APVZ000014942025
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt.M.Babitha Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Monday, the 30th day of March, 2026
Sessions Case No.91/2025
(PRC No.14 /2025 I AJFCM, Vizianagaram)
in Cr.No.50/2025 of II Town P.S.)
1Nameofthe : State represented by the Inspector of ComplainantPolice, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram 2Name of the Accused:Karnapu sai @ Mudhuru s/o late Suribabu, age 20 years, T.Kapu caste, r/o D.No.13-40, Raja Veedhi, Gajularega, Vizianagaram.
3Charges:Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 4Plea of Accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Accused is found guilty for the above said charge.
6Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 accordingly, he is convicted under section 258(2) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 M.O1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period. The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence.
In the circumstances, the accused is to suffer IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. No separate in default sentence is imposed, as 2 the substantive sentence is life imprisonment. However, the fine shall be recoverable under section 461 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The period of detention undergone by the accused for the period from 15.02.2025 to till date, shall be given set off in terms of Section 468 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and they can approach the Legal Services Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram District for legal aid if necessary. A free copy of the judgment is supplied herewith to each accused.
7Prosecution conducted :Sri G.Satyam, Public Prosecutor, byVizianagaram 8Defence conducted:Sri K.Surya Prakash Rao, Sri PBS Sai Pavithra, advocates, LADCS Office, Vizianagaram
J U D G M E N T
01.The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, laid charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.50/2025 of II Town P.S for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
02. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(a)On 13/02/2025 at 15:00 hours, LW-1/ Karnapu Bangaru
Lakshmi/PW1 visited the Police Station and lodged a written report stating that she is a resident of Kamma veedhi, Vizianagaram and living by doing labour work of cooking. She separated with her husband and living alone. Her husband deceased/Suribabu and son Sai are living in Gajularega, Her husband and son addicted to drinking of alcohol. On 13.02.2025 at 9 a.m.
her brother-in-law/LW-2/ Karnapu Anjanikumar/ PW2 informed her over phone that PW1’s husband died and accused, who is son of PW1, intimated the same to her. Immediately she went to the house of her husband and found her 3 husband died. She noticed small injuries on the lips of her husband. On her enquiry with surrounding public, one Mahanthi Appiyyamma/LW-6/Mahanthi
Appayyamma/PW5 informed her that last night at about 10 p.m. her husband and son quarreled with each other while drinking alcohol. Hence she has suspicion on the death of her husband and requested to take necessary action.
(b)LW-33/ PW20 -B.Murali Sub Inspector of Police, registered the above report as a case in Cr. No. 50/2025 U/Sec. 194 BNS of II Town
Police Station and submitted the original FIR to the Mandal Executive
Magistrate cum Tahsildar, Vizianagaram.
(c)During investigation, PW20 visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of LWs 24/PW14-Budi suresh and
LW25/Dasari Satyanarayana under cover of a Scene Observation Report got drafted and duly attested by them.
(d)PW20 held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pws.1 to 4 and Geda Laxmi/LW4, and LW19/Budi Srinivasa
Rao, LW20/PW13, LWs.21 to LWs.23( Pasigada Srinivas Rao,Nadipalli
Gurunadharao, and Macha Srinu).
(e)LW-34/PW21-T.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, also examined Pws.1 to 4 and LW4 and recorded their statements. During examination, they suspected foul play on the death of deceased. During inquest, inquest witnesses stated that "on 12/02/2025 at about 10 p.m. the deceased and his son Sai together consumed liquor and at that time they both abused and quarreled with each other. On the next day i.e. on 13/02/2025 at about 3.30 a.m. the deceased and his son Sai again consumed liquor and then slept. At about 9 a.m. the son of deceased tried to got wake up his father, but found that his father died. He intimated the same to the brother of deceased by name Anjanikumar and in-turn the said Anjanikumar intimated the same to
PW-1. The deceased might have died due to drinking of alcohol or ill health or any other reason" 4
(f)LW-30-Teegala Sai Kumar taken the photos of the scene of offence as well as dead body of deceased on the directions of PW20 and handed over to him.
(g)On 14/02/2025 PW21 has received Postmortem Certificate from LW-28/PW19-Dr Vinodh Vamsi Krishna and opined that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is blunt injury to chest and abdomen"
(h)Basing on the postmortem report and suspicion raised by the blood relatives of deceased. PW21 altered the section of law from section 194BNSS to section 103(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and submitted alteration memo to the court.
