APNE000016392024
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: NELLORE
(COURT OF SESSION: NELLORE DIVISION: NELLORE)
Present: K.SRINIVASA RAO IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Nellore
Friday, the 17th day of April 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.105/2024
From which court the : I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore. appeal is preferred Number of case in that court : Sessions Case No.399/2018
Number of appeal in this : Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 court Name(s) and address of the : Vemula Roop Kumar s/o Chalapathi Rao, aged appellant(s)/accused about 50 years, Saraswathi Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City. (A-1)
Name(s) and address of the : State: Represented by Inspector of Police, respondent(s)/complainant Krishnapatnam Circle.
The sentence and section of : A-1 was convicted under Section 235(2) law under which the Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. accused was convicted/ acquitted in the lower court and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five (5) years, and also to pay a fine of ₹.20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The period of remand if any undergone by A-1 shall be set off under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
A-1 to A-3 were found not guilty for the charge under Section 341 I.P.C., A-1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 25(1)(B) and
Page 2 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, A-2 is found not guilty for the charge under Section 307, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C., A-3 is found not guilty for the charge under Section 323 I.P.C., and they are acquitted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
Whether : CONFIRMED confirmed/modified or reversed. If modified, the modification thereof Date of presentation : 14.08.2024
Date of filing : 14.08.2024
Bail bond if the appellant is : -- on bail Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 17.04.2026
This appeal coming on 30.03.2026 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri Vadde Srinivasa Rao – Advocate for the appellant, and of
Sri Ch.Rajesh – Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following—
J U D G M E N T
1. The accused/A-1 in Sessions Case No.399/2018 on the file of the
I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), preferred this appeal, challenging the impugned judgment dated 13.8.2024, and conviction and sentence passed therein for the offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., sentencing him, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years, and also to pay a fine of ₹.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Page 3 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
(i) The appellant is A-1, and the respondent is the complainant before the trial Court, and for the sake of convenience, they will be hereinafter referred to as ‘A-1’ and ‘the complainant’ respectively.
2. The facts of the case, in brief: - The complainant filed chargesheet against A-1 to A-3 in Crime No.52/2015 of T.P.Gudur police station, Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 323, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C., and Section 25(1), (B) and 27 of Indian Arms Act,1959, alleging in brief, as follows—
(i) A-1 is the son of A-2. A-1 and his wife Ramya is running a Paying
Guest Accommodation at Bangalore and residing there. A-2 is having lands at
Koduru Bit-I fields, T.P.Gudur mandal. A-1 is possessing 32 NPB Pistol bearing
No.RP-123002, vide licence No.235/R&P/2012 of Karnataka State for self- protection and it is renewed upto 24.12.2016. There are disputes between the families of A-1, A-2 and PW-1 with regard to properties. Both of them filed criminal cases against each other at T.P.Gudur police station. The fields of
PWs.1 to 5, accused and the fields of ST Community situates in Koduru Bit-I, southern side of Pamuladoruvu Kandrika village of T.P.Gudur mandal. The
Government poramboku passage passes through the fields. The said passage is the only one to reach the fields of PW-1 and others.
(ii) On 01.04.2015 at about 12.45 noon A-1 to A-3 trying to dig holes at western side of the Government Poramboke passage i.e., on eastern bund of Yerra Kaluva with an intention to erect iron grill gates across the passage.
On observing the same, PW-1 and others went there and questioned them. PW- 2, who came to know about the galata, rushed to the spot at about 1.15 p.m.
