1 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
APVS000060052023IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Sri Chinnamsetty Raju
Principal Sessions Judge,
Friday, the 08th day of May, 2026.
SESSIONS CASE No.141/2023
(PRC.No.12/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthapalli in Cr.No.06/2015 of A.Annavaram PS)
Name of the Complainant:State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Circle, A.Annavaram Police Station, Alluri Sita Ramaraju District.
Name of the Accused:Korra Ramarao S/o late Raja Rao, aged 48 years, Cultivation,R/oPuthikamettaVillage, Thammangula Panchyat, Chinthapalli Mandal.
Date, time and place of:On 20.03.2015 at 22.00 hours at the house of the Occurrence:Accused at Putikametta Village, Tammangula Panchayat, Chintapalli Mandal, Alluri Sitarama Raju District.
Charges:Accused is charged U/s.302 of IPC.
Plea of the Accused:Accused pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:Accused found guilty.
Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused, found guilty under Section 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of the same he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code; MOs 1 to 10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time; Accused is explained that he has a right to prefer an Appeal to Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati against this Judgment and he can take the Legal Aid, if necessary, from the Hon’ble High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi, Nelapadu.
2 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
Prosecution conducted by: Sri Samireddi Rama Murthy Naidu, learned Incharge Public Prosecutor, District Court, Visakhapatnam.
Accused defended by : Sri USR Raju, B.Ravindra Kumar, Advocates for Accused.
This Sessions Case came before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Samireddi Rama Murthy Naidu, learned Incharge Public Prosecutor for State-Complainant and Sri USR Raju, B.Ravindra Kumar, Advocates for Accused; and upon perusing the material and evidence record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is a Sessions Case, which was registered by virtue of an
Order, dated 23.06.2023 in a Preliminary Registered Case No.12/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthapalli.
2.By passing said Order, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam and the Sessions Judge,
Visakhapatnam numbered the same for disposal in accordance with law.
3. This Court framed a Charge against the Accused for the offence U/s.302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused denied the said charge by pleading not guilty.
4.One Korra Koone, hereinafter referred to as ‘Deceased’ of this case. She was a resident of Putikametta Village, Tammangula
Panchayati, Chinthapalli Mandal. Accused was the husband of the deceased and he was also a resident of Putikametta Village, Tammangula
Panchayati, Chinthapalli Mandal.
5. As Accused denied the said Charge, this Court conducted trial, wherein witnesses from P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and documents from Exs.P1 to P8, besides from M.Os.1 to 10 were marked on behalf of
Prosecution.
3 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
6.One Marri Nageswara Rao/PW.1 is the younger brother of the deceased and he is the alleged eye-witness to the occurrence and he gave a report to the Police. He was a resident of said Putikametta
Village, Tammangula Panchayati, Chinthapalli Mandal; PW-2 is also younger brother of the deceased and he is a resident of Bhoomidiboddu
Village, G.Madugula Mandal; PW-3 is the neighbour of the deceased and he was also a resident of Putikametta Village, Chinthapalli Mandal; PW-4 is the Sarpanch of the said Tammangula Village and he is one of the mediators for the scene observation and inquest; PW-5 is one of the mediators at the time of recording of confessional statement of Accused and he is also a resident of A.Annavaram Village; PW-6 is the Civil
Assistant Surgeon, who conducted Post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased; PW-7 is the SI of Police, A.Annavaram PS, who registered the case in Crime No.6/2015 basing on the report of PW-1;
PW-8 was the Inspector of police, Paderu Circle, who conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.
7.Accused was examined U/s.313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and he denied the incriminating evidence available on record and got examined his younger brother’s daughter as DW-1.
8. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(a)The deceased and Accused are the wife and husband and they have two children viz. Daughter/Korra Chinno, who is married and son/Korra Sanyasi Rao, who is unmarried. The Accused addicted to drinking and used to beat the deceased indiscriminately by suspecting her fidelity.
(b)On 20.03.2015 at about 22.00 hours, when brother of deceased/PW-1 was at the house of his deceased elder sister, Accused came and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and abused her in foul language, suspecting her marital fidelity, alleging that she continued her illicit intimacy with one Muvvala Bisto of Valasalamamidi Village of 4 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
G.Madugula Mandal, in that altercation, in a spur of moment, the accused brought a knife and stabbed on the right forearm of the deceased in order to kill her, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injury on her right forearm, then the Accused stampeded the deceased on her chest and kicked her with legs indiscriminately, consequently, the deceased died on the spot and the accused escaped from the house.
