APNE000033072025
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT-CUM-V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE NELLORE
Present: Smt N.SARASWATHI
Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-
V Additional District & Sessions Judge
NELLORE
Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026
SESSIONS CASE No.171/2025
(PRC No.19/2025 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in Cr.No.143/2024 of Kodavaluru Police Station)
Name of the State: Represented by Complainant: Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem Circle Names of the Accused: Potluri Subrahmanyam S/o Polaiah, aged 35 years, Yanadi by caste, Thallamitta Girijana colony, Yallayapalem village, Kodavaluru mandal Name of the deceased Potluri Polaiah S/o Seenaiah, aged 53 years, Yanadi by caste, Thallamitta Girijana colony, Yallayapalem village, Kodavaluru mandal Nature of Offence: Sec.103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Judge: Found guilty.
Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5(five) months. The period of remand undergone by the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 30.12.2024 to till date shall be set of U/Sec.468 of BNSS. MO1- Axe, MO2- Firewood stick, MO3- Controlled earth, MO4-Blood stained earth, MO5-Broken piece of leg of plastic chair,
Page 2 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
MO6-Knife, MO7-Shirt, MO8-Blue Jeans Short, MO9-T-shirt and MO10-Short of the deceased shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The accused is appraised about the right of appeal and free legal aid. A free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused at free of cost.
This case coming on 30.03.2026 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri P. Sarath Babu – Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following—
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem Circle filed charge-sheet against the accused in Crime No.143/2024 of Kodavaluru Police Station for the offence punishable U/Sec.103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution, as per the averments made in the charge-sheet, succinctly, is: On 28.12.2024 at about 10-00 hours PW1 went to the house of his father/deceased to give Idli to his father and he noticed that the neighbours i.e., PW3, PW4, PW5 and E. Subrahmanyam are witnessing the accused who is quarrelling with the deceased by demanding to write the house in his name, but the deceased has not agreed for the same by saying that he wants to give the same equally to his two sons and he will not give the same to him and on that the accused stabbed his father/deceased with a knife which appears like a chalk, over the middle of his chest and on below abdomen, due to which the deceased fell down on the floor, in the mean while as PW1 was not returned to the house, his wife and son i.e., PW2 and P. Venkataramanaiah rushed there and witnessed the same, PW1 and the neighbours i.e., PW3 to PW5 and E.
Subrahmanyam tried to rescue the deceased, but the accused threatened them by showing the knife, out of fear they stood at some distance, then the
Page 3 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 accused took an axe available in the house and sat upon the deceased and hacked him over his forehead and lips with said axe due to which the deceased sustained severe cut bleeding injures over head, mouth, chest and below abdomen and died instantaneously in the pool of blood, then the accused escaped from there towards the fields with the knife and knowing the same PW6, PW7, LW8-P. Muneeswaramma, LW9-E. Polamma, LW11-
M. Polaiah and LW12-M. China Venkaiah rushed to the spot and noticed the corpse of the deceased, then PW1 gave report to the police.
Basing on the report of PW1, PW11 registered a case in
Cr.No.143/2024 U/Sec.103(1) of BNS of Kodavaluru Police Station on 28.12.2024 and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. Later during the course of investigation, PW12 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e., PW8 and PW10 and seized material objects and got photographed the scene of offence and also got prepared observation report and rough sketch at the scene of offence and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he conducted inquest over the corpse of the deceased at his house and sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy and on 29.12.2024 he examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their statements and on the same day at about 17-30 hours he arrested the accused and seized remaining material objects from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW8 and
PW10 under a cover of mahazarnama, later he forwarded the material objects to RFSL and received analysis report and basing on the analysis report PW9 issued final opinion, opining that the cause of death of deceased is due to ―Shock and Hemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖ and after completion of investigation, PW12 laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.