When PW-1 and others objecting about erection of the gates across the passage, at about 1.30 p.m., A-2 instigated A-1 saying that PW-1 always becoming obstacle to them for every issue, unless to see his end, their problems will not be solved. A-2 also instigated A-1 to kill PW-1 by opening fire. In that process A-2 stated that “Veedu prathi vishayamunaku manaku addamu
Page 4 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 vachuchunnadu, veedini champithe kani mana samasyalu thiravu ra, aa nakodukunu kalchi champara” and on that A-1 picked up the Pistol from his pant pocket, opened the fire towards PW-1 with an intention to kill him. Immediately,
PW-1 moved aside to escape, then the bullet pierced into left elbow with entry and exit wounds causing grievous bleeding injuries. Then A-1 again fired at him, luckily he escaped from the second time fired bullet. When PW-2 went to rescue
PW-1, A-3 beat PW-2 with stone on his left leg. On that PWs.2 to 5, LWs.6 and 7 rushed to PW-1 to protect. A-2 left that place in Maruthi Ritz car bearing
No.AP-03-AR-4667 and A-1 and A-3 absconded in another car bearing No.AP- 26-AM-1479. PW-1 was admitted in Narayana General Hospital, Nellore for treatment.
(iii) On receipt of hospital intimation, LW-11/P.Ramakrishna, Sub-
Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police station rushed to the hospital, on 1.4.2015 at about 04.30 p.m., recorded the statement of PW-1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.52/2015 for the offences punishable under section 307, 341, 323, 109 r/w.34 I.P.C., Section 25(1), (b) & 27 of Indian Arms Act of T.P.Gudur
Police station. PW-8/G.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam circle visited the hospital, recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, seized the material objects in the presence of mediators under cover of mahazarnama. Later, on 2.4.2016 he inspected the scene of offence, got photographed the scene, observed the scene of offence under cover of scene observation report, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.
(iv) A-2 and A-3 got anticipatory bail from the V Additional District
Court, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.561/16, dated 6.8.2015. A-1 got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court vide Crl.P.No.6773/2015, dated 24.8.2015. PW-8 forwarded the material objects to FSL, Hyderabad and obtained report. PW-7, the Doctor who testified about treatment to PW-1 by LW-10 (Dr B. Ashok) and issuance of wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by PW-1 are grievous in nature. Basing on the proceedings of the then District Collector about sanction orders to include the provisions of Arms Act against the accused
Page 5 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
No.1 to 3, and after completion of investigation, PW-8 filed chargesheet against
A.1 to A.3.
3. Procedure before the trial Court: - (i) The case was taken on file by the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Nellore, against A-1 to A-3 for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C., Section 25(1) (B) and 27 of Indian Arms Act,1959 as P.R.C.No.17/2016, and as the offences under Section 307 I.P.C. are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after furnishing copies of case documents to the accused, on their appearance, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Nellore Division, Nellore, as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Sessions Court, Nellore, by taking the case on file as Sessions Case No.105/2024, made over the same to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.
(ii) A-1 to A-3 were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. by the trial
Court, and charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 25(1) (B) and 27 of Indian Arms Act,1959 against
A-1 and A-2, and under Section 323 I.P.C. against A-3, and under Section 341
I.P.C against A-1 to A-3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(iii) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined, and Exhibits P-1 to P-14, and Mos.1 to 5 were marked.
(iv) After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence that appeared against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, they examined LW-7-Amburi Ravindra, who was given up by the prosecution as
DW-1. Exhibits D-1 to D-8 were marked during the cross-examination of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 on their behalf.
(v) Upon hearing arguments of both the counsels, and upon considering the material available on record, the trial Court found A-1 to A-3 not
Page 6 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 guilty for the charge under Section 341 I.P.C., A-1 not guilty for the offence under
Section 25(1)(B) and 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959, A-2 not guilty for the charge under Section 307, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C., A-3 not guilty for the charge under Section 323 I.P.C., and they are acquitted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.
However, the trial Court found A-1 guilty for the charge under Section 307
I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as stated in Para-1 of this judgment.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, and conviction and sentence passed therein, A-1 preferred this appeal, on various grounds as follows: -
(i) The judgment of the trial Court is erroneous, contrary to law, eight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
(ii) The trial court failed to scrutinize the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and
Exhibits P-1 to P-14 and Mos.1 to 5 and came to wrong conclusion.
(iii) The trial court failed to consider the evidence of DW-1 and Exhibits
D-1 to D-8 and came to wrong conclusion.
(iv) The trial court failed to consider the cross examination of PW-8.