(I)PW21 obtained the call data and CAF of the mobile number 6301185701 of LW-12. 8886252541 of LW2 and 9959435309 of LW-8. After receipt of the call data of above numbers from concerned networks, LW-34 analyzed the date and it was established that accused contacted with cell number of LW-12 to LW-2 and LW-8 on date of offence i.e. on 13/02/2025.
(j)During investigation, PW21 re-examined the witnesses
Pws.1 to 4 and LW4 and examined PW5, PW6, LW8-Gedda Appalanaidu,
PW7, PW8, PW9, LW12-Gedela Yerramma, PW11, PW10, LW15-
NadipalliRamesh, PW12, LW17-Chintapalli Ramana and LW18 Rambarki
Appalaraju, and recorded their detailed statements.
(k)On 15/02/2025 the accused went to PW7 and confessed
before him that "he and his father living together in a house. They both
addicted to drinking of alcohol. He used to quarrel with his father frequently for want of money. On several times he demanded his father to sell their house and give his share of money, but his father refused to do so. On that he used to quarrel with his father. He thought that if his father is alive, he will not give share in the house and planned to kill his father. Accordingly, 12/02/2025 he offered liquor to his father, and after consume it, they both quarreled with 5 each other on the night. Again he demanded his father to give money to him by selling of his house, but his father refused to do so. On that he attacked on his father, fisted with hands, beat with hands. When his father fell on the floor, he kicked him with legs and then his father died".
(l)Then PW7 produced the accused before PW8, incharge
VRO, Gajualarega and he recorded the confessional statement of accused and both PWs7 and 8 brought the accused to II Town Police Station and hand over him to PW21 informing the above facts.
(m)PW21 effected arrest of accused on 15/02/2025 at 18:00 hours, interrogated the accused before PW15 and LW 27/ Palakonda Ajay
Kumar and got recorded the confessional statement of accused and duly attested by them.
(n)PW21 has seized a gold colour metal ring with green studded stone which is worn by him to his right hand middle finger. PW16 the then Ward Education secretary, issued certificate that the accused and deceased resided in Raja veedhi, Gajularega in a house.
(o)The investigation revealed that on several times the accused beat the accused with hands when he refused to sell the house. On that the accused thought that unless the deceased died, he will not get his share in the house. Then he decided to kill the deceased and waiting for an opportunity. While so, on 12/02/2025 at about 8 p.m. the deceased went to his house and found the deceased in drunken state, beat the deceased and caused death of the deceased.
(p)Thus the accused has committed the above offence and he is liable for punishment under the above section of law.
03. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class, Vizianagaram has taken cognizance of the charge sheet as PRC 14/2025 under section 103(1) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
6
04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as the offence punishable under Section 103(1) Bharatiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the committal court committed the Sessions case to Sessions Division at
Vizianagaram, under Section 232 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .05.When the accused is produced in this Court, he was examined under Section 251 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and after hearing the Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and charge under Section 103(1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was framed against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and MO1 were marked.
07.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 wherein the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused is placed and the Accused denied the same. No defence evidence is adduced
08.Heard both sides.
09.Now, the points arise for determination are:
(I) Whether the accused committed the murder of the deceased on 12.02.2025?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 103(1) 7
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond all reasonable doubt? Points: (I) and (ii)
10.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that all the links in chain of circumstances are lead to the guilt of the accused.
On the other hand, the learned LADC counsel argued that:
(i) the accused was falsely implicated in this case by his mother who left her mother about 15 years back
(ii) The extra judicial confession is not believable
(iii) the entire prosecution evidence is full of omissions.
(iv) the prosecution failed to prove all the links of chain so as to point the guilt towards the accused that he is the person committed the offence
11.The learned counsel for the public prosecutor relied that:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused as held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State of
Maharashtra reported in 1984 AIR 1622.
8
12.Initially the FIR was registered basing on the report of wife of the deceased under section 194 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, later basing on the postmortem report,section of law was altered to section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .
13.PW19 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is blunt injury to chest and abdomen and he issued Ex.P11 postmortem report.
14.PW20 is the inquest panchayatdar, who opined that the reason of the death of the deceased was not known.