Page 4 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
3. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and assigned
P.R.C.No.19/2025 and issued summons to accused. On production of the accused from Central Prison, Nellore, the committal Court furnished copies of case documents to the accused as required U/s.230 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
4. After following due procedure, this case was committed to the
Court of Sessions, Nellore Division, Nellore by the learned committal Judge
U/s.232 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 proceedings. The
Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Nellore assigned this case as
S.C.No.171/2025 and made over to this court, for trial and disposal according to Law.
5. after receipt of record and upon hearing the learned Special
Public Prosecutor, and the learned defence counsel, charge U/Secs.103(1) of BNS is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in
Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW1-Potluri
Venkateswarlu, PW2-Potluri Venkataramanamma, PW3-Eaga Polamma,
PW4-Gandhalla Kanakaiah, PW5-Gandhalla China Kanakaiah, PW6-Indla
Kondaiah, PW7-Potluri Venkataramanaiah, PW8-Kottu Subbaiah, PW9-Dr
Madhu Sudhana Reddy, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, ACSR
Medical College, Nellore, PW10-Yekollu Vamsidhar Reddy, PW11-Ch. Koti
Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodavaluru police station and PW12-A.
Surendra Babu, Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem circle are examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 and MO1 to MO10 are marked.
7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, when the accused is examined U/Sec.351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
Page 5 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 2023 he denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.
9. Now, the points that arises for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution established that accused intentionally or knowingly caused the death of the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.103(1) of BNS as alleged by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. POINT: -
The case of the prosecution is that on 28.12.2024 at about 10.00 hours PW1 went to the house of his father/deceased to give Idli to his father and he noticed that the accused was quarrelling with the deceased by demanding to write the house in his name, but the deceased has not agreed for the same by saying that he wants to give the same equally to his two sons and he will not give the same to him and on that the accused stabbed his father/deceased with a knife/chalk, over the middle of his chest and on below abdomen, due to which the deceased fell down on the floor and when
PW1, PW3 to PW5 and E. Subrahmanyam tried to rescue the deceased, the accused threatened them by showing the knife, then the accused took an axe and sat upon the deceased and hacked him over his forehead and lips with said axe due to which the deceased sustained severe cut bleeding injures over head, mouth, chest and below abdomen and died instantaneously in the pool of blood, then the accused escaped from there towards the fields with the knife.
Page 6 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
11. It is pertinent to know the section of law :-
Section 103(1) of BNS
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
EVIDENCE OF DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
12. PW1 i.e., defacto complainant in this case who is none other and the elder son of deceased and elder brother of accused, the evidence of
PW1 discloses that deceased is his father and he died at about 11 months back and further discloses that the accused killed his father as his father did not intended to write the house in favour of accused and he further stated that the deceased and accused are residing in one roof and the wife of accused left the house and his father i.e., deceased used to prepare food for him and the accused and he send food for them occasionally. He further stated that the house in which the deceased and accused are residing is in the name of the deceased and accused demanded the deceased to write the said house in his favour and the deceased and accused quarrelled with each other.
13. His evidence further discloses that the accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest and stomach, the deceased received injuries and blood oozed out, then he raised cries, on hearing his cries PW3 to PW5 and LW6-Subrahmanyam came there and his evidence further discloses that further accused hacked deceased with axe on his lips, on middle of the forehead and on seeing the above said persons accused left the place and deceased died on the spot and after that he gave report to the police, his report is exhibited as Ex.P1. His evidence further reveals that he was also present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
Page 7 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
14. Coming to the evidence of PW2, who is none other than the wife of PW1 and daughter-in-law of deceased and sister-in-law of the accused. Her evidence discloses that accused and deceased are living together in the house of deceased, she along with her husband and son are living in another house at a distance of 10 houses, deceased used to cook food for accused and the accused has no avocation. Her evidence further discloses that the house in which the accused and deceased are residing is the house of deceased and deceased wants to share the house in favour of his two male issues, but the accused did not like and as such disputes took place between them. Her evidence further reveals that at about 11 months back, she send tiffin to the deceased with her husband, as her husband did not return to house, on that she went to the house of deceased and found the accused with axe and she also found injuries on the chest, abdomen, forehead and mouth of the deceased and when she asked her husband i.e.,
PW1 stated to her that the accused killed the deceased.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW3(E. Polamma), her evidence discloses that at about one year back during afternoon hours she heard cries of PW1, on hearing the cries of PW1, she came out of her house and found the accused, the accused threatened them with knife to kill them and left the house and went into the fields. Her evidence further reveals that when she went inside the house of deceased, she found injuries on his stomach, chest, lips and forehead, blood oozing out from the body of the deceased, the floor was with full of blood and her evidence further discloses that the reason for causing the death of deceased is, the accused insisted the deceased to got register the house in his favour, due to that reason the accused killed the deceased.