(c)Basing on the report, lodged by Marri Nageswara Rao/PW-1 on 22.03.2015, PW-7/Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Annavaram PS, registered the same as a case in Crime No.6/2015 of A.Annavaram P.S., for the offence U/s.302 of IPC against the Accused and he forwarded the same to Ch.Rudra Sekhar, Inspector of Police/PW-8, Chinthapalli Circle, who investigated the case.
(d)Inspector of Police/PW-8 took-up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, seized one knife at the dead body, blood stained earth, controlled earth under the cover of a scene observation report in the presence of mediators viz.,PW-4/Sarivanti Lakshmayya, and Sagina Sanjeeva
Rao/LW-13 and held inquest over the body of Deceased in the presence of panchayatdars viz., Marri Nageswara Rao/PW-1, Marri Suribabu/PW- 2, Korra Alsu/LW-3 and Marri Apparao/LW-4 and he got photographed the scene of offence and sent the dead body for autopsy to Government
Hospital, Chinthapalli, where Dr.P.Raghuram,/PW-6, Medical officer,
Community Health Centre, Chinthapalli, conducted Postmortem examination and issued a Postmortem Certificate and opined that the
Deceased died due to hypovolenic shock, secondary to vascular injury leading to cardio-respiratory arrest.
(e)On 24.03.2015, the Accused himself voluntarily surrendered
before PW-8/Inspector of police and gave his confessional statement,
recorded by PW-8 in the presence of mediators viz., Sundru
Chinnabbai/PW-5, Kunduru Govinda Rao/LW-14, same was signed by the 5 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
Accused and mediators, then the Accused was arrested and sent to judicial remand.
(f) Inspector of Police/PW-8 sent the seized material objects to
K.Geetha Madhuri/RFSL/LW-16 for analysis, and he received PM
Report/Ex.P5 and Analysis report/Ex.P8 and on completion of the investigation, he laid the Charge-sheet.
9 .Case of the Accused is one of total denial. Accused specifically contended that on the date of alleged offence at about 10.30
AM, when the Deceased went to a creek for washing clothes, she fell down on the korru i.e., branch of tree attached to earth, and sustained injury to her right hand elbow and she succumbed to injury on the same day night at 12.00 ‘O’-clock; Accused never committed the alleged offence and this case was foisted against him.
10. To substantiate his case, the Accused got examined, one
Korra Anne, who is the daughter of his own younger brother as DW-1, who supported the case of the Accused.
11.Heard both sides on 28.04.2026. Learned Incharge Public
Prosecutor reiterated the case of the Prosecution as mentioned supra and inter alia, contended that the prosecution by examining PW-1 to
PW-8 and exhibiting the documents from Exs.P1 to P8 and material objects from MOs-1 to 10, proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the Accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder.
12.Learned Advocates for the Accused specifically contended that the Accused is an innocent person, he never committed the alleged offence and a false case was foisted against him and the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts and they prayed to acquit the Accused.
6 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
13 . Now, the following points will arise for consideration of this
Court:
1. Whether the Accused intentionally killed his wife i.e. Deceased/Korra Koone on 20.03.2015 at 10.00 pm., at his house at Putikametta Village, Tammangula Panchayati, Chithapalli Mandal, by stabbing with a knife/MO-1 on her right forearm and by kicking with legs indiscriminately on her chest, thereby he committed an offence U/Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code?
2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?
3. To what point?
POINT Nos. 1 and 2:
14.As per section 302 of Indian Penal Code, ‘whoever commits
Murder, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and
shall also liable for fine’.
15.Section 300 of Indian Penal Code deals with ‘Murder’.
Same is extracted without illustrations and exceptions hereunder, for better appreciation of the matter.
300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— (Secondly) —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— (Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or— (Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
299. Culpable Homicide.—Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing 7 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Burden of proving fact especially within Knowledge: When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustration:
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
16.In order to answer the above-mentioned point Nos.1 & 2, the following case law is worth noticeable.