15.On perusal of Ex.P5 inquest report, in which it was opined that the death of the deceased due to consumption of liquor or ill-health or some other reasons.
16.The evidence of PW19 and PW13 coupled with Ex.P11 and Ex.P5 shows the death of the deceased due to homicide but not suicide or otherwise.
17.PW1 is wife of the deceased and mother of the accused, she has reported to the police vide Ex.P1. As per the evidence of PW1, about 15 years back she got separated from her husband and living with her daughter and she got information about the death of the deceased through PW2. Then she went to Gajularega to the house of the deceased and seen there is a break injury on the lips of the deceased, on the call made by the accused through PW2 on 13.02.2025 at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. he came to know about the death of the deceased, in turn he informed PW1 and other relatives.
9
18.PW2 further stated that PW1 has seen a cut injury on the lip and an injury on the left hand and also the body is full of swollen injuries i.e on chest and it is red in colour, then himself and PW2 and relatives suspected about the death of the deceased and reported to the police.
19.PW3 also stated that he has seen dead body of the deceased with cut injury on the lip and also injuries on the wrist and chest.
20.PWs.1 and 3 came to know through surrounding people and on the previous night they heard shouts. PW1 came to know through LW6 about the same and PW4 also came to know about the incident that since one week both are disputing with each other and on the previous night of the death, they heard loud shouts from the house and they were disputing each other in intoxicated state, for the purpose of property.
21.PW6 came to know through the neighbours gathered at that place and he enquired them and they stated that they heard loud shouts on the previous night, at that time the deceased shouted stating that ‘kapadandi kapadandi’ ( to rescue him) and got scared of accused many persons did not visit the house of the deceased at that time.
22.PW1 stated that after she left her husband, her husband and her son used to live and she came to know through the neighbours that every day deceased and accused used to consume alcohol and dispute with each other, as she was scared she could not question them. The accused has disputed with deceased to give money after selling the house and thereby the accused has killed the deceased.
The accused is habituated to consume liquor and used to extract 10 money by threatening the surrounding people that he is going to cut his wrist with blade and also threatened with dire consequences.
In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that the accused used to extract money by threatening the surrounding people that he is going to cut his wrist with blade and also threatened with dire consequences.
23.PW4 stated that she shared the property equally to her three sons, inspite of herself explaining to the accused that after his father he get the share, he did not heed.
24.The evidence of PW1 who is the mother of the accused and wife of the deceased, PW4 the mother of the deceased cannot be denied with regard to the share in the property and also about the habit of accused consuming liquor and disputing with PW4 and he used to beat them and unable to bear the harassment of the accused,
PW4 left to the house of her daughter.
25.PW2 states that on 12.02.2025 night they heard the loud shouts of the deceased and accused and they thought as usual they are disputing with each other, he got scared as already, he was operated for heart as such he did not visit the house of the deceased at the time of shouts.
26.PW12 also stated about the disputes between the accused and the deceased and also beat each other when he questioned the accused about the dispute then he tried to beat him about 4 days back of the incident.. On the date of incident, both of them disputed with each other and accused has beat the deceased and thereby killed and on the 11 next day they went to their house and saw the dead body of the deceased .accused insisted to give cash by disposing the property and that the deceased is not intended to sell the property, as such both of them disputed each other in drunken state.
27.PW5 is the neighbour of the deceased, states that everyday both accused and the deceased used to dispute with each other and she used to hear their disputes, as her house is annexed to the house of the deceased and at about eleven months back, since morning accused and deceased were disputing each other. She stood at the entrance of her house as her husband did not turn up for dinner i.e.
in between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. she heard loud shouts and saw the accused went into the house with a liquor bottle, thereafter she heard the loud shouts from the deceased stating that ‘kapadandi kapadandi’ (to rescue him), she got scared and went into her house and she heard shouts for 15 minutes, thereafter she did not hear the shouts. on the next day morning while she was brooming the dust, then accused informed her that deceased was dead. She further stated that dispute between accused and deceased with regard to the house where they are residing.
28.PW6 stated that while himself and some other persons were present at street i.e. previous day of the death of the deceased, the accused has consumed liquor and he is carrying bottle containing liquor and further states that the dispute between the accused and the deceased is with regard to the house in which they are residing and he went to the house of deceased, which is in dilapidated condition and stated number of times the deceased and PW2 got shelter in other houses, unable to bear the torture made by the accused.
