1
APFC120003112025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt. K.Vijaya Kalyani
Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Vizianagaram.
Saturday, this the 31st day of January, 2026
SESSIONS CASE No.99 of 2025
01Name of the State represented by the Sub-Inspector of complainant.Police, Bhogapuram Police Station.
02Name of accused.Gali Appanna, S/o Late Ramu, Age 35 years, Coolie Works, Reddika by Caste, Peda Kavulawada Village, Bhogapuram Mandal.
03Charge.Under Sections 307 and 326 of I.P.C.
04Plea of Accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.
05Finding of the Judge. Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC.
06Sentence or Order. IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for the offences charged under Section 307 and Sec.326 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. On hearing quantum of sentence, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Five Years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), in default of 2 payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for Six Months, for the offence punishable U/s.307 of I.P.C. Accused is also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three Years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment fora period of Three Months, for the offence punishable U/s.326 of I.P.C. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Out of fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only); and also out of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), respectively shall be payable to P.W.1/YerusuRamu,towards compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. The remand period of accused shall be set off as per Sec.428 Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., Knife; White Colour Shirt with Black dots; and Black Colour Pant shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused was informed of his right to prefer appeal against the Judgment of this Court and right to get free legal aid
before the appellate Court.
07Prosecution conductedI/c.AdditionalPublicProsecutor, by.Vizianagaram.
08Defence conducted by. Sri K. Surya Prakash and Sri D. Seetaramu, 3
LADCS Office, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarm.
This case coming on 21-01-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor, for State and of K. Surya Prakash and
Sri D. Seetaramu, LADCS Office, District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagarm,
Advocates for Accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this
Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This Sessions case arises out of P.R.C.24/19 on the file of Judicial
magistrate of 1st class/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in Crime
No.178/2018 of Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram, under Section 307 and Sec.326 of I.P.C., which has been committed to the Court of Sessions by virtue of an Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st class/ Principal Junior civil Juge, vizianagaram
2. The gist of the case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:
On 12.09.2018 evening at about 6.30 p.m., accused came to the shop of P.W.1 for grinding the minapagullu(urad dal), after completion of the grinding he is leaving without paying grinding charges of Rs 25/- to P.W.1, at that time P.W.1 asked the accused to pay grinding charges as well as previous due amount of Rs 700/-. then accused grew wild, attacked on P.W.1, stabbed to kill P.W.1 with the knife which was used for cutting chicken in P.W.1’s shop, while P.W.1 tried to escape from the attempt, it caused deep cut injury on the left cheek to jaw of P.W.1 , accused made a second attempt with the same weapon on both knee joints of legs of P.W.1 resulting grievous cut and bleeding injuries on his both legs .on witnessing the same, P.W.2, wife of P.W.1 and P.W.3 rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the accused and then they shifted him to
Community Health centre, Sundarapeta, from there to government hospital,
Vizianagaram in 108 ambulance.Finally P.W.1 was referred to K.G.H hospital,
Visakhapatnam for better treatment.
4
3.P.W.7, Head constable of Bhogapuram police station visited King
George Hospital , Vizag and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He also examined
P.W.2. Basing on the statement of P.W.1, FIR has been registered as crime
No.178/2018 under sec.324 of IPC on 13.09.2018, visited scene of offence, seized blood stained earth and controlled earth in the presence of P.W.5 and one Vanum Adinarayana, took photos of scene of offence. Further investigation was taken over by P.W.10, sub inspector of Bhogapuram police station, he verified the investigation of P.W.7, re-examined P.Ws.1 and 2, examined P.W.3,
P.W.4 and one N.Somulamma. Basing on the statement of P.W.3, he altered the sec.307 of IPC from sec.324 of IPC and investigated into. On 25.9.2018, he arrested the accused, seized crime weapon and clothes of accused, recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of P.W.6 and one Koyya
Narasinga Rao and produced before the court for remand. Forwarded the material objects to R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam, obtained report from P.W.9. Further investigation took up by P.W.11. obtained wound certificate from P.W.8. Basing on the wound certificate of P.W.1, P.W.11 added sec.326 of IPC and filed charge sheet. Hence the charge sheet.