(a)In a case, Nawab Vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 60, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character.”
(b)In a case, Balvir Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand reported in
AIR 2023 Supreme Court 5551, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter- alia, observed as follows:
“When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure may provide an additional link to chain of circumstances. …..
8 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
…. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever, therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased”
(c) In a case, Jayantilal Verma Vs State of MP (Now
Chhattisgarh)reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 665, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. … The fact that the family members were in the home some time
before is also quite obvious. No explanation has been given as to
how the wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation….”
(d) In a case, Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs The State of Uttar
Pradeshreported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 435, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Prosecution has discharged its part of burden by leading evidence of which it was capable by substantiating the fact that there has been demand of dowry; deceased has been taken to her inlaws house; at the time of death, the deceased has been staying with her in laws and appellants are the inmates of the house, death in question has taken place inside the house, injuries caused clearly reflects that it is a case of murder.”
(e) In a case, Kalu @ Laxminarayan Vs State of Madhya
Pradeshreported in 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 1238, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Appellant and deceased living alone with their minor child – Deceased found dead – No eye witnesses – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution proving it to be homicidal death – Not explaining the death and the circumstances in his statement under section 313 CrPC – Merely stating that he had 9 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
been implicated – Courts below rightly concluded that appellant committed the offence – No error in conviction.”
(f) In a case, State of Rajasthan Vs Takur Singhreported in 2014 4 Crimes (SC) 400, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Section 106- Facts within special knowledge of accused – not explained by him – Will be strong circumstance pointing to his guilt – Instantly accused bolting himself, wife and one year old daughter – Wife found dead – Nobody else entered the room – It was for him to explain the circumstances of death of his wife – Not doing so in statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. – Section 106 attracted.”
(g) In a case, Balu Sudam Khalde and another Vs The State of
Mharastrareported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 295, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Section 18 of Evidence Act – Admission – Suggestion made by Defence Counsel to a witness in cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind accused and accused cannot get away on plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in nature of admissions against his client – Any concession or any admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except concession on the point of Law.”
(h) In a case, Sabitri Samantaray Vs State of Odishareported in 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 485, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“……previous hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused etc., non-explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt.”
(i) In a case, Pramod Kumar Vs State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 534, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“The principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence accepted.” 10 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
(j) In a case, Surendra Singh and another Vs State of
Uttarakhandreported in 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 1223, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“In our view, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these four prosecution witnesses on this issue. Firstly, no evidence was adduced by the defense; Secondly no explanation was given by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings, thirdly all the four witnesses knew each other including the accused persons and Rakshanand because all were the residents of one village and of nearby area. ….. No explanation was given by the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings and lastly, this was one of the relevant circumstances to prove the chain of events which lead to commission of the crime.”
(k) In a case, State Govt. of NCT Delhi Vs Sunil and another reported in 2000(7) Supreme 728, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Non-attestation of seizure memo by independent witnesses cannot be ground to disbelieve recovery of articles seized consequent upon statement of accused – No requirement either under section 27 of Evidence Act or under section 161 of Cr.P.C., to obtain signature of independent witnesses – When recovery is effected pursuant to statement of accused document prepared by IP., need not necessarily be attested by independent witnesses – Court has to believe version of Police to be correct if it is otherwise, shown to be unreliable.”
(l) In a case, Rameshbhai Mohan Bhai Koli and others Vs State of Guajaratreported in 2010 0 Supreme (SC) 1003, Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Evidence of Public Servants – Prima faice, public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously – Their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case – If the evidence of investigating Officer is convincing, it cannot be discarded simply because the seizure witness did not support it.” 11 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
(m)In a case, State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2988, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“In this context we may profitably utilise the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: "When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.”
(n)In a case, Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1436, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Recently this Court has held in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar (supra) that the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be utilised in a situation like this. Shri U.R. Lalit pleaded for reconsideration of the said legal position. According to him, the ratio laid down in that decision is not in tune with the well accepted principle of criminal law that the accused is entitled to keep his tongue inside his mouth as the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.”
(o)In a case, Ram Gulam Chaudhury and Ors vs. State of
Bihar, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2842, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“When the abductors withheld that information from the Court there is every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the boy. Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the 12 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The Appellants by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court to draw a different inference.”