12
29.The evidence of PW5 is so probable that there are no houses in between her house and house of the deceased and only wall is there between her house and the house of the deceased , as such herself seen the accused , frequently disputing with the deceased and she used to hear the disputes and since morning accused and deceased were disputing each other, she stood at the entrance of her house as her husband did not turn up for dinner i.e. in between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. at that time, she heard loud shouts and saw the accused went into the house with a liquor bottle, thereafter she heard the loud shouts from the deceased stating that ‘kapadandi kapadandi ( to rescue him).
30.Even the other prosecution witnesses stated about the hearing of loud shouts, just prior to the incident, which can be considered as resgestae , which occurred in the same transaction, so connected with each other. PW5 and PW6 heard in the night of the incident that ‘kapadandi kapadandi’ ( to rescue him) by the deceased, but they did not approach to try to rescue the deceased as it is common phenomenon disputes between them , the said aspect can be considered as it comes under res-gestae as to the transaction so connected with each other.
31.PW11 stated that about one year back, one Sai came and purchased two liquor bottles @ Rs.120/-each, later he came to know that accused has killed the deceased/father by fisting on the chest of the deceased. PW11 identified the accused in the court
In the cross-examination of PW11 it was elicited that he is not having prior acquaintance with accused and he does not belongs to his 13 village and they will not maintain the purchase made by each of the customer and around 50 to 100 persons will visit their shop and he cannot identify said 50 persons, who are visiting their shop. He denied the suggestion that he is not working in the said shop and that the accused never purchased liquor. He volunteers that the accused is daily customer, as such he remembered him He volunteers that the accused used to visit 5 days in a week to his shop. He admitted that he did not state before police that accused is daily customer and the accused used to visit 5 days in a week.
32.PW14 is the scene observation mediator, who endorsed his signature on the scene observation report to show the deceased and the accused are living in one house.
33. PW16 Ward education secretary of Gajularega was examined and she states that as per the requisition of II Town Police station, she has sent women protection secretary for enquiry, and after conducting of enquiry on 30.05.2025, she has issued certificate stating that Karanapu Sai s/o Suribabu is residing along with his father in the said door number and issued the certificate Ex.P8. She admits that, there is no signature of the person who conducted enquiry and the Muncipal commissioner is the superior and as per his instruction, they performed their duty. Ext.P8 certificate cannot be denied as PW16 is the Government official and there is no cause or reason to show that the said person is not issued that certificate. The said certificate confirms the residence in which the deceased and accused are living together.
34.PW9 stated himself and accused used to visit Majja cheruvu gattu, and both accused and himself used to consume toddy and used to inform about the dispute between himself and his father about property 14 and he used to harass his father to give money by selling his house and even used to beat his father frequently. After consuming toddy, he left from that place and found the accused was in a state of tension and even he got suspicion on him, after he left,accused has called him through LW12’s phone. further he received phone call through the phone of LW12 on 13.02.2025, made by the accused and informed him that his father is not selling property and on the previous night quarrel has taken place between himself and his father and he has fisted his father on the chest and thereby his father died.
35.PW10 is the daughter of LW12 and she states that accused used to visit her mother for consuming toddy and he has asked her mother’s cell phone and he has talked to different persons through phone and returned the same to her mother. She came to know about the said fact through her mother. The said cell sim is in her name and same is being used by her mother and her mother died about 3 months back.
Cross-examination of this witness it was elicited she do not know the accused and she was not present at the time the accused came to her mother and did not handed over sim or cell phone to the police and she did not state to anybody about facts stated by her mother.
36.The prosecution got examined PW17 alternate Nodal Officer,
Jio relating to phone No.6301185701/ PW10 and on requisition of Addl.
Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram furnished CDR and CAF and 63 certification with covering letter/ Ex.P9 .
37.Further got examined PW18 alternate Nodal Officer, Airtel relating to phone Nos.8886252541 and 995943530/ PW2 and LW8 and on 15 requisition of Addl. Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram furnished CDR and CAF and 63(4)(c) of BSA certification with covering letter/ Ex.P10.
38.From the evidence of PW10, PW17, PW18 and also PW9 that accused made phone calls from the phone of Pw10 (which was used by LW12) to PW2, and LW8, is established.
