APKR030060752024
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA
PRESENT: Smt.N.Padmavathi VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge
Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026
SESSIONS CASE No.293/2024
(P.R.C.No.28/2023 Order dated 10.09.2024 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in Cr.No.207/2022 of Nunna Police Station)
Between : State : Inspector of Police, Nunna Police Station, Vijayawada City.…Complainant
And
Guduru Vijay Kumar alias Vijay, S/o.late Rambabu, 23 years, D.No.77-59-5, beside VMC park, Opposite road of Kranthi Public School, AVS Reddy Road, Payakapuram, Vijayawada, NTR District.…Accused
Charge:Under Section 302 of IPC the accused.
Plea of the accused:NOT GUILTY.
:FOUND NOT GUILTY Finding of the Court Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY of the offence punishable section 302 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue for a period of six months as provided under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mos.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal or appeal time.
2
This Sessions Case coming on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for State on behalf of Complainant, and Sri Ch.Siva Krishna, Sri S.Ravi Kumar and Sri K.Naga Sridhar, Advocates
for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this
Court delivered the following :-
JUDGMENT
1.The Inspector of Police, Nunna Police Station, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), in Crime No.207/2022 of Nunna
Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the averments in the charge- sheet is as follows:-
(i) Accused and one Moses Lucks Mathews alias John Mathews alias
Mathews (deceased) are residents of AVS Reddy Road, Payakapuram,
Vijayawada. LW1/Dara Rupa alias Uttiri Mary is the sister of the deceased.
LW2/Moses Lucks Alphones alias Alphones alias Jaya, LW3/Moses Lucks
Anthuraj alias Anthuraj alias Vinod and LW4/Moses Lucks Thomas Daniel alias
Thomas alias Daniel Shaik are brothers of the deceased.
(ii) The marriage of the deceased with Swarna Latha was performed about 18 or 19 years back and they have two daughters, and later the deceased discarded his wife due to disputes arose in between them. Deceased got acquaintance with a widow Guduru Ramana about 15 years back and she has a son and daughter/Sirisha. Accused is the son of Guduru Ramana. Deceased used to take said Ramana and her children to function of his relatives and the accused and his sister used to call the deceased as father. Deceased suspected 3
Sirisha about her behaviour with colleagues and abused her for which the accused used to altercate with the deceased and neighbours used to pacify them, and thereafter the accused decided to kill the deceased with a view to fulfill his vengeance against the deceased, he brought a two feet iron pipe in house.
(iii) On the intervening night of 19/20.05.2022 the deceased made galata in drunken state and that the accused and deceased quarreled with each other, the neighbour LW5/Mutyala Krishna intervened and tried to pacify them but they did not listen, by that time the accused grew wild against the deceased and beat him with iron pipe indiscriminately on his head, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and fell on drainage heap in front of the house, and then
Sirisha informed the same to the sister of deceased (LW1), and then their relatives visited the scene of offence and found the deceased was on drainage heap, and deceased was taken to Chikitsa hospital, where the doctor declared him as dead due to injuries.
(iv)Basing on the report of LW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police (LW15) of
Nunna Police Station namely U.Govindu registered it as FIR in Cr.No.207/2022 under section 302 of IPC and took up investigation. On 20.05.2022, another
Investigation Officer i.e., LW16/ Inspector of Police namely K.Srinivasa Rao visited the scene of offence located at the house of accused, prepared rough sketch and observed the scene in the presence of mediators Lws.10 and 11 namely Ch.Kamal Kumar and R.Venkata Rami Reddy and seized material objects. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent it for postmortem examination, he examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 9. On 22.05.2022, LW16/ Inspector of Police arrested the accused in the presence of above mediators. In pursuance of confession statement of the accused, LWs.16, 10 and 11 have proceeded to VMC Park near 4 the house of accused and recovered one iron pipe from the accused and seized his cloths and drafted mediators report. After conduction of autopsy by
LW13/Dr.A.Krishnajaneyulu, Assistant Professor, Siddhartha Medical College,
Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, he issued postmortem certificate, opined that the deceased died due to ‘multiple head injuries and their associated complications’. After receipt of RFSL report and after completion of investigation,
LW16/ Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the
Charge.
3.The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada has taken the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the accused.
4.After appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.As the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate followed the procedure prescribed under Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure, assigned PRC.No.28/2023 and committed the entire case record to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Vijayawada. Upon which, the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Vijayawada numbered it as Sessions Case No.293/2024 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
6. On hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for Accused, and on consideration a charge under section 302 of
IPC against the accused was framed, explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5
7.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MOs.1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard arguments. Perused the record.
10.Now, the Point for consideration is :
Whether prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of accused for the charge under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?