(p)In a case, P.K.Arjunan vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2331, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows:
“Section 106 of the Evidence Act also is a clear pointer to show that whoever has any special knowledge of fact, onus of proof in respect thereof would be on him.”
17.This Court perused the evidence on record by keeping the above mentioned law and case law.
18.PW-1, who is the younger brother of the deceased, lodged
FIR., as in Ex.P1, alleging that the deceased was murdered. Perusal of his evidence goes to show that in order to resolve the disputes between the Accused and the deceased, on 20.03.2015 at about 10.00 PM., he went to the house of his deceased sister, by that time the Deceased was alone in the house and after ten minutes, the Accused came in drunken state and scolded PW-1 that the Deceased had illegal relationship with one Muvvala Beesu of Valasamamidi Village and he would kill the
Deceased and threatened PW-1, if he would come in his (Accused) way.
Further, his evidence goes to show that said Beesu is the cousin of
Accused.Further, his evidence goes to show that the Accused stabbed the deceased with a knife on her right ribs and when PW-1 raised cries, the Accused ran away from the spot by throwing the Knife at the outside of the house, then PW-2/Marri Suribabu, LW-4/Marri Apparao and others came and noticed the injuries of the Deceased. Further, his evidence goes to show that as there is no transportation from his village to Police station in night time, he gave a report to police on 22.03.2015.
13 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
19.In cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that due to fear he did not prevent the Accused from stabbing the Deceased, and three days prior to the death of deceased, PW-2/Marri Suribabu and LW-3/Korra Alsu came to his house to resolve the dispute between the Accused and deceased. PW-1 categorically denied the suggestion of Accused that when Deceased and one Korra Aane/DW-1 went to the Creek for washing cloths, Deceased fell down near the creek due to fits and on intimation by said Aane/DW-1, the Accused rushed to the creek and brought the
Deceased to the house.
20.PW-2, who is also one of the younger brothers of deceased, gave evidence that four days prior to the death of deceased, he and
LW-3/Korra Alsu came to the house of PW-1 to resolve disputes between the accused and deceased. Further, his evidence goes to show that when he was in the house of PW-1, he heard cries of PW-1 from the house of accused and he himself and LW-4/Marri Apparao rushed to the house of accused and noticed that the accused was running away by throwing a knife/MO-1 in front of the house of accused and he was present at the time of Inquest.
21.PW-3 gave evidence that on hearing cries of the Deceased, he rushed to the house of the Deceased and noticed her injuries on her right hand joint and right ribs.
22. PW-4 gave evidence that he acted as a mediatorand in his presence police observed the scene of offence, and seized MO-1/knife, blood stained earth and controlled earth and panch slips were affixed on them, he along with LW-13/S.Sanjeeva Rao, Sarpanch of Tammangula
Village, signed on panch slips and scene observation report as in Ex.P2.
Further, his evidence revealed that in his presence and Vasturi
Satyamani/LW-11, police conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and they singed on Inquest report as in Ex.P3.
14 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
23.PW-5, who is a resident of Bandabayalu village, gave evidence that on 24.03.2015 at the request of PW-8/Inspector of police,
Chintapalli Circle to act as mediator, he went to the police station, where he noticed LW-14/Kunduru Govinda Rajulu, resident of Bandabayalu village and the accused and police arrested the accused and in their presence the accused gave his confession, which was reduced into writing under a mediator’s report as in Ex.P4 and seized the clothes of the accused as in MO-2 and MO-3.
24.It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless it is corroborated by other evidence, the same alone cannot be relied upon. The alleged confession of
Accused is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charge against
Accused because it was recorded in the Police Station.
25.PW-6 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health
Center, Chinthapalli, gave evidence that on 22.03.2015 at about 4.00
PM., he conducted postmortem examination over the body of the deceased by name ‘Korra Koone’ brought by the Inspector of police/PW-8 through a constable, he found internal and external injuries over the dead body and issued PM Examination report as in Ex.P5 and he opined that the Deceased died of Hypovolenic shock, secondary to vascular injury leading to cardio respiratory arrest and the injuries under the head of ‘external injuries’ are possible to be caused with MO-1/knife.