39.PW7 deposed that on 15.02.2025 the accused came to him at about 3.30 p.m. in the afternoon and confessed that he was scared of police, as police will know about him and on hearing his words, he was shocked and informed to VRO/PW8 and taken the accused to PW8 and the accused confessed his guilt, his statement was taken and himself and VRO made the accused climb on the motorbike and he was made to sit between them and handed over the accused to II Town Police station.
Further the villagers stated that the accused pressurized the deceased to handover the papers relating to the house and on the said day he made the deceased consume liquor and thereby sat on him and fisted him and killed and even the accused confessed his guilt .
In the cross-examination of PW7, it was elicited since 15 yeas, he is playing active role in politics. He denied the suggestion that he acted as mediator in II Town Police station in 15 to 20 cases. He volunteers that only in two cases he acted as mediator. He stated on the next day of the death of the deceased at about 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. he went to his house, he did not see the accused on the said day
40.PW8 deposed that on 15.02.2025 at about 3.10 to 3.15 p.m,
PW7 called him over phone and enquired whether he was present at
Sachivalayam or not, then he stated he was present in Sachivalayam,
PW7 brought one person by name Sai, who was present in the dock. The accused has confessed his guilt and thereby he recorded the same and 16 accused endorsed his signature and recorded the statement of PW7 and also addressed letter to the police/ Ex.P4 and on which he endorsed his signature. He has endorsed his signature on confession of accused and
PW7’s statement.
In the cross-examination of PW8, he states that he got acquaintance with Pw7 since one month by the time of incident. He do not know the accused, prior to visiting himself,. He admitted that he did not mention the date beneath his signature on the statement of PW7 and accused.
41.PW15 VRO deposed that on 15.02.2025 at about 5.45 p.m.
evening Tahsildar called him over phone and informed to attend II Town
Police station with regard to a case, himself and LW27/Ajay Kumar attended
II Town Police station at about 5.55 p.m. and met Inspector of Police and he informed that they have to act as mediators in a case relating to
Gajularega, in which the accused has surrendered, then they have taken them to accused, the accused confessed the guilt, when questioned by the
Inspector of Police about the ring with which he has killed the deceased,, the accused has handed over said ring to the police, which is marked as
MO1 and admissible portion of confession is marked as Ex.P7 and a report was prepared, himself along with other mediator and police and accused endorsed signatures on said report.
PW15 stated in his cross-examination by the time he have attended to the station, the accused was in the presence of Inspector of
Police,. He admitted he do not know since what time the accused was present in the station and entire confession was written by police constable.
17
42.PW7 is active in politics , as such, there is every possibility of accused knowing him in the village, thereby he approached and expressed his fear that the police may know about the incident and he confessed before him, and thereby PW7 has informed that he found out the availability of PW8 and taken the accused before him and the accused confessed his guilt, fisting the deceased with fingers , contained ring to the middle finger, and thereby caused the death of the deceased. the deceased was aged 50 years, physique moderate, succumbed to injuries.
43.Further PW7 and PW8 have taken the accused and handed over the accused to the police and in the presence of mediator
PW15 and LW7 confessed his guilt thereby and at his instance
MO1 ring was seized, with which the injuries were caused.
44.Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.7 ,
PW8 and PW15 except through Investigation officer, PW21 that confession was prepared in the police station in the presence of mediators.
45.Seizure of MO1 cannot be denied as PW7, and PW8 have handed over the accused to the police .the extra judicial confession made before Pws.7 and PW.8 is believable and trustworthy.
46.(a)The learned Public Prosecutor relied the offence was said to be happened in the hut when PW2, PW5 and PW6 were sleeping during early hours, that is in odd hours at the time of offence one cannot expect that independent witness should be present there as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Viswanadhapalli Mutyalamma Vs. the state of A.P. represented by
18
its P.P. delivered on 14th March, 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 1514 of
2010.
(b)The learned Public Prosecutor further relied f an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the accused has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of its choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It is to resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act exists in the statute book as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh decided on 24 th February,
2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012.
47.The learned LADC counsel argued that there is no direct evidence as to what time the offence had taken place and who committed the same.
48.No doubt, nobody knows as to the time of offence that from the evidence of PW5, who is immediate neighbour and only wall is separated PW5 ‘s house and house of the deceased, she stated that at about 8.00 p.m. while she was waiting for her husband, she heard loud shouts and she also seen the accused went into the house with a liquor bottle, thereafter she heard the loud shouts of the deceased stating that ‘kapadandi kapadandi’ (to rescue him), she got scared and went into her house and and on the next day while she was brooming the dust, she came to know through the accused about the death of the deceased.
