3 KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455 OF 2019

APHC010164412019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3596]

WEDNESDAY, THE 14

th

DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 455/2019

Between:

1. K.NAGESWARA RAO, R/O MALACOLONY,

MATHAVARIPETA, MUNGANDA VILLAGE,

P.GANNAVARAM MANDAL, NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, CT NO 7372

...APPELLANT

AND

1. STATE OF AP, Rep by its Inspector of Police Ravulapalem

Circle, through Public prosecutor, high court of Andhra

Pradesh

...RESPONDENT

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying

that the High Court may be pleased to memorandum of appeal

against the order passed in SC No 220/2015 dt 07.01.2019, on

the file of the II Additional Sessions judge, Amalapuram,

E.G.District, sentencing the appellant herein to undergo life

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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 91 days in

presenting the appeal and pass

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. BALA KRISHNA V

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

3

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam)

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.220 of 2015, on the file

of the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, is

the appellant. He was tried and convicted by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced

him to suffer imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-,

in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Substance of the charge is that on 07.02.2015 at about

08.30 a.m., the accused, with the intention of causing death,

stabbed Rokkala Mutyalu (hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟)

with a steel knife on his stomach and right side of his neck,

thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:

i) The deceased was a resident of Mattavaripeta, Munganda

Village, P.Gannavaram Mandal. One Konku Laxmi is the

deceased's sister and the accused‟s wife. Due to family disputes,

the accused and his wife (the sister of the deceased) separated

five years prior to the incident. Thereafter, the accused stayed in

Mumbai, and K. Laxmi moved to Hyderabad and resided there. An

extent of land measuring Ac.0-10 cents situated in Munganda

Village stands in the name of K.Laxmi. While leaving for

4

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

Hyderabad, the deceased's sister requested the deceased to look

after the said property. Since then, the deceased had been

managing the property.

ii) About two months prior to the incident, the accused

returned from Mumbai to Munganda Village and began residing in

the house of one Jithuga Ram Prasad. Ten days prior to the

incident, the accused began digging at the said site, which was in

his wife‟s name. The deceased objected and reported the matter

to the panchayat and the V.R.O. The V.R.O. intervened and

stopped the accused from digging the land. The accused bore

grudge against the deceased.

iii) On 07.02.2015, at about 08.30 a.m., while the deceased

was returning home on his cycle and when he reached near the

house of Sadanala Ramudu (L.W-6) (not examined), the accused

came running, pushed the deceased and the cycle, and stabbed

him with a steel knife on the stomach, right side of neck, and

upper arm. The deceased collapsed into the arms of S.Ramudu,

who was sitting in front of his house. P.Ws-1 to 3 rushed to the

spot. The accused threatened them, threw the knife, and

absconded. P.W-4 and P.W-10 also witnessed the incident.

Subsequently, the injured was shifted to KIMS Hospital,

Amalapuram, for treatment.

5

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

iv) On receipt of the MLC (Medico-Legal Case) intimation

(Ex.P-5), P.W-9, ASI of Police, Amalapuram Taluka Police Station,

rushed to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram, recorded the statement

and obtained the thumb impression of the injured, which is marked

as Ex.P-6. P.W-9 then handed over the said statement to

P.W-12/Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Gannavaram Police Station,

who registered a case in Cr.No.24/2015 U/s.307 IPC, forwarded

the original FIR to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Kothapeta, and sent copies to all the concerned. FIR was marked

as Ex.P-8.

v) P.W-12, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.Gannavaram Police

Station, recorded statements of P.Ws-1 to 3 and another. He

visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators

P.W-7 and another, drafted the scene observation report, seized

blood-stained steel knife (M.O-1), blood-stained earth (M.O-2) and

controlled earth (M.O-3) under the cover of mediators report

Ex.P-1, and forwarded them to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

He prepared a rough sketch and photographed the scene of

offence with the station service camera. Ex.P-10 is the rough

sketch. Ex.P-11 is the photo of the scene of offence. P.W-12

examined P.Ws.4 to 6, P.W-10 and others.

vi) On the next day, i.e., on 08.02.2015, at about 04.00 a.m.,

after receipt of the death intimation, the FIR was altered from

6

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-12 is the altered FIR.