4.The learned Judicial First class Magistrate cum Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Vizianagaram has taken cognizance in this matter for the offence under
Sec.307 and sec.326 of I.P.C.
5. After receipt of the summons, accused appeared before the
Committal Court and copies under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., furnished to him.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class cum Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, committed the case under Sec.209 Cr.P.C., under
proceedings dt.01.09.2021 to the Court of Sessions, Vizianagaram, since the offence under Sec.307 I.P.C., is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
7. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram took the case on file under Sec.307 and sec.326 of I.P.C., and registered the same as Sessions Case No.99/25 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.
8. On appearance of accused, he was examined under Sec.228 of
Cr.P.C. Charges for the offence under Sec.307 and sec.326 of I.P.C., framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As he has no means Sri Seeta Ram,
Advocate was appointed as legal aid counsel to defend the case of the accused.
9. In the trial afforded by the prosecution, 14 witnesses were cited, examined P.Ws.1 to 11. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was read over and explained in
Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence.
11.Heard arguments.
12.Now the point for determination is:
“ Whether the prosecution has proved the charges for the
offence under Sec.307 and sec.326 of I.P.C., against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt? ”
P O I N T:-
13.The learned App argued that prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11, marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 and got marked M.Os.1 to 3, on 12.09.2018 accused came to the shop of P.W.1 for grinding minapagullu(urad dal), after grinding without paying charges, he was about to leave the shop, then P.W.1 questioned, on that accused by saying “Yeppudu Nanney Dabbulu Aduguthavu, evvarini Adagavu”, then
P.W.1 asked the accused to pay the due amount of Rs.700/- then accused threatened P.W.1 by saying “Ninnu champuthanu”, saying so he picked up knife from the chicken shop of P.W.1 and hacked P.W.1, then P.W.1 turned face and
P.W.1 sustained injury over his left cheek. Accused also stabbed with knife over his left leg and right leg. P.W.1 sustained grievous blood injuries over his left side face and two legs. His left side cheek was hanged. The words used by accused shows his intention to kill P.W.1. The motive is accused want to escape from payment of debt of Rs.700/-.Taking knife(M.O.1) from chicken shop and stabbed P.W.1, all these covers motive, preparation, previous and subsequent conduct; accused also involved in three cases and the said details were shown in the charge sheet.
P.Ws.1 to 4 corroborated injuries, P.Ws.5, 6 corroborated each other, human blood 6 detected and blood is dried, so no possibility of change. Even P.W.8 spoke about injuries and as per Ex.P.10, injuries are cut injuries. Deep injuries caused only due to sharp weapon. Hence prayed to convict the accused as per the charges levelled against the accused.
14.On the other hand legal aid counsel for the accused, Sri Seetha Ram argued that P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses and they turned hostile; P.W.5/V.R.O.
did not whisper about the chicken shop. The scene observation report prepared in the station; no property produced; there is no whisper about old case details; evidence of P.W.1 developed, no neighbour examined; no independant or direct evidence in this case; no corroboration in between P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence prayed to acquit the accused.
15.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14 to establish that the accused, on12-09-2018 at about 6.30 PM, assaulted PW-1 with a knife, causing grievous injuries on a vital part of the body, with the intention or knowledge sufficient to attract Sections 307 and 326 IPC.
16.P.W.1 – Injured/De-facto Complainant. P.W.1 is the injured eye witness. He deposed that the accused came to his shop on12-09-2018 in between 6.00 to 6.30 pm for grinding minapagullu(urad dal), dispute arose in between him and the accused when he asked the accused to pay grinding charges (Rs.25/-).
Accused became angry and threatened verbally by saying “yeppudu Nanney
Dabbulu Aduguthavu, Yevarini Adagavu”, then he asked the accused to pay the old due amount of Rs.700/-, again accused threatened verbally saying that “Ninnu
Champuthanu”, saying so accused picked up a knife from the shop, and hacked him on left cheek/jaw, and again attacked on both knees, causing heavy bleeding injuries. His wife/P.W.2 intervened. PW-3 and P.W.4 also rushed to the spot. He was shifted to sundarampeta Hospital, from there to government Hospital
Vizianagaram, later to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam. Police recorded his statement in hospital. His statement recorded by the police in the hospital has been marked as
Ex.P.1 and the knife used by the accused has been marked as M.O.1 through him.