11.POINT :
The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the contents of the report lodged by the sister of the deceased i.e., PW1 and as per the averments in the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer i.e., PW10 is that the deceased namely Moses Lucks Mathews alias John Mathews alias Mathews had been in living relationship with the mother of the accused for the past 15 years and was residing in her house along with the accused and his sister Sirisha besides their mother Guduru Ramana. He used to take the said Guduru Ramana and her children to his family functions and to the houses of his relatives, whereas accused and his sister, used to call the deceased as their father. However, the deceased used to visit the house in a drunken state and used to pick up the quarrels in the house as he started suspecting the conduct of the sister of accused namely Sirisha about her behavior with colleagues and abused her and 6 in that regard both the accused and his sister used to have altercation of words with deceased and the neighbours used to pacify them. For the past one year prior to the incident such altercation of words and quarrels were increased and that accused grew wild against the deceased and decided to kill him with a view to fulfill his vengeance against the deceased, accordingly he brought a two feet iron pipe into his house. While so on intervening night of 19/20.05.2022 when the deceased made a galata as usual in a drunken state, the accused quarreled with him, on hearing such altercation of words their neighbour i.e., LW5/PW2 intervened and tried to pacify them. As they both were not listening his words, he went out of the house and then accused grew wild against the deceased and beat him with said iron pipe indiscriminately on his head due to which the deceased sustained severe multiple bleeding injuries and fell on the heap of drainage in front of their house, such fact was informed to the sister of the deceased i.e., LW1/PW1, by the sister of accused namely Sirisha. So, also to their neighbor i.e., PW2, who visited the spot, had confrimation about the same and on the next day when PW1 enquired about the mode and manner in which the incident took place PW2 narrated the same to PW1. Accordingly, she lodged a report to State House Officer, Nunna Police Station ie., PW9 who registered the crime, and after completion of investigation, basing on the statements given by such eye witnesses to the incident, as well as seizure of the said iron pipe vide MO.3 with which accused committed the offence, in pursuance of his confessional statement and as per the lead given by the accused and on receipt of postmortem certificate, disclosing the cause of death of deceased as multiple head injuries and their associated complications, PW10 filed charge-sheet against the accused.
12.So, according to the case of prosecution, it is on account of suspecting the character of one Sirisha, who is sister of the accused by the deceased there 7 used to have altercation of words and quarrels in between accused and deceased, which played as motive behind commission of murder of the deceased by the accused on the fateful day.
13.Further, Section 300 of IPC which defines the offence “Murder” provides that, except in the circumstances as narrated in exceptions 1 to 5 of that section, if the death of deceased is caused by doing an act by the accused with an intention of causing death or with an “intention of causing such bodily injury” as is likely to cause his death or with the “knowledge” that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the act of culpable homicide, then such an act amounts to committing murder of the deceased by the accused.
14.Now coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offence leveled against him, PW1 who is the sister of deceased cum defacto complainant in this case deposed that earlier deceased was married with Swarna and deserted her society and later started to live along with the mother of accused Ramana as living relationship with her i.e., in the house of said Ramana, in which both accused and his sister
Sirisha also used to reside with them and he had been in such living relationship with Ramana for the past 15 years prior to the incident and they used to live amicably without any disputes. She did not depose anything about previous disputes or quarrels between accused and deceased in respect of any issue, but deposed that it is on the intervening night of 19/20.05.2022 she received phone call from Sirisha stating that accused beat and killed the deceased, and immediately she informed the same to her family members and when they all went to the house of accused and deceased, they found that the deceased fell on the drainage mud in front of their house in a pool of blood. It is on enquiry with
PW2, who is neighbor to the house of deceased she came to know that some 8 quarrel took place in between the deceased and accused and at that time the mother and sister of accused were standing outside of the house, so, he went into the house and tried to pacify the quarrel between them but as they did not listen his words thinking that it was a routine galata he went away to his house but after one hour the sister of accused namely Sirisha went to the house of PW2 and asked for his phone and through such phone of PW2 she made a call to
PW1 and informed about said incident. Even PW2 informed to her that it is from sister of accused namely Sirisha only, he came to know that the accused beat the deceased with iron rod, and as such, he died. Then immediately he rushed to the spot and witnessed the same. Accordingly, she got marked the report given to Police on 20.05.2022 at 03:00 AM as Ex.P1.