(v) The trial court ought to have held that non examination of material witness i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case is fatal to the prosecution case.
(vi) The trial court failed to consider the admission of PW-1 that he is not having any land, where the alleged incident took place.
(vii) The trial court came to wrong conclusion and gave much weight to the Exhibit P-6 photos when there is a bar under Section 65 of Evidence Act.
(viii) The trial court came to wrong conclusion without any iota of evidence.
(ix) Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court, conviction and sentence passed thereunder, and to acquit the appellant/A-1.
Page 7 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
5. Heard arguments for both sides and perused the material available on record and the written submissions of both sides.
Written arguments:
(A) Gist of written arguments on behalf of appellant:
(i) The appellant/Accused No.1, in his written arguments, assails the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the conviction is based on misappreciation of evidence and failure to consider the defence in its proper perspective. It is contended that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged by the prosecution and that the appellant had no intention to cause death.
According to the defence, the appellant had gone to his land to erect gates in order to protect his property, and at that time, PW-1 and others came there, obstructed him, and manhandled him. In the course of the said scuffle, the witnesses attempted to snatch the gun allegedly in possession of the appellant, and in that process, there was an accidental misfire which resulted in injury to
PW-1. Thus, the injury was neither intentional nor the result of any deliberate act attracting Section 307 IPC.
(ii) The appellant further contends that the prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan, being closely related to the de facto complainant, and their evidence suffers from material inconsistencies and exaggerations. It is argued that the cross-examination of PW-1 to PW-5 probabilizes the defence version, particularly the suggestion that the gun went off accidentally during the scuffle. The defence also questions the credibility of the investigation, alleging that the Investigating Officer conducted a biased and improper investigation under political influence, and that material contradictions were elicited through defence exhibits which weaken the prosecution case.
(iii) It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not conclusively establish intentional firing and is consistent with the possibility of accidental discharge. The appellant disputes the presence and role attributed to other accused, particularly A-3, and contends that false implication has arisen out of prior enmity relating to land disputes. The plea of private defence is implicitly
Page 8 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 invoked by asserting that the appellant was acting to protect his property and was confronted by an aggressive group.
(iv) On these grounds, the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, that the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended, and that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are unsustainable. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge.
(v)The learned counsel for the A-1 relied upon the following citations in support of their contention:
1. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and another of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 2002 dated 15.01.2010.
2. Deo Narain v. State of U.P reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 473.
3. Rameshwar v. State reported in 1981 CRI. L.J. 1125.
(B) Gist of written arguments on behalf of prosecution:
(i) The prosecution, in its written arguments, contends that the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Section 307 IPC is fully justified both on facts and law and does not warrant any interference in appeal. It is argued that there existed prior land disputes between the parties, which provided a clear motive for the offence. On the date of the incident, the appellant/A-1, along with other accused, picked up a quarrel and, on the instigation of A-2, intentionally fired at the de facto complainant with a gun.
Though the complainant narrowly escaped a fatal injury by moving aside, he sustained a grievous gunshot injury on his left elbow, which is medically corroborated.
(ii) The prosecution emphasizes that the evidence of PW-1 (injured witness) is natural, consistent, and carries great evidentiary value, and is duly corroborated by the testimony of eye-witnesses PW-2 to PW-5. Their presence at the scene is established and their version remains unshaken on material
Page 9 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 particulars. The medical evidence of PW-7 and the wound certificate (Exhibit P-
3) clearly establish that the injury was caused by a firearm and is grievous in nature, thereby supporting the ocular evidence. The investigation conducted by
PW-8 and the recovery of material objects including the weapon further strengthen the prosecution case.
(iii) It is further argued that the defence version of accidental misfire during a scuffle is inherently improbable and contrary to medical evidence, as such a misfire would not result in the specific gunshot injury sustained by PW-
1. The suggestions made in cross-examination are inconsistent and do not probabilize the defence. Minor contradictions elicited do not affect the core of the prosecution case, and settled legal principles permit reliance on credible testimony despite such discrepancies. The prosecution also submits that merely because witnesses are related to the complainant, their evidence cannot be discarded when it is otherwise trustworthy.