7
17.P.W.2 – Wife of PW-1/natural and interested Eye witness. She fully corroborated P.W.1. She speaks about the motive (pending Rs.700/-); verbal threats by accused; knife attack on left cheek and knees; immediate rescue and shifting to hospitals.
18.During Cross-examination, She admitted relationship with P.W.1 (natural witness). She denied defence suggestion of false implication.
19.P.W.3 – Independent Eyewitness/Autodriver/neighbour. He heard cries from PW-1’s shop around 6.00–6.30 p.m; rushed to the spot and saw P.W.1 bleeding from left cheek and both knees; Shifted P.W.1 along with P.W.2 to hospitals. As he deviated from his earlier statement, his 161 Cr.P.C. statement has been marked as Ex.P.2.
20.Though the evidence of P.W.3 treated as partly hostile, he admits presence, injuries and shifting the injured.
21.P.W.4 – Eyewitness/Neighbour/Corroborative Witness. He rushed to the spot on hearing cries of P.W.2 ; He saw P.W.1 in injured condition with bleeding injuries over his left side cheek and also both knees. As he also deviated from his earlier statement, his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement has been marked as Ex.P.3. He corroborates the presence of accused and occurrence near shop.
22.P.W.5 – who observed the scene of offence (V.R.O.). He, head constable, two constables visited the scene of offence on 14-09-2018. Another person by name Vanumu Adinarayana was already present at the scene of offence.
He Observed a hut beside the shop and asbestos shed in front of the kirana shop and found bloodstains on the floor. He also observed wet grinder room, mill room, kirana shop room and another shop room, in total four rooms.
23.Police seized four floor pieces with blood and four floor pieces without blood in his presence. Identification slips were affixed and he along with another person by name adinarayana subscribed signatures on the identification slips.
Scene observation report was prepared in his presence upon which he and adinarayana subscribed their signatures on it. Police also prepared rough sketch in his presence. Through him scene observation report was marked as Ex.P.4.
8
24.During Cross-examination, there are minor omissions (date not mentioned below his signature in Ex.P.4, number of pieces not mentioned in
Ex.P.4). No suggestion of fabrication sustained.
25.PW-6 - Arrest & Recovery Mediator (V.R.O.). He was Present at the time of arrest of accused on 25-09-2018; Accused confessed his guilt in his presence and stated that he is going to show the clothes and knife. His statement was recorded upon which he, S.I. of police, one koyya narasinga Rao and accused subscribed their signatures. The knife, white colourshirt with black dots and black colour pant handed over by the accused by getting them from his house. A seizure report was prepared in his presence. He identified the accused standing in the court hall as a person who confessed and handed over knife, white shirt and pant in his presence. He also identified the knife, white colour shirt with black dots and black colour pant when confronted to him. Through him admissible portion in confession cum mediators report and seizure report has been marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6.
Seized shirt and pant are marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3.
26.During Cross-examination there are technical lapses (scribe name, summons). Core fact of recovery remains intact.
27.P.W.7 – Initial Investigating Officer (Head constable during the period of incident) who received medical intimation from K.G.H. As per his evidence on 13.09.2018 he received M.L.C. from K.G.H., visakhapatnam and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He registered FIR initially as Cr.No.178/2018 under
Section 324 IPC. He visited scene of offence, Seized blood-stained marks, control earth, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence and took photos of scene of offence in the presence of mediators. The F.I.R., rough sketch and photos along with C.D.
marked as Exs.P.7 to P.9.
28.P.W.8 – (Medical Officer). As per her evidence on 12.09.2018 at about 7.30 pm, he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries i.e a laceration on left leg, a laceration on right leg and lacerated injury on left cheek. She opined that injuries are grievous in nature. She issued wound certificate and it is marked as
Ex.P.10. When M.O.1 is confronted to her, she stated that the injuries of P.W.1 can be caused by using M.O.1. She further deposed that she conducted blood group 9 test and the blood group of pw1 is “O” positive. She issued blood group certificate of P.W.1 and it is marked as Ex.P.11. Supported procedural steps during investigation.