26.PW-7/Sub-Inspector of Police, gave evidence that on 22.03.2015 at 12.00 (noon), PW-1 came to A.Annavaram Police Station, presented a report as in Ex.P1, he registered the same as a case in
Cr.No.6/2015 for the offence U/Sec.302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, by issuing a printed FIR., as in Ex.P6.
27.PW-8/Inspector of police, gave evidence about the investigation he made in this case, from the scene of offence he seized 15 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
Mos.1, 4 and 5 and he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence as in
Ex.P7 and conducted Inquest over the body of the deceased and got drafted inquest report as in Ex.P3, seized MO-6 to MO-10 viz., Saree,
Blouse, Petticoat and Rold-gold two ear studs and one pearls chain from the deceased and further he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. Further, his evidence goes to show that on 24.03.2015 he arrested the accused on his voluntary surrender and seized the Cloths of the Accused as in MO-2 and MO-3 and sent the material objects for analysis, obtained PM Report as in Ex.P5 and RFSL report as in Ex.P8 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet in this case.
28.It is the specific contention of the Accusedthat when his younger brother’s daughter by name Korra Anne and his wife went to a creek to fetch water, the Deceased fell on the branch of tree near the creek and sustained injury and on informing the same by said
Anne, he went to the creek and brought the deceased to home. Further, he contended that he never committed the alleged offence and he is an innocent person, and he was falsely implicated in the case.
29.Accused got examined said Korra Anne as DW-1 and she gave evidence to the effect that the Accused is the own brother of her father and she is residing in the house of Accused in Putikimetta Village.
Further, she deposed that on the date of death of deceased, at about 10.30 AM., Deceased went to a creek for washing clothes, she accompanied her to bring water, then the Deceased asked her to go to home as it was raining, then she (DW-1) returned to home with drinking water; when Accused asked her about the Deceased as it was a heavy rain, she (DW-1) again went to the creek and found the Deceased fell down on the Korru i.e., branch of a tree, and blood was oozing on the right hand elbow of the Deceased, then she (DW-1) came back to home and informed the Accused what she had seen and took him to the place, 16 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
where the Deceased fell down, then the Accused brought the Deceased to the house on his shoulder and made some country-bandage to the hand of Deceased and gave a Country-soup (Ganji) to her and at about 12.00 O’clock on the same day, the Deceased died, and on the next day, the Accused informed the death of deceased to PW-1.
30.Medical evidence on record established that the death of deceased is a homicide.
31.DW-1 is the daughter of younger brother of Accused. She is not the relative of deceased prior to the marriage between Accused and deceased. Above 10 years back, the deceased died. DW-1 for the first time on 31.03.2026 in this Court as a witness of the Accused deposed the story as mentioned supra. DW-1 in her cross-examination, inter-alia, deposed as follows:
“This was happened about 10 years back. I did not approach the Police nor informed the above facts to the Police. I have not informed these facts either to my father or to the village elders of Putikimetta Village. I informed these facts to PW-1 and he did not care me. I have not informed these facts to anyone.”
32.If really the evidence of DW-1 is true and correct, she would have informed the death as narrated by her to her father as well as village elders. She did not do so. Further, she did not approach the
Investigating Police Officer to tell the cause of death of deceased. PW-1 did not depose that DW-1 informed the cause of death of deceased to him. After 10 years, for the 1st time DW-1 as a witness of the Accused in this Court deposed the cause of death of deceased. Therefore, her evidence regarding cause of death as narrated by her cannot be believed.
33.As per evidence of PW-1, prior to the death of deceased, the marriage of her daughter took place and she was residing in other village and further, the son of deceased was not in the house at the time of 17 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
occurrence of death of deceased. Even as per the evidence of DW-1 on the date of death of deceased, her children were not in the house, her daughter was in the house of her in-laws in Valasamamidi Village and son of deceased went to play Volley ball. DW-1 further gave evidence that at that time in the house of the deceased, she (DW-1) herself, Accused and deceased were there. This Court as mentioned supra did not believe the presence of DW-1 in the house of deceased on the date of death of deceased because DW-1 is an unmarried girl and her father was a resident of Teegalamamidi Village and no witness deposed that DW-1 was residing in the house of deceased. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of death of deceased, in her house she and Accused were there.