49.So, the incident has taken place on night between 8.00 p.m. to morning early hours, even the other neighbours who heard the shouts, failed to rescue, the deceased and even the Ward Secretary stated that accused and deceased were living in the said house belongs to the deceased, 19 so it is for the accused to explain the circumstances, which are within his special knowledge as to what happened between the accused and the deceased, but he failed to explain the same.
50.The evidence of PW5 and other prosecution witnesses is reliable and trustworthy in nature to the incident, they have deposed about the disputes between the accused and deceased about the property as to accused insisting to sell away the property for his luxuries, the deceased refused to sell it, the accused committed the offence.
51.The learned LADC counsel argued that PW1 has got separated from her husband, she falsely foisted a case against the accused, she has no knowledge about what transpired between the accused and the deceased and further none of the witnesses are reliable and the extra judicial confession is not believable and even the recovery of MO1 is not major aspect as the material object is small in nature. CDRs and CAFs are not available and the phones made from the toddy vendor is not believable.
52. PW1 is wife of the deceased and mother of the accused and PW4 is grand mother of the accused. PW1 though got separated she has knowledge about the habits of the accused and deceased that is consumption of liquor and frequently disputing with each other as the accused insisted for disposal off the house and give money to him. Even
PW4/grand mother evidence is corroborated as she used to live with accused and deceased, some time, but unable to bear the harassment made by the accused, she went to the house of her daughter and she also stated about the accused frequently disputing with the deceased about selling of the property, for which the deceased did not agree.
20
53.The prosecution witnesses came to know about the frequent disputes between the accused and the deceased, and thereby the accused caused death of the deceased, through the neighbours especially on the previous night loud shouts were heard by the neighbour PW5 and PW6 and even PW6 confirmed about the disputes by stating that PW4 grand mother of the accused got shelter in other houses, unable to bear the torture of the accused.
54.Further purchase of the liquor bottle on the date of incident by the accused from PW11, is believable as he stated that the accused is daily customer and he used to visit five days in a week, though the same was not stated in before the police, but when a person usually visits particular shop, regularly obviously, the vendor or the salesman will have knowledge about the said person.
55.PW16 has certified as to confirmation of the residence, which is the house of the deceased, in which the accused was residing along with his father. On the date of incident, consumption of liquor sold by
PW9, and further he made phone calls to PW2 and PW8 through the phone of LW12 and PW10 stated that her mother/ LW12 informed about the phone calls made by the accused to different persons and PW9 confirmed that even he received phone call from the accused after he left, on consumption of toddy along with the accused from LW12.
56.So far as calls made by the accused to the phone of PW2 and LW8 Gedda Appalanaidu, is established by the CDrs ad CAF filed.
21
57. With regard to PW9 phone number is concerned, no details were filed by the prosecution , but still phone calls made from the phone of LW12 and PW2 and LW8 are concerned is proved.
58.Further the most important circumstance is extra judicial confession made to PW7 and in turn he handed over to PW8 VRO and then both of them have handed over along with confession and statement of PW7 along with covering letter to the police and before the police also he made confession and handed over the ring worn to his middle finger, and with which the accused fisted the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. Further it is for the accused to prove a particular fact especially which is within his special knowledge as per section 106 of the Evidence
Act, for which there is no explanation given by the accused.
59. PW5 and PW6 heard in the night of the incident that ‘kapadandi kapadandi’ ( to rescue him) by the deceased, but they did not approach or try to rescue the deceased as it is common phenomenon disputes between them , the said aspect can be considered as it comes under res-gestae as to the transaction so connected with each other.
60.The prosecution has made all the circumstances link the accused and led the accused to the guilt of offence. Further it does not leave any hypothesis, that it was not committed by the accused
61.Applying the settled principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has carefully evaluated that the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
22
62.In the present case:
The homicidal nature of death is clearly established through the medical evidence of PW19 and Ex.P11, which rules out suicide or accidental death.
The presence of the accused with the deceased in the same house at the relevant time stands proved through PW5, PW6, and PW16.
The motive is established by consistent evidence of frequent disputes over property and demand for money by the accused.