On the same day, P.W-13/Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem

Circle, inspected the scene of offence, which tallied with Ex.P-10,

the rough sketch prepared by P.W-12, and the scene observation

report (Ex.P-1). P.W-13 proceeded to Government General

Hospital, Kakinada, secured the presence of P.Ws-1 to 6 and

others, and recorded their statements.

vii) Thereafter, he secured the presence of panchayatdars,

P.W-7 and others, conducted inquest on the dead body in the

presence of the family members, marked as Ex.P-2, and

photographed the dead body using the station service camera.

Ex.P-15 are photographs, along with a compact disc including

photos under Ex.P-11. He sent the dead body for post mortem

examination.

viii) P.W-8, Associate Professor, Government General Hospital,

Kakinada, conducted autopsy over the dead body. He opined that

the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock associated

with a complication of injury to the jejunum and mesentery

(Ex.P-4).

ix) On 15.02.2015 at about 11.00 AM, P.W-7 (VRO) produced

the accused, along with his report (Ex-P-13), stating that the

accused confessed about the commission of offence. He arrested

the accused, and produced before the Judicial First Class

7

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

Magistrate Court, Kothapeta, along with a copy of the remand

report.

x) On 21.02.2015, P.W-13 visited Munganda Village,

re-examined P.W-1, and obtained copies of pattadar passbooks.

On 02.03.2015, M.Os-1 to 5 were sent to the Forensic Science

Laboratory. After completing the investigation, the police filed a

charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws-1 to

13, marked Exs. P-1 to P-17, and exhibited M.Os-1 to 5.

5. When the accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against

him. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were

marked on behalf of the defence.

6. Basing on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as

aforesaid.

7. Heard Sri V.Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant,

and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor representing the respondent/State.

8

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the deceased

was killed in a financial dispute involving Reddy Finance and that

the accused was falsely implicated. Moreover, the prosecution‟s

case is seriously flawed due to significant discrepancies and gaps

in the testimonies of P.W-1 and P.W-3, who were standing 50

meters away from the scene. P.W-2 arrived only after the incident,

and although P.W-10 claimed the accused stabbed the deceased,

there is a crucial contradiction among P.W-1, P.W-3, and P.W-10

regarding the timing of the incident.

8.1 Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine S. Ramudu,

who held the deceased immediately after the assault, and relied

solely on a thumb impression in the dying declaration, even

though the deceased was a signatory and prayed for allowing the

criminal appeal by acquitting the accused.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argues that the

testimonies of P.Ws-1 to 3 and P.W-10 are consistent, coherent,

and credible, demonstrating that they were present at the scene of

the offence and directly involved as witnesses.

9.1 It is further submitted that the dying declaration of the

deceased corroborates the ocular version spoken to by P.Ws-1 to

3 and P.W-10. Additionally, P.W-9, the ASI of Police, duly

9

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

recorded the deceased‟s statement while the deceased was in a

sound and fit state of mind.

9.2 Further, on 15.02.2015, the accused voluntarily made an

extrajudicial confession before P.W-7 and another independent

witness, admitting commission of the offence.

9.3 In light of the evidentiary value attached to the dying

declaration and the corroborative evidence on record, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge warrants no interference and

prays for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.

10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.

11. P.W-1 is the son of the deceased. P.W-2 is the wife of the

deceased. P.W-3 is the neighbour of the deceased. P.W-4 is a

relative of the accused. P.W-9 recorded the dying declaration of

the deceased. P.W-10 is the neighbour. P.W-1, P.W-3, P.W-4 and

P.W-10 directly witnessed the accused running from the opposite

direction, pushing the deceased off his bicycle and stabbing him at

three vital parts, i.e., the stomach, neck and underarm. The

deceased immediately collapsed into the arms of one Sadanala

Ramudu. P.W-1 and P.W-3, who were just 50 meters away, ran to

the scene. Immediately upon hearing the deceased's cries, P.W-2,

the deceased's wife, also rushed out of the house and saw the

10

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

accused stabbing the deceased. P.W-10, who was residing

opposite Sadanala Ramudu's house and brushing his teeth,

witnessed the incident. The testimonies of P.Ws-1 to 4 and

P.W-10 are consistent, leaving no room for ambiguity in identifying

the accused as the culprit.

12. The Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

deceased was a signatory and signed his name, but that thumb

impression was obtained on the dying declaration recorded by

P.W-9, ASI of Police. Consequently, the learned counsel

contended that the dying declaration is untrustworthy and that the

thumb impression obtained on it is forged.