Deceased with injuries died in night of 20.03.2015. Therefore, as per
Sec.106 of Evidence Act, 1872, it is for the Accused to say the cause of death of his wife i.e., deceased. On 24.02.2026, the cross-examination of
PW-1 was completed. In that cross-examination, the Accused through his
Advocate suggested to PW-1 that the deceased went to a creek for washing clothes, at that time, she fell down due to Fits and died. If it is correct, DW-1 would have approached the Investigating Police Officer and would have tell the cause of death as narrated by her to the Police
Officer, who investigated the case. Further, if it is correct, the Accused would have approached the Police or Village Revenue Officers and would have informed the said cause of death of deceased as narrated by him.
The Accused and DW-1 did not do so. Since the Accused and the deceased were residing in one house, the Accused herein was within the exclusive knowledge of a fact that what happened to his wife? Accused had explained the circumstances, which caused the death of the deceased. This Court already came to conclusion that the said cause of death of the deceased as narrated by the Accused for the first time during the course of trial cannot be believed. Consequently, it can be inferred 18 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
and held that the Accused is the murderer of the deceased as per above- mentioned Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872.
34.Regarding delay in lodging FIR, Advocate for Accused argued that it is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. As per Prosecution, the murder of deceased took place on 20.03.2015 at 10 PM and PW-1 lodged FIR as in Ex.P1 with Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Annavaram Police
Station/PW-7 on 22.03.2015 at 12 noon. Therefore, there was a delay of 38 hours in lodging FIR with PW-7. In Column No.8 of printed FIR/Ex.P6, it was mentioned that the said delay was occurred as the scene of offence was the part of agency forest area and that there was no transport facility. Same was mentioned in Ex.P1. PW-1 in his oral evidence mentioned that as there was no transport facility in night time from his village to the Police Station, on the next date he consulted the elders and political leaders and on 22.03.2015 at about 9 AM, he lodged
Ex.P1 with A.Annavaram Police. Accused through his Advocate did not suggest to PW-1 about the prejudice, if any that was caused to him due to said delay in lodging said FIR by PW-1. Further, the Advocate through his Advocate did not suggest in cross-examination to PW-1 that what was created and that what was developed in said delay? In this connection, evidence of PW-1 to the effect that his Sarpanch and MPTC Member got drafted Ex.P1 with one person, whose name he does not know cannot be commented because when a person is unable to write a report like Ex.P1, he will get it drafted with another person. Explanation deposed by PW-1 regarding delay of lodging FIR is explained to the satisfaction of this
Court. Therefore, this Court comes to conclusion that the delay in this case in lodging FIR is not fatal to the case of Prosecution.
35.PW-1 gave evidence that when he raised cries, Accused ran away from the spot by throwing the knife/MO-1 outside the house. PW-2 gave evidence that he saw the Accused, who was running away from his house at about 10 PM about 11 years back on one day by throwing MO-1 19 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
infront of his house and by shouting. PW-4 and PW-8 gave evidence that
MO-1 was inside of the house at the dead body of the deceased. Whose said evidence is correct is immaterial because PW-8 seized MO-1 at the house of Accused. Moreover, after about 10 years, PW-1 and PW-2 gave evidence in Court and exact place of lying of MO-1 at the house of
Accused may not be in their memory. Therefore, this Court further comes to conclusion that the same is not fatal to the case of the Prosecution because in oral evidence it is natural that some differences may occur from one witness to the other and the Court has to verify whether those differences are material or not? This Court is of the opinion that the said differences among the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 & PW-8 are not material because they will not cut the root of the case of the Prosecution.
36.Further, PW-2 gave evidence that the deceased was suffering from Fits and she used to fall now and then and he further gave evidence that the deceased used to go to a creek for washing of clothes, but he denied that the deceased and DW-1 together went to the creek for washing of clothes and while returning, due to Fits, the deceased fell down and DW-1 informed the same to the Accused, who came and took the deceased to his house. Therefore, it is clear that the Accused by taking advantage of the disease of Fits of the deceased, he created an unbelievable story through DW-1.