15.PW3 brother of the deceased also deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW1, stating that on 20.05.2022 at 01:15 AM he received phone call from PW1 informing that accused beat the deceased, immediately he rushed to the house of PW1 and later went to the house of deceased along with other brothers and PW1, and found deceased on the heap of drainage in front of his house in a pool of blood. Initially, they thought that he was alive and took him into
Chikitsha hospital, Vijayawada, where doctors declared that he was brought dead. According to PW3 also, it is from neighbour of the deceased they came to know about the alleged incident that a quarrel took place in between the accused and deceased on the intervening night of 19/20 and he witnessed the same and came out of the house, after that only Sirisha came to the house of such neighbour took his phone and made a phone call to PW1. Thereby, he corroborated the evidence of PW1 to the effect that Sirisha made a phone call through the phone of neighbour of deceased and informed about the death of deceased.
9
16.Whereas PW2, the said neighbour to the house of deceased, who was in fact cited as eye witness in this case deposed that his house is situated by the side of house of deceased. On 19.05.2022 he returned to home at 09:45 PM and after having his dinner when he was in sleep he heard cries from outside of his house i.e., at about 11:00 PM or 11:15 PM. Then the sister of accused namely
Sirisha knocked the doors of his house i.e., at about 11:45 PM asked for his phone to make a call. Then she went out of his house and made a phone call except that he do not know anything about the alleged incident and do not know what happened on that day. It is on the next day he came to know that the deceased was died. Thereby he turned hostile to the case of prosecution by resiling from his earlier statement marked as Ex.P2, to the effect of witnessing the galata in between deceased and accused just prior to the incident of beating deceased by accused as alleged by the prosecution, and witnessing the condition of deceased immediately on coming to know about the death of deceased from the sister of accused namely Sirisha.
17.PWs.4 to 6 the other neighbours to the house of deceased and accused deposed that they do not know how the deceased died and that they were not examined by the Police. Adding to it, PW4 deposed that in fact on the date of incident he along with his family had gone to his in-laws house and returned home on the next day of incident. Despite thorough cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor except got marking their 161 Cr.P.C., statements as Exs.P3 to P5, nothing material could be elicited to favour the case of prosecution.
10
18.PW7, one of the mediators for scene observation report dated 20.05.2022, arrest and recording the confessional statements of accused dated 22.05.2022 as well as seizure of material objects like the said iron pipe (MO.3) and the clothes wore by the accused at the time of commission of offence vide
MOs.4 and 5 deposed that it is in his presence Police have observed the scene of offence and got prepared Ex.P6 scene observation report whereunder they have seized some pieces of brain part containing blood stains, controlled earth and blood stained earth etc., and was even present at the time of inquest on the dead body of deceased at Government General Hospital, Vijayawada and got marked such report as Ex.P7. He even deposed about arrest of accused on 22.05.2022 by PW10 while moving in a suspicious condition on Pathapadu road and deposed about confession made by accused after taking him into custody by
PW10. According to him, in pursuance of confessional statement made by accused he lead them to a park near his house, where he concealed the iron pipe used for commission of offence, accordingly PW10 seized said pipe vide
MO.3 and also stated that the cloths which were worn by accused at that time were in fact the same clothes which he wore at the time of commission of offence. Then on the request made by PW10, by changing his dress he handed over such cloths of him vide MOs.4 and 5 to PW10 under the cover of seizure panchanama vide Ex.P9.
19.At this juncture, it is pertinent to make a mention that according to the evidence of PW10, after recording the confessional statement of accused by him in the presence of PW7 and another mediator, it is the accused who lead them to
VMC park situated opposite to his house and from there he brought MO.3 and handed over the same to him, and from the same place he even brought the wearing apparels of him wore at the time of commission of offence, accordingly 11 seized such clothes vide MOs.4 and 5. Thereby, with regard to the mode and manner of seizure of MOs.4 and 5 he contradicted the evidence of PW7.
Admittedly, MOs.3 to 5 do not contain any such ID slips containing the signatures of PW7 and another mediator as admitted by him in his cross-examination.
20.PW8 the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased on 20.05.2022 at 12:05 PM deposed about observing the antemortem injuries around 11 in number as detailed in the postmortem certificate vide Ex.P10. The close and careful perusal of all such injuries reveal that it is at multiple parts of the head, he sustained cut lacerations as well as contusion injuries, besides abrasions on his right great toe and second toe, thereby ruled out the possibility of receipt of any such head injury due to accidental fall on a broken cement plank, admitted to have situated in front of the house of deceased and accused as admitted by PW3. According to him, the death was occurred due to multiple head injuries and their associated complications, accordingly got marked such postmortem certificate as Ex.P10.
21.PW9 the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime and issued
FIR vide Ex.P11 deposed that in fact PW1 did not mention dress colour of the deceased in Ex.P1, and PW10 did not depose about mode and manner in which he collected the cloths of deceased which were identified by PW1 in her evidence as MOs.1 and 2 which were alleged to have been sent by him to RFSL for analysis and report.