(iv) The plea of private defence raised by the accused is specifically denied, as the prosecution asserts that the accused were the aggressors and there is no evidence to show that they faced any imminent threat justifying such a plea. On the contrary, the conduct of the accused in bringing and using a firearm clearly establishes intention and preparation.
(v) On the overall appreciation of evidence, the prosecution contends that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, and that the conviction and sentence are legally sustainable. Accordingly, it is urged that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court be confirmed.
(vi) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the following citations:
1. Sukhdev Yadav and others v. State of Bihar reported in 2002(1) ALD
Criminal Page 36
2. Rummi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1999(2) ALD(Crl.) Page 708
Page 10 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
3. Rachamreddy Chennareddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1999(1) ALD (Crl.) Page 435
4. Srimanthula Chinna Sathaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1998(2) ALD (Crl.) Page 160
5. Pammi alias Brajendra Singh v. Government of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1998(2) ALD (Crl.) Page 78
6. State of UP v. Sikindhar ali and others reported in 1998(1) ALD (Crl.)
Page 735
6. Considering the rival contentions, and perusing the material available on record, including the impugned judgment of the trial Court, the points that arise for determination are—
(1) Whether the trial Court is justified in finding A-1 guilty
under Section 307 I.P.C. beyond a reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial
Court is liable to be set aside?
(3) To what result?
7. POINTS No.(1) and (2): - These two points are taken up together for consideration as they are interlinked, to avoid repetition and for brevity.
A) Before proceeding further let us see the scope of appeal and defence of A-1
(i) In the present case, though three accused were put on trial, the trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 8, DW-1, coupled with documentary evidence(Exhibits P-1 to P-14) (Exhibits D-1 to D-8) so also the material objects Mos.1 to 5 convicted only A-1 for the offence punishable under
Section 307 I.P.C., while acquitting A-2 and A-3 of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A-1 alone has preferred the present appeal challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment.
Page 11 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
(ii) Further the defence of A-1, as emerging from the record and submissions, rests on mainly three principal grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the firing was not intentional, but purely accidental, occurring during a scuffle when PW-1 allegedly attempted to snatch M.O.1 pistol from the pocket of A-1.
Secondly, it is urged that PW-1 was the aggressor, and that A-1 was constrained to act in exercise of his right of private defence of person and property. Thirdly, it is contended that the trial Court, having disbelieved the prosecution case against A-2 and A-3, erred in convicting A-1 on the very same set of evidence, thereby rendering the finding unsustainable.
(B) The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor respectively have been carefully considered. The legal principles laid down therein, relating to appreciation of evidence, evidentiary value of injured and related witnesses, the scope of the plea of private defense, and the effect of discrepancies in testimony respectively, are well settled and accepted. This Court has kept the said principles in view and has duly applied them while reappreciating the evidence on record and answering the points that arise for determination in this appeal.
(C) This Court has given anxious consideration to the entire material available on record, the findings of the trial Court, and the rival submissions advanced on either side to answer the points.
(i) Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to note certain undisputed facts emerging from the record. It is not in dispute that there existed prior disputes between the parties relating to agricultural lands. It is also admitted that on the date of the incident, A-1 was present at the scene and was in possession of M.O.1 pistol, which is a licensed firearm. Further, it is not in dispute that PW1 sustained a gunshot injury during the course of the same incident and was treated at Narayana hospital Nellore and Exhibit P-12 wound certificate pertains to PW-1. Further the occurrence of a quarrel or scuffle at the place of incident is also not seriously disputed by either side. Thus, the core controversy is not with regard to the occurrence itself,
Page 12 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 but with respect to the manner in which the injury was caused and the intention or knowledge attributable to A-1 in firing the weapon.