29.P.W.9 -Scientific Assistant (R.F.S.L.) , Visakhapatnam from march.
2013 to November. 2019 Examined material objects (knife, clothes, floor pieces).
30.Detected human blood on knife, clothes and pieces of concrete (floor pieces) with dark brown stains marked as item No.3; Blood group detected as “O”, matching injured/P.W.1; she explained delay scientifically. R.F.S.L. report marked as
Ex.P.12 through her.
31.P.W.10 – Investigating Officer (Sub inspector, Bhogapuram P.S. from 01.09.2018 to 18.01.2019) Took over further investigation. He verified the investigation made by P.W.7 on 23.09.2018; visited scene of offence; examined
P.W.1 to P.W.4 and one neelapu Somulamma; basing on the statement of P.W.3, he altered the section of law from Sec.324 IPC to Sec 307 IPC. Later on 25.09.2018 secured the presence of P.W.6 and one koyya Narasinga Rao to savaravilli junction, found the accused and recorded the confession statement of the accused; seized mos from the possession of accused; arrested the accused; forwarded P.W.1 to hospital to determine te blood grouping, obtained report on the same day as “O” positive; forwarded all the material objects to R.F.S.L., Vizianagaram vide letter of advice by S.D.P.O., Vizianagaram; received R.F.S.L., report; handed over further investigation to his successor on his transfer. The alteration memo and letter of advice marked as Exs.P.13 and P.14.
32.PW-11- Subinspector of police at Bhogapuram Police station from
January, 2019 to June, 2019.He deposed that on 28-01-2019, he received the wound certificate of P.W.1issued by P.W.8; the Medical Officer opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 were grievous in nature;After verifying the investigation record and after receiving wound certificate of P.W.1, he filed chargesheet against the accused under Sec.307 and Sec.326 of I.P.C.
33.During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he filed false charge sheet against the accused without properly verifying the record; He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence.
10
34.The evidence adduced consists of injured eyewitness testimony, natural and independent eyewitnesses, corroborative witnesses,medical evidence, scientific (R.F.S.L.) evidence, and investigation evidence.
35.P.W.1 is the injured eyewitness. His presence at the scene is natural and unquestionable, and the fact that he sustained injuries during the incident is proved by unimpeached medical evidence.
36.Under settled principle of law the testimony of an injured witness carries greater evidentiary value, and unless strong reasons exist, such evidence cannot be lightly discarded.
37.P.W.1 has given a clear, consistent, and cogent account of the motive, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the parts of the body targeted, and the immediate aftermath. Nothing material was elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit his version. His evidence is wholly reliable.
38.P.W.2 – Wife of PW-1 (Natural Eyewitness). P.W.2, though a related witness, is a natural witness as the incident occurred in front of the shop run by her and P.W.1. Law is well settled that relationship per se is not a ground to reject testimony, what is required is careful scrutiny. Her evidence fully corroborates
P.W.1 on all material particulars, including motive, threats, assault with knife, and rescue of P.W1. Her testimony inspires confidence and is admissible and reliable.
39.P.W.3 and P.W.4 – Independent/Corroborative Witnesses. P.W.3 and
P.W.4 reached the scene immediately after hearing cries and saw P.W.1 bleeding with serious injuries. Even though P.W.3 partly deviated, the law permits reliance on the supporting portion of a hostile witness’s testimony. Both witnesses corroborate, time and place of occurrence, injured condition of P.W.1, immediate shifting to hospitals. Their evidence provides independent corroboration and strengthens the prosecution case.
40.P.W.8 (Medical Officer). The medical evidence conclusively establishes that P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries, and the injuries are consistent with assault by a sharp-edged weapon. Medical opinion supports the ocular version regarding nature of injuries, part of body affected, seriousness of the assault.
11
41.Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony, satisfying Sections 45 and 51 of the Evidence Act.