22.In the light of the aforementioned evidence given by the prosecution witnesses coupled with the admissions made by PWs.1 and 3 being sister and brothers of deceased in their cross-examination that the deceased was in the 12 habit of consuming alcohol and that there is a broken cement pandal in front of their house and earlier he was attacked with paralysis and at that time the accused and his family members who got admitted the deceased in the hospital and provided treatment. So also at the time when deceased suffered from appendicitis and that there were no disputes between the deceased and accused earlier to the incident, the prosecution failed to establish the alleged intention and motive behind the commission of the alleged offence of murder of deceased by the accused, as put forth by them in the charge sheet.
23.In the absence of any such clear intention of causing death or at least intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death of the deceased or knowledge that the said act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability will cause death of deceased, it cannot be held that accused had any such intention to kill the deceased. Adding to it, except the evidence given by
PWs.1 and 3, that it is from neighbour to the house of deceased i.e., PW2 they came to know about occurrence of galata in between the deceased and accused on the previous night, absolutely, there is no other corroborative and convincing piece of evidence to establish the said fact whereas PW2 did not depose anything about witnessing such quarrel in between the accused and deceased on the previous night. The crucial witness i.e., Sirisha/sister of the accused and the mother of accused who contended to be present in the house at the time of alleged incident, were neither cited as witnesses nor examined by the prosecution in this case. Except the factum that it is through the phone of PW2, sister of accused made a phone call to a third person, PW2 did not depose that such call was made by Sirisha to PW1 and that it is from Sirisha, he came to know about occurrence of quarrel in between the accused and deceased and he did not even depose about visiting the house of deceased at the time of 13 occurrence of such galata and witnessing the dead body of deceased immediately after the incident as put forth by the prosecution.
24.So, it is clear that absolutely there is no evidence of direct eye witness to the incident. Even to rest the case of prosecution on circumstantial evidence, except the hearsay evidence of PWs.1 and 3 which remain uncorroborated by virtue of turning hostile to the case of prosecution by PW2 and other neighbours to the house of deceased who are examined as PWs.4 to 6, absolutely, no such link of circumstances forming as a ring, pointing towards the guilt of accused without leaving any scope to give any benefit of doubt to the accused, was established by the prosecution in this case.
25.So, in these circumstances just because of the reason that the postmortem certificate of deceased marked as Ex.P10 reveal the cause of death as multiple head injuries with their associated complications it cannot held to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused who committed murder of the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, in these circumstances without any hesitation this Court is of the considered view the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the point is answered in negative against the prosecution, and answered in favour of the accused.
26.In the result, the accused is FOUND NOT GUILTY of the offence punishable section 302 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall continue for a period of six months as provided under section 14 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mos.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal or appeal time.
Judgment is dictated by me partly to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, and the remaining part is typed by him directly on computer to my dictation and pronounced by me in this open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-N.Padmavathi
VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Prosecution: PW1:D.Roopa alias U.Mary. PW2:Mutyala Krishna. PW3:Moses Lukes Thoma Daniel alias Thomas alias Daniel. PW4:B.Naveen Nayak. PW5:R.Varalakshmi. PW6:M.Sivakali alias Siva. PW7:Ch.Kamal Kumar. PW8:Dr.C.Krishnaanjaneyulu. PW9:U.Govind. PW10:K.Srinivasa Rao
Defence: None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Prosecution: Ex.P1Report of PW1. Ex.P2Statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., of PW2. Ex.P3Statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., of PW4. Ex.P4Statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., of PW5. Ex.P5Statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., of PW6. Ex.P6Scene observation report. Ex.P7Inquest report. Ex.P8Mediation mahazar for arrest of accused.
15
Ex.P9Seizure panchanama. Ex.P10Postmortem certificate of deceased. Ex.P11FIR in Cr.No.207/2022 under section 302 of IPC. Ex.P12Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P13Letter of advice. Ex.P14RFSL report.
Defence: Nil
Material Objects :
Mos.1 and 2 are Light Blue colour jeans and light green colour T-Shirt. MO.3 is iron pipe. MO. is grey colour short MO.5 is Navy blue colour T-Shirt red colour collar with read vertical stripes.
Sd/- N.Padmavathi
VIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAWADA
Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravati.
Copies to : 1] The learned VI Additional2] The Directorate of Prosecutions, Metropolitan Magistrate, Civil Courts Complex, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. 3] The Additional Public Prosecutor,4] The Commissioner of Police, VIII ADSJ Court, Vijayawada. Vijayawada.
//True Copy//
Superintendent, VIII Addl.District & Sessions Court , Vijayawada