(ii) It is to be noted that the PW-1 the injured witness and de facto complainant, deposed that on the date of the incident, when he along with others objected to the acts of the A-1 in attempting to erect gates across the passage, a quarrel arose. In the course of the said altercation, A-1, on the instigation of A-2, took out a pistol (M.O.1) from his pocket, aimed at him, and fired with an intention to kill. Though the shot was aimed at a vital part, he moved aside, as a result of which the bullet struck his left elbow causing bleeding injury with entry and exit wounds. He was thereafter shifted to Narayana hospital,
Nellore for treatment. PW-1 consistently attributed the act of firing to A-1 and testified that the same was intentional. Though the PW-1 was subjected to cross examination at length on behalf of A-1 nothing material was elicited in such cross-examination to discredit his version on this core aspect.
(iii) The PWs.2 to 5, who are cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, have consistently deposed in corroboration of the testimony of PW1 with regard to the manner of the incident and the specific overt act attributed to A-1 in firing the weapon. Though they were subjected to detailed and lengthy cross- examination on behalf of A-1, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit their evidence on the core aspect of the prosecution case. Their testimony remains consistent and intact insofar as the act of firing by A-1 and the resulting injury to PW-1 are concerned
(iv) Further the medical evidence under Exhibit P-12 establishes that
PW-1 sustained a gunshot injury with entry and exit wounds on the left elbow.
Even, the FSL reports under Exhibits P-8 and P-9 disclose that no gunpowder residue was found on the shirt (M.O.2) of PW-1 at the entry and exit points.
Significantly, the wound certificate also does not refer to the presence of gunpowder residue on the injury. These circumstances, coupled with the fact disclosing from Exhibit P-4 (scene observation report), Exhibit P-5 (Rough sketch) that the empty cartridge and the bloodstained dried leaves were found
Page 13 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 at a distance of about 7 feet from each other, probabilise that the firing was not at point-blank range. These facts, in effect, rule out the defence theory that the injury occurred due to accidental misfire during a scuffle, as contended by A-1.
(v) The defence of A-1 that the gun went off accidentally in the course of a struggle is inherently improbable. A firearm does not discharge in such a casual manner unless it is consciously operated. The presence of a fired cartridge (Mo-4) at scene of offence and the nature of injury clearly indicate a deliberate act. Therefore, the theory of misfire during scuffle, even when supported by DW-1, who was shown as LW-7 in the charge sheet and after his evidence was given up by the prosecution, he came and deposed on behalf of the accused and denied his statement before the police under Exhibit P-14, does not inspire confidence and is rightly rejected by trial court.
(vi) Coming to the plea of private defence, the right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 IPC arises only upon a reasonable apprehension of danger and extends only to the extent necessary, with the force used being proportionate to the threat. Further it is no doubt true that such a plea can be raised even at the appellate stage, as an appeal is a continuation of trial and if such defence arises from the material on record. However, in order to avail such a defence, the accused must establish that there was a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to life or limb. In the present case, even according to the defence version that can be cull out from the trend of cross examination of PWs.1 to 5, the PW-1 and others allegedly beat A-1 with hands and kicked him. There is no evidence to show that they were armed with any deadly weapons or that they caused any bleeding injuries or posed any imminent threat to the life or limb of A-1. In such circumstances, resorting to firing a gun is clearly disproportionate and excessive. The right of private defence does not extend to inflicting such harm when the alleged threat is neither grave nor life-threatening. Further, during the trial, the appellant herein did not set up clear and specific plea of right of private defence and he did not make any such plea at the time of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C
Page 14 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 and all these facts goes to show that the right of private defence set up by the appellant is nothing but an afterthought. Therefore, A-1 cannot take shelter under the plea of private defence.
(vii) The contention that PW-1 to PW-5 are related witnesses and therefore their evidence is unreliable is also devoid of merit. It is well settled that merely because witnesses are related, their evidence cannot be discarded if it is otherwise credible. In the present case, PW-1 is an injured witness, and his testimony carries great weight. PWs.2 to 5 are natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Their evidence is consistent on all material particulars and nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. The omissions and minor contradictions pointed out (Exhibits D-5 to
D-8 respectively) are not of such a nature as to affect the core of the prosecution case when their evidence is read as a whole.