37.PW-1, who lodged FIR as in Ex.P1 categorically deposed that on 20.03.2015 at about 10 PM he went to the house of Accused to resolve disputes between the Accused and the deceased, when the went to the house of Accused, he found the deceased only in the house, her children were not in the house, the Accused was not in the house, after 10 minutes of his reaching the house of the Accused, he (Accused) came to the house in drunken state, he (Accused) scolded him (PW-1) that the deceased was having illegal relationship with one Muvvala Beesu of
Valasamamidi Village, then the Accused stated that he will kill the 20 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
deceased by stabbing and if he (PW-1) went in his (Accused) way, he (Accused) will kill him (PW-1). PW-1 further gave evidence that then with a knife the Accused stabbed on the right ribs of the deceased, then he raised cries and Accused ran away from the spot by throwing the knife outside the house. He further gave evidence that then PW-2 and others came to the house of the Accused and saw the injury of the deceased. In
FIR as in Ex.P1, PW-1 mentioned that the Accused with MO-1 stabbed on the right hand above elbow of the deceased. Injury mentioned in Ex.P1 is corroborated with the medical evidence on record. Further, the injury mentioned by PW-1 in his oral evidence is corroborated with the medical evidence on record. Ofcourse, PW-1 in his oral evidence did not mention that the Accused stabbed on the right hand above elbow of deceased. It
is not the case of Accused that some other person caused said
injuries to the deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that these differences are not fatal to the case of the Prosecution and that the above evidence of PW-1 is believable and further this Court is of the opinion that due to the injuries caused by the Accused with MO-1, the deceased died. Consequently, the Accused is liable for the charge as mentioned supra and he is to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.302 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly, he is convicted.
38.Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are not applicable to this Case as Accused committed an offence of murder of his wife.
39. Accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence:
He submitted that he is aged about 58 years and he requested to show mercy while passing an Order of sentence.
40.Minimum sentence for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life. In this case, death sentence cannot be awarded because this case does not fall under rarest of rare cases.
21 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
41.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Accused is to be sentenced with imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
42.Accordingly, the above points are answered.
POINT No.3:
43.In the result, Accused, found guilty under Section 235 (2) of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of the same, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code;
MOs-1 to 10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time; Accused is explained that he has a right to prefer an Appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati against this Judgment and he can take the Legal Aid, if necessary, from the Hon’ble High Court Legal
Services Committee, Amaravati, Nelapadu.
Typed to my dication direclty on the computer by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, dated this the 08 th day of May, 2026.
Digitally signed by
CHINNAMSETTYCHINNAMSETTY RAJU
RAJUDate: 2026.05.08 12:31:00 +0000
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES, EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW-1/:Marri Nageswara Rao DW-1: Korra Anne PW-2/:Marri Suribabu PW-3/:Pangi Suri Babu PW-4/:Sarivanti Lakshmayya PW-5/:Sundru Chinabbai PW-6/:Dr.P.Raghuram PW-7/:G.Uma Maheswara Rao PW-8/:Ch.Rudra Sekhar
DOCUMENTS, MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/: Report dated 22.03.2015 given by PW-1 to police Ex.P2/: Scene Observation Report dated 22.03.2015 at 12.30 PM 22 Sessions Court, VSP
SC.No.141/2023
Ex.P3/: Inquest Report dated 22.03.2015 at 2.00 PM Ex.P4/: Portion in Mediator’s report dt.24.03.2015 at 8.00 AM Ex.P5/: Postmortem Report of deceased dated 22.03.2015 Ex.P6/: Printed FIR dt.22.03.2015 in Cr.No.6/15 A.Annavaram PS Ex.P7/: Rough sketch dt. 22.03.2015 Ex.P8/: Report of RFSL dated 21.04.2015 DEFENCE: - None -
Material Objects, Marked:
MO-1/: Kinfe MO-2/: Pant MO-3/: Shirt MO-4/: Controlled earth MO-5/: Blood stained earth MO-6/: Saaree MO-7/: Blouse MO-8/: Petticoat MO-9/: Roldgold ear studs (2 Nos.,) MO-10/: Pearl Chain (One) Digitally signed by
CHINNAMSETTYCHINNAMSETTY RAJU
RAJUDate: 2026.05.08 12:31:23 +0000
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
VISAKHAPATNAM
Copies to :
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (through e-Courts).
2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthapalli
3. The Incharge Public Prosecutor, Principal Sessions Court, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Alluri Sitaramaraju District.
5. The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada. Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Secretary, DLSA, Visakhapatnam. ----