The last seen circumstance and res gestae evidence are proved through PW5 and other neighbours who heard the deceased’s cries (“kapadandi kapadandi”) immediately before the incident.
The conduct of the accused, including informing others about the death and subsequent behavior, raises strong suspicion.
The extra-judicial confession made before PW7 and PW8, followed by recovery of MO1 ring, appears voluntary and inspires confidence, and is corroborated by other circumstances.
The failure of the accused to explain the circumstances of death occurring inside the house, especially within his special knowledge, attracts an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Though there are minor omissions and certain weaknesses (such as inconsistencies in testimony and partial gaps in call data evidence), they do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
The cumulative effect of the evidence establishes:
A complete and unbroken chain of circumstances; All circumstances are consistent only with the guilt of the accused; 23 They exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
63.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 accordingly, he is convicted under section 258(2) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Mo1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- M.Babitha
Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
64.The accused is explained about result of the case that he is found guilty of the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 hence, I questioned the accused with respect to the quantum of sen- tence.
Accused stated that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated by his mother and paternal uncle and his grand mother and sister are dependent on him.
65.The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the accused committed offences against his father in view of previous disputes, with regard to dispose off the house which is heinous offence in the society . All these circumstances point out to the cruel and aggressive conduct of the accused.
The conditions stated by the accused is common to all, and does not require special attention. On the other scale of the balance the Court has to see the 24 gravity of the offence and sufferance of the victim in view of death of the deceased. The offence is grave than the circumstances stated by the accused to take a lenient view.
66.Perused the record and family back ground of the accused but this is not a case where P.O.Act is applicable, since the charges levelled against the accused is grave in nature.
In view of the circumstances, this court intends to impose punishment as prescribed for the offence.
In the circumstances, the accused is sentenced to suffer
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 . No separate in default sentence is imposed, as the substantive sentence is life imprisonment. However, the fine shall be recoverable under section 462 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (section 421 of Cr.P.C)
The period of detention undergone by the accused for the period from 15.02.2025 to till date shall be given set off in terms of 468 Bharatiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 428 Cr.P.C.)
The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi and he can approach the Legal Services Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram District for legal aid if necessary. A free copy of the judgment is supplied herewith to accused.
25
Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026.
Sd/- M.Babitha
Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:For Defence: None
P.W.1: Karnapu Bangaru Lakshmi ( lodged report Ex.P1)
P.W.2: Karnapu Anjanikumar ( accused informed through phone)
P.W.3: Karnapu Rama Krishna (relative of accused and deceased)
P.W.4: Karnapu Suryakantham (mother of deceased)
P.W.5: Mahanthi Appayyamma (neighbour of deceased)
P.W.6: Matcha Atchibbau( accused informed him through phone)
P.W.7: Karrothu Venkta Narisinga Rao(before whom accused confessed)
P.W.8: Boni Harikrishna Rao,(Revenue Officer before whom accused confessed)
P.W.9: Penki Vasu ( to whom the accused informed about disputes between him and his father/deceased)
P.W.10: Laveti Adilaxmi ( accused called through her mother’s cell phone which sim card in the name of PW10)
P.W.11: Kandi Chendra Rao ( cashier in wine shop in whose shop accused purchased liquor
P.W.12: Routhu Srinu (villager of accused and deceased)
P.W.13: Karnapu Mutyala Rao (relative of the deceased and accused)
P.W.14:Budi suresh, (mediator for the scene observation)
P.W.15:Golla Srinu.(VRO before whom accused confessed the offence)
P.W.16: M.Neelima/ Ward Data processing secretary
P.W.17:M.Hari Krishna /Alternate Nodal Officer, Jio, ( CDR & CAF) 26
P.W.18:Bulugu China Ramayya/ Alternate Nodal Officer, Airtel ( CDR &
CAF)
P.W.19:Dr.Vinod Vamsi Kiran/Associate professor ( post mortem)
P.W.20: B.Murali/SI of Polcie ( Investigation officer)
P.W.21: T.Srinivasa Rao/ Inspector of Police (investigation officer)
Documents Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 to the police (marked through PW1)
Ex.P.2: confession/Statement of accused (marked through PW8)
Ex.P3: Statement of PW7 (marked through PW8)
Ex.P.4: The letter addressed to police (marked through: PW8)
Ex.P.5: Inquest report (marked through PW13)
Ex.P.6: Mediators report dt: 13.02.025 from 4.00 to 5 p.m(marked through: PW14)
Ex.P.7: Admissible portion of confession (marked through PW15)
Ex.P.8: Certificate of residence (marked through PW16 stating accused and deceased resided in one house)
Ex.P.9: CDR and CAF and section 63 certificate marked through PW17 relating to phone of Laveti Adilakshmi
Ex.P.10: CDR and CAF and section 63 certificate marked through
PW18 relating to phone numbers of Karanapu Anjani Kumar and
Gedda Appalanaidu
Ex.P.11: Post mortem certificate of the deceased (marked through
PW19)
Ex.P.12: FIR in Cr.No.50/2025 of II Town PS,Vizianagaram (marked through
PW20
Ex.P.13: Rough sketch of the scene (marked through PW20)
Ex.P.14: Altered Memo (marked through: PW21) 27
Ex.P.15: 6 photos (marked through PW21)
Ex.P.16: 16 photos (marked through PW21)
For defence: NIL
Material Objects Marked
M.O.1: Ring ( with whom the accused beat the deceased)
Sd/- M.Babitha
Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram
Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Nelapadu.
