her earliest report-Ex.P1. Learned counsel further contends that the appellant was suffering from mental ill-health. As such, he is protected under Section 84 I.P.C. Learned counsel further contends that the incident was preceded by an altercation between the accused and the deceased and hence, the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out. He further contends that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted the offence committed by the appellant may fall under Section 304 I.P.C. As such, he requests this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial judge.
10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal, contending that P.W.1, who is eye witness is none other than mother of the accused and she in her earliest report, has specifically stated that when the accused picked up the cross bar of the cot, due to fear of life, she and the deceased ran in different directions. Page 8 of 12 After running for some distance, when she turned back, she found the accused beating the deceased on the head with M.O.1. The version given by P.W.1 is consistent right from the stage of Ex.P1, and she in her evidence, stated that the mental condition of the accused was normal. The presence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 cannot be doubted since they are residents of the same locality. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
11. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record.
12. The testimony of P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and mother of the accused, is consistent right from the stage of Ex.P1-report. Though P.W.1 was cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited from her evidence. P.W.1, in the cross-examination, specifically stated that the mental health of the accused was good. P.W.1, in her evidence as well as in Ex.P1, has specifically stated that in the morning of 16.07.2016 at about 6:00 a.m. she prepared tea and gave tea to the deceased as well as to the accused. At that juncture, the deceased asked the accused to do some work so that they would perform his marriage, for which to the accused became wild and broke the cot. The accused chased the deceased with M.O.1-cross bar. P.W.1, in her evidence, further stated that the accused dealt blows on the head Page 9 of 12 of the deceased repeatedly, and the head of the deceased was crushed, and the brain portion came out of the skull. Since the evidence of P.W.1 is consistent right from Ex.P1, the same inspires confidence of this Court in placing reliance.
13. Coming to the other witnesses i.e. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6, all the three witnesses, in their evidence, have categorically stated that they are also residing in the same locality. While they were fetching water from public tap, they heard cries of P.W.1, deceased and the accused, and they witnessed the accused chasing the deceased and beating him repeatedly on his head with M.O.1. Though their names were not mentioned in Ex.P1, their presence cannot be doubted as all of them are residing in the same locality. No enmity was suggested to P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 to disbelieve their version. Though P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 were cross-examined, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. Insofar as the contention of the appellant that he was suffering from unsound mind at the time of the offence is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. When the accused pleaded insanity, the burden lies on him to establish by adducing evidence to that effect. Except stating about his insanity in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the appellant. Absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant was Page 10 of 12 suffering from insanity at the time of the incident. A mere plea in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot serve the purpose unless there is positive evidence adduced by the appellant to the effect that he is suffering from insanity at the relevant point of time.
14. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.1, no quarrel took place before the attack. P.W.1, in her evidence, has stated that the deceased asked the accused to do some work so that they would perform his marriage, on which the accused grew wild and killed the deceased. Further, as seen from the evidence of Doctor P.W.8, who conducted postmortem, the following injuries have been noticed:
External injuries:
1. Laceration of scalp over left parietal region measuring 4" x ½".
Pieces of brain coming out from the wound.
2. Left ear crushed irregularly.
3. Multiple fractures of frontal bone, both parietal bones, occipital bones, maxilla on both sides and jaw bone on both sides were present.
4. Neck fracture was present
5. Abrasions measuring 4" x 3" on right upper back, 1 ½" x ½" on right shoulder, 5" x3" on left upper back and 1" x ½" on left elbow were present.
Page 11 of 12Internal injuries:
1. Skull: Crushed out of shape. Multiple fractures on both sides of frontal bone, both parietal bones, occipital bone both sides of maxilla and Mandible were present. Brain matter is in the form of small pieces. Most of the brain matter spelt out.
2. Neck: fracture of 3rd and 4th cervical vertebrae present. Hyoid bone and trachea are normal.
3. Chest: Normal. Both lungs and heart are congested.
4. Abdomen: Stomach and intestines are pale. Liver, both kidneys and spleen are congested. Stomach, Urinary bladder and gall bladder are empty. Perineal region normal.
15. Thus, as seen from the medical evidence adduced through P.W.8 coupled with postmortem certificate and final report- Exs.P5 and P7, the appellant repeatedly beat the deceased on his head with a heavy stick and as stated supra, the accused has not placed any evidence to prove his insanity at the time of the incident. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to take protection either under Section 84 I.P.C. or under Section 304 I.P.C. As such, having analysed the entire evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellant committed murder of his father.
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, needs no interference.Page 12 of 12
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam FAC IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Chodavaram, in S.C.No.9 of 2017, dated 21.03.2018. It is needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant shall be given set off, as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated : 16.12.2025 IKN