(viii) Further the contention of A-1 that PW-1 was the aggressor also does not hold good. Even if there was a quarrel at the spot, the act of A-1 in using a firearm cannot be justified on that ground. The evidence on record coupled with Exhibits P-8 and P-9 and undisputed fact that Mo-1 is belongs to
A1, clearly establishes that A-1 used a deadly weapon in the course of the incident, which shows intention or knowledge of the consequences of such act.
Further The evidence of PW-8, the Investigating Officer, PW-6 mediator, has also been subjected to detailed cross-examination. However, no material has been elicited to render their evidence unreliable or to vitiate the investigation in a manner affecting the substratum of the prosecution case.
(ix) Coming to the contention of the appellant that he being trained in firearm usage, would have caused fatal injury if he intended to kill is speculative and legally untenable. Criminal intention cannot be inferred on assumptions about skill or precision. The intention is to be gathered from the act itself. The use of a firearm, aimed and discharged at a person, and causing entry and exit wound to left elbow of PW-1, clearly indicates knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death. The fact that the injury landed on a non-vital part does not
Page 15 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026 negate intention, especially when the evidence indicates that PW-1 moved aside at the time of firing. Therefore, this contention of the appellant cannot be sustained.
(x) It is the further contention of the appellant that non-examination of the Sub-Inspector/LW-11 P.Ramakrishna, who registered the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case is without merit. Since the registration of FIR is a formal step and the original FIR is on record and its contents are not seriously disputed.
Further, the core of the prosecution case rests on direct evidence of PW-1 and eyewitnesses PWs.2 to 5 and medical evidence of PW-7 coupled with wound certificate Exhibit P-12 and FSL reports Exhibits P-8 and P-9 and Mos. 1 to 5.
Further, the defence has not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the non- examination of the Sub-Inspector/LW-11. Moreover, it is settled law that non- examination of a formal witness is not fatal unless it creates a material gap in the prosecution case, so, this contention of the appellant is lacking merits as such it is not sustainable.
(xi) Further the contention of A-1 that the trial Court, having disbelieved the prosecution case against A-2 and A-3, ought not to have convicted A-1 on the same evidence, is unsustainable. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of witnesses can be accepted in part and rejected in part. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in
India. The role attributed to A-1 is distinct and specific, and it is firing the gun at
PW1. The acquittal of A-2 and A-3 on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not automatically endure to the benefit of A-1 when there is clear and cogent evidence against him. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and separated the grain from the chaff.
(xii) On an overall appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this
Court finds that the act of A-1 in firing at PW-1 with a firearm clearly establishes intention or knowledge sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC. The trial Court has properly analysed the oral and documentary evidence and has arrived at a correct conclusion.
Page 16 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
(xiii) Insofar as the question of sentence is concerned, this Court has considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, and the weapon used by the accused. The act of A-1 in using a firearm and opening fire at PW-1, which is a dangerous weapon capable of causing death, clearly reflects the seriousness of the offence and the degree of culpability involved. Though the injury ultimately sustained was on the elbow, it is evident from the record that the shot was fired in the course of a quarrel with sufficient intention or knowledge of its likely consequences. The trial Court, while imposing a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of five years along with fine, has taken a balanced view, neither imposing the maximum punishment nor showing undue leniency. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the offence proved and does not warrant any interference.
(xiv) Accordingly, this Court holds that the trial Court is justified in finding
A-1 guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
Both the points are answered accordingly against the appellant.
8. Point No.(3):- To What Result?
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
(i) The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024 in S.C.No.399/2018 on the file of the I Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge, Nellore, are hereby confirmed.
Page 17 of 17 IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT Criminal Appeal No.105/2024 NELLOREApril 17, 2026
(ii) The period of detention already undergone by the appellant if any shall be given set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 17th day of April 2026.
Sd/- K.Srinivasa Rao.
IV Additional District & Sessions Judge
NELLORE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
---NIL---
Sd/- K.Srinivasa Rao.
IV Additional District & Sessions Judge
NELLORE