42.P.W.9 – RFSL Expert. PW-9’s expert evidence proves presence of human blood on the knife and clothes, blood group matching that of the injured.
Expert evidence under Section 45 strongly corroborates, use of the weapon, connection between the accused, weapon, and offence.
43. P.W.6 – V.R.O. at Bhogapuram on the date of incident (Recovery
Mediator) Recovery of the knife and blood-stained clothes pursuant to the disclosure of accused is admissible only to the extent of discovery, as permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery is voluntary, witnessed by an independent official, corroborated by R.F.S.L. evidence. Recovery evidence is legally admissible and reliable.
44.P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.10, P.W.11 – Investigating Officers/Formal
Witnesses. These witnesses establish prompt registration of F.I.R., scene observation and seizure of blood-stained material, arrest of accused, forwarding of material objects to R.F.S.L., filing of charge sheet after medical opinion. Minor procedural lapses, if any, do not go to the root of the case and are covered by the presumption under Section 114(e) that official acts are regularly performed.
Investigation evidence supports the prosecution narrative and shows continuity.
45.APPRECIATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 marked through P.W.1 to P.W.11).
46.Ex.P.1 – Statement of P.W.1/De-facto Complainant. Statement of injured/P.W.1 recorded by police at K.G.H., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P.1 is the earliest version of the incident, recorded after receipt of medical intimation.
47.Though a police statement is not substantive evidence, it is relevant under Section 157 for corroboration of P.W.1’s testimony, and Section 145 – for contradiction, if any. The contents of Ex.P.1 clearly disclose motive (money dispute), place, time and manner of occurrence, weapon used (knife), nature of injuries and immediate shifting to hospitals.
12
48.PW-1’s oral evidence in Court is in complete consonance with Ex.P.1 on material particulars. Ex.P.1 strongly corroborates the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and lends assurance to the prosecution version.
49.Ex.P.2 – Statement of P.W.3 (161 Cr.P.C partly marked).
50.Statement of P.W.3 recorded during investigation. Ex.P.2 is used only for limited purposes under the Evidence Act.
51.P.W.3, though partly deviating in Court, admitted core facts relating to time, place, injured condition of P.W.1. The marked portion of Ex.P.2 was duly confronted when P.W.3 resiled. Even if P.W.3 turned partly hostile, Ex.P.2 legally supports the prosecution to the extent of corroboration, as permitted by Sections 145 and 154 of the Evidence Act.
52.Ex.P.3 – Statement of P.W.4 (161 Cr.P.C. partly marked).
53.Statement of corroborative witness recorded by police. Ex.P.3 supports the prosecution case regarding immediate aftermath of the incident, injured condition of P.W.1, presence at or near the scene.
54.PW-4’s oral evidence aligns with Ex.P.3 without material contradiction.
Ex.P.3 corroborates the prosecution narrative under Section 157 of the Evidence
Act and strengthens the chain of events.
55.Ex.P.4 – Scene Observation Report marked through P.W.5.
56.Scene of offence observation report prepared by police in presence of mediators. Ex.P.4 establishes the place of occurrence. It records presence of bloodstains, layout of the kirana shop and shed, seizure of blood-stained and control earth. Though it is not substantive evidence, it is relevant under Sections 7 and 9 (facts forming part of the same transaction and identification of place). Minor omissions like non-mention of certain details do not affect its core evidentiary value.
Ex.P.4 duly corroborates ocular evidence regarding the scene and supports the prosecution version.
57.Ex.P.5 – Confession-cum-Mediator Report (Admissible Portion) marked through P.W.6.
58.Confession-cum-mediator report relating to disclosure made by the accused. Under Section 25, confession to police is inadmissible. However, the 13 portion of Ex.P.5 leading to discovery of material objects is admissible under
Section 27. The recovery of weapon(M.O.1) and clothes(M.O.2 and M.O.3) pursuant to disclosure is proved through mediators and Investigating Officer. Only the discovery portion of Ex.P.5 is relied upon, which is legally admissible and corroborates the prosecution case regarding recovery of M.Os.1 to 3.