(By way of C.D.)
Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile),
Vizianagaram.
Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram
Copy to the District Collector, Vizianagaram.
Copy to the Director of Prosecution, A.P, Vijayawada.
//True copy//
Chief Administrative Officer Prl.District Court, Vizianagaram 28
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Smt.M.Babitha Prl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram Monday, the 30th day of March, 2026
Sessions Case No.91/2025
(PRC No.14/2025) in Cr.No.50/2025 of II Town P.S.)
Complainant:: Accused: State represented by the Karnapu Sai @ Mudhuru, S/o.late Suribabu, Inspector of Police, II Town age 20 years, T.Kapu caste, r/o D.No.13- Police Station, Vizianagaram40,RajaVeedhi,Gajularega, Vizianagaram. The Prosecution is conducted : Sri K.Surya Prakash Rao, Sri PBS Sai by, Sri G.Satyam, Public Pavithra, Advocates, LADCS Office, Prosecutor, Vizianagaram.Vizianagaram Offenses: Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Plea of accused: Not guilty
Finding of the Judge: Guilty Sentence/Order: 30-03-2026 Date of Offence: 13.02.2025 Complaint: 13.02.2025 Apprehension of accused: 16.02.2025
Release on bail: UTP
Commitment: 24.06.2025
Commencement of trial05.01.2026
Close of trial: 04.02.2026 Arguments heard: 02.03.2026 Sentence/Order: 30-03-2026 In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 103(1) of BharatiyaNyayaSanhita,2023 accordingly, he is convicted under section 258(2) of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha 29
Sanhita, 2023 Mo1 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period. The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. In the circumstances, the accused is sentenced to suffer IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence under section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. No separate in default sentence is imposed, as the substantive sentence is life imprisonment. However, the fine shall be recoverable under section 462 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (section 421 of Cr.P.C)
The period of detention undergone by the accused for the period from 15.02.2025 to till date shall be given set off in terms of 468 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 428 Cr.P.C.) The accused is informed that he can prefer an appeal against the Judgment
before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Amaravathi and he can approach the Legal Services Authority of the Hon’ble High Court or the District Legal Services Authority, Vizianagaram District for legal aid if necessary. A free copy of the judgment is supplied herewith to accused. Explanation for delay:- The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused under Section Section 103(1) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the same was registered as PRC No.14/2025 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,
Vizianagaram and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
Vizianagaram along with the committal order dated 24.06.2025 and was taken on file as Sessions Case No.91/2025 on the file of the Sessions Judge, 30
Vizianagaram and posted for the appearance of the accused. After the appearance of the accused, charges under Section 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 was framed against the accused and examined him and posted for trial. After closing the trial, the accused was examined under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and upon hearing arguments on 02.03.2026, pronounced the judgment today. Hence there is no unavoidable delay.
The Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- was not paid.
Sd/- M.Babitha
Principal District & Sessions Judge.
Vizianagaram.
Copy to
1. The Registrar (Judicial), High court of A.P., Nelapadu.
2. The Director of Prosecutions.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram.
4. The District Collector, Vizianagaram.
5. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.
//True copy//
Chief Administrative Officer Prl.District Court, Vizianagaram