13. However, this argument of the appellant cannot be

accepted. The doctor testified that they could not control the heavy

bleeding caused by the deceased's injuries and that the deceased

was physically incapacitated from signing. It is a well-settled

principle of law that mere affixation of a thumb impression does

not, by itself, render a dying declaration suspicious when physical

incapacity or medical weakness is established. Furthermore, the

dying declaration inspires full confidence as its contents align

consistently with the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-4,

and PW-10, and there is no evidence of tutoring or fabrication.

11

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

Further, the deceased was conscious and coherent and in a fit

state of mind at the time of recording of dying declaration Ex.P-6.

14. The appellant advanced a defense theory that the deceased

owed money to Reddy Finance, which subsequently hired hitmen

to eliminate him. The appellant's counsel failed to elicit any facts

supporting this theory during cross-examination. Merely putting

forward suggestions without any evidence will not support the

accused's case. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses

supported or even alluded to this theory, and the appellant

invented it for the purpose of the case.

15. The depositions of P.W-1 and P.W-3 clearly establish the

accused's motive. He bought the land when his relationship with

his wife was good. After a marital dispute, they separated, and he

moved to Mumbai. When he returned, he stayed with Ramprasad

and tried to sell the property. The deceased intervened and

stopped his activities, creating animosity that directly caused the

fatal attack.

16. The deceased was immediately admitted to hospital, as

stated by P.Ws-1 to 3. Although P.Ws-1 and 2 are family members

and interested witnesses, their testimonies are corroborated by

P.W-3 and P.W-10, who witnessed the accused inflicting knife

12

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

injuries on the deceased. Immediately upon admission, a Medico

Legal Intimation was sent to Amalapuram Taluk Police Station.

The police subsequently recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P-6).

This dying declaration forms the primary basis for conviction, as

the testimonies of P.Ws-1 to 4 and P.W-10 are consistent and

reliable. Furthermore, no prudent person would falsely implicate

an innocent person while on the deathbed.

17. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Crl.A.No.1978 of 2022 held as

follows:

“It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that

dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it

inspires the full confidence of the court. The Court is

required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state

of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was

not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. It has

further been held that, where the Court is satisfied about the

dying declaration being true and voluntary, it can base its

conviction without any further corroboration. It has further

been held that there cannot be an absolute rule of law that

the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of

conviction unless it is corroborated. It has been held that the

rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence.

13

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

The Court has observed that if after careful scrutiny, the

court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to

induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is

coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment

to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no

corroboration.”

18. In the case at hand, the deceased, in his dying declaration

(Ex.P-6) recorded by P.W-9, categorically stated that his brother-

in-law (accused) was digging soil on his sister‟s land. As his sister

had entrusted him with responsibility for the land, he objected and

brought the matter before the panchayat and the VRO, and the

VRO stopped the accused‟s attempts to dig earth. In pursuance of

the same, on 07.02.2015 at about 08.30 a.m., the accused

stabbed the deceased in the stomach and the right side of the

throat.

19. Upon perusal of the dying declaration (Ex.P-6), we have no

hesitation in holding that Ex.P-6 is consistent and corroborated by

the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, we

accept the dying declaration Ex.P-6, which is made in a fit state of

mind, and that it is not result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination.

Accordingly, it inspires confidence of the Court.

14

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

20. After careful scrutiny of the oral evidence of P.Ws-1 to 4 and

P.W-10, coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P-4 (post

mortem certificate), Ex.P-6 (dying declaration), Ex.P-7 (case sheet

of the deceased), Ex.P-13 (report of VRO) and Ex.P-14 (wound

certificate), we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that

the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, are sustainable on facts and law

and do not warrant interference by this Court.

21. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that the appeal fails and that the conviction

and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram, are liable to be confirmed.

22. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the

conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, against the appellant (Accused) for

the offence U/s.302 IPC in S.C.No.220/2015 dated 07.01.2019.

Needless to state that the period of sentence already

undergone by the appellant, shall be given set off under Section

428 Cr.P.C.

15

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

Consequently, any miscellaneous petitions pending, shall

stand closed.

_________________________

JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

__________________________

JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

14

th

October, 2026

PSK

Whether the judgment is:

Speaking -- Reasoned √

Reportable -- Non-Reportable √

16

KSR,J & JS,J

CRL.A.No.455/2019

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

05

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.455 OF 2019

14

th

October, 2026

W

PSK