59.Ex.P.6 Seizure report of knife and blood-stained clothes marked through P.W.6.
60.Ex.P.6 proves lawful seizure of knife(M.O.1) used in offence, blood- stained clothes of accused (M.Os.2 and 3). The seizure is corroborated by mediator evidence, R.F.S.L. report. Under Section 114(e), official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. Ex.P.6 forms an important link connecting the accused with the weapon and offence and is reliable.
61.Ex.P.7 – First Information Report (F.I.R.) marked through P.W.7.
62.F.I.R. registered in Cr.No.178/2018 of Bhogapuram P.S. Ex.P.7 is not substantive evidence, but is relevant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and Section 157 of
Indian Evidence Act for corroboration and contradiction. F.I.R. was registered promptly after receipt of medical intimation and recording of P.W.1’s statement. It contains essential particulars like date, time, place of offence, weapon used, and identity of accused. No unexplained delay is shown which could create suspicion.
Ex.P.7 corroborates the testimony of P.W.1 regarding the genesis of the crime and rules out embellishment.
63.Ex.P.8 – Rough Sketch of Scene of Offence marked through
P.W.7/Investigating Officer.
64.Ex.P.8 visually depicts, location of kirana shop, road, neighbouring houses, relative position of the place of assault. It is relevant under Sections 7 and 9 of the Evidence Act. It corroborates ocular testimony regarding the place of occurrence. Ex.P.8 fortifies the prosecution case about the scene and eliminates doubt regarding the location of the incident.
65.Ex.P.9 – Photographs (4) of Scene of Offence with C.D.
14
66.Photographs taken at the scene during investigation. Photographs constitute secondary electronic evidence. They corroborate the presence of bloodstains and physical features noted in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.8. No challenge was raised regarding manipulation or authenticity. Ex.P.9 lends visual corroboration to the scene observation and ocular evidence.
67.Ex.P.10 – Wound Certificate marked through P.W.8/Medical Officer of
Community Health Center of Bhogapuram.
68. Ex.P.10 is a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
It proves nature, number, and location of injuries, use of a sharp-edged weapon, referral to higher medical centres. The opinion of grievous injury directly supports Section 326 IPC and the intention element under Section 307
IPC.
69.Ex.P.10 is reliable medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony and establishing seriousness of injuries.
70.Ex.P.11 – Blood Group Certificate of P.W.1 marked through
P.W.8/Medical Officer.
71.Ex.P.11 is relevant under Sections 45 and 51. It establishes the blood group of the injured pw1 as “O”. This document connects the medical evidence with RFSL findings. Ex.P.11 provides a scientific link between the injured/P.W.1 and the blood detected on material objects.
72.Ex.P.12 – R.F.S.L. Report marked through P.W.9. Ex.P.12 is expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It confirms presence of human blood on knife and clothes blood group matching with the injured/P.W.1. Delay in examination has been satisfactorily explained by the expert witness(P.W.9).
Ex.P.12 scientifically corroborates the prosecution case and connects the accused, weapon, and victim.
73.Ex.P.13 – Alteration Memo marked through P.W.10.
74.Alteration memo changing offence from Section 324 IPC to Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.13 shows due compliance with law during investigation.
Alteration was based on medical opinion, seriousness of injuries, statements of witnesses. No prejudice to the accused is shown. Ex.P.13 reflects proper application of mind and legality of investigation.
15
75.Ex.P.14 – Letter of Advice to RFSL marked through P.W.10 which speaks about sending material objects for forensic examination. Ex.P.14 proves chain of custody, proper sealing and forwarding of material objects, absence of tampering. Relevant under Sections 114(e) and 35 of the Evidence Act. Ex.P.14 assures integrity of material objects examined by R.F.S.L.
76.The prosecution relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 to corroborate the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 and to establish the occurrence, place of offence, nature of injuries, involvement of the accused, recovery of material objects, scientific linkage, and procedural regularity of investigation. Any minor discrepancies found in dates, timings, or procedural details do not go to the root of the prosecution case, are natural in investigation, do not affect the substantive evidence. As per settled principles under the Evidence Act, procedural lapses cannot override reliable substantive evidence.
77.Even there are minor contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses , but they do not go to the root of identity of accused, occurence of incident, weapon used, injuries of P.W.1. Therefore such discrepancies donot affect the credibility of the prosecution case. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and legal admissible.
78.When the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11 is appreciated cumulatively and not in isolation, the prosecution has successfully proved motive, presence of accused, use of deadly weapon, grievous injuries on vital part, intention/knowledge, and a complete chain of circumstances. The evidence satisfies the test of credibility, consistency, and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
79.Hence the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the accused under Sec.307 and Sec.326 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly point is answered.
80.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences charged under
Section 307 and Sec.326 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.235(2)
Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
16
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation), corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of January, 2026.
Sd/- K. VIJAYA KALYANI,
Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, I feel it is not a fit case to invoke Sec.360 of Cr.P.C., or to invoke the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
When questioned about the quantum of sentence (vide separate questionnaire) accused submitted as follows:
"నేనునేరం�చేయలేదు. నామీద తప్పు� కేసు పెట్టా� రు. దయతలచం�డి.“
On hearing quantum of sentence, accused is sentenced to undergo
Simple imprisonment for a period of Five Years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/. (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for Six Months, for the offence punishable U/s.307 of I.P.C.
Accused is also sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of Three Years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/.
(Rupees Five Thousand only),in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Three Months, for the offence punishable U/s.326 of I.P.C.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Out of fine amount of Rs.50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), an amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only); and also out of fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), respectively shall be payable to P.W.1/Yerusu
Ramu, towards compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
The remand period of accused shall be set off as per Sec.428 of
Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., Knife; White Colour Shirt with Black dots; and Black
Colour Pant shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
17
Accused was informed of his right to prefer appeal against the
Judgment of this Court and right to get free legal aid before the appellate
Court.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I (on deputation), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of January, 2026.
Sd/- K. VIJAYA KALYANI,
Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence:
P.W.1 :Yerusu Ramu. - N O N E -
P.W.2 :Yerusu Kondamma.
P.W.3 :Neelapadu Ramana.
P.W.4 :Jeeru Krishna @ Ramakrishna.
P.W.5 :Baggam Kaleswara Rao (V.R.O.).
P.W.6 :Kalavalapalli Ganesh (V.R.O.).
P.W.7 :R. Janardhana Rao (A.S.I. of Police).
P.W.8 :Dr.M. Hymavathi (Medical Officer).
P.W.9 :K. Geetha Madhuri (Scientific Asst., RFSL).
P.W.10:H. Upendra (Inspector of Police).
P.W.11:P. Rama Krishna (S.I. of Police).
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:-
Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1 given to Police, dt.13.09.2018.
Ex.P.2: Marked Portion of Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3,dt.23.09.2018.
Ex.P.3: Marked Portion of Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4,dt.23.09.2018.
Ex.P.4: Scene observation report, dt.14.09.2018.
Ex.P.5: Admissible portion in confession-cum-mediators report, dt.25.09.2018.
Ex.P.6: Seizure report, dt.25.09.2018.
Ex.P.7: Original F.I.R., in Cr.No.178/2018 U/s.324 of IPC of Bhogapuram P.S., dt.13.09.2018.
Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch of scene of offence, dt.14.09.2018.
18
Ex.P.9: Four Photos along with C.D.
Ex.P.10: Wound Certificate of P.W.1, dt.28.01.2019.
Ex.P.11: Blood Group Certificate, dt.10.10.2018.
Ex.P.12: RFSL Report, dt.14.12.2018.
Ex.P.13: Alteration Memo, dt.23.09.2018.
Ex.P.14: Letter of Advice.
For Defence:- - N I L -
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1:- Knife. M.O.2: White Colour Shirt with Black dots. M.O.3: Black Colour Pant.
Sd/- K. VIJAYA KALYANI,
Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
Copies to
1. The Hon’ble Registrar, Judicial, Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
2. The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
3. The District Magistrate -cum- District Collector, Vizianagaram.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.
5. The Addl. Public prosecutor, Vizianagaram.