16. The evidence of PW4-G. Kanakaiah discloses that his house is adjacent to the house of scene of offence and his evidence further discloses
Page 8 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 that about one year back, while he was in street, he heard cries of PW1, immediately he went to the house of deceased and found the accused killed the deceased with knife and after that deceased fell down on the floor and the accused sat on his chest and took axe and hacked on forehead, mouth and lower lip of the deceased and came out of the house with knife and threatened him to kill and left the place and his evidence further discloses that the reason for the dispute is about the house property and every day the accused quarrelling with deceased and the accused also used to quarrel with the inmates of the deceased house. His evidence further discloses that he was also present at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased.
17. Coming to the evidence of PW5-G.China Kanakaiah, his evidence discloses that at about one year back deceased and accused are quarrelling with each other for about the house property as the deceased wants to write the property to the accused and PW1 but the accused has not interested and quarrelled with deceased, his evidence further discloses that he heard cries of PW1, on that he went to the house of deceased and found the accused killed the deceased with knife and the accused sat on his chest and took axe and hacked on forehead, mouth and lower lip of deceased and came out of the house with knife and threatened him to kill and left the place.
18. Coming to the evidence of PW6-I. Kondaiah, his evidence discloses that at about one year back he found mob at the house of deceased and when he enquired PW4, PW5 and his villagers, E.
Subrahmanyam stated to him that accused killed the deceased and his evidence further reveals that the reason for the dispute is house property, as deceased not interested to write the house property in the name of accused
Page 9 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 and said Subrahmanyam also stated to him that the accused stabbed the deceased with knife and hacked with axe on his forehead and lip.
19. The evidence of PW7-P. Venkata Ramanaiah discloses that at about one year back he found mob at the house of deceased and when he enquired PW1, PW1 stated to him that the accused killed the deceased and his evidence further reveals that the reason for the dispute is house property, as deceased not interested to write the house property in the name of accused, PW1 also stated to him that the accused stabbed the deceased with knife and hacked with axe on his forehead and lip.
MEDIATORS EVIDENCE
20. Coming to the evidence of PW8-K. Subbaiah, his evidence discloses that he is working as Village Revenue officer, Yellayapalem village, Kodavaluru mandal and his evidence further discloses that on 28.12.2024 at about 12-20 p.m. his Thasildar telephoned him to go to
Tellamitta Girijana colony, then he along with his VRA and PW10 went to
Tellamitta Girijana colony, there police asked him to act as a mediator, his evidence further discloses that police observed the scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence and seized axe, stick, blood stained earth and broken piece of leg of plastic chair and send the dead body for post mortem examination, after conducting inquest and got prepared scene observation report, which is exhibited as Ex.P4.
21. His evidence further reveals that on 29.12.2024 at about 04-00 p.m. his Thasildar telephoned him to go to Dasaripalem as one suspect is there, then he along with PW10 went to Dasaripalem village along with police, there police caught hold the accused in their presence and seized one knife and clothes under cover of arrest-cum-seizure mahazar.
Page 10 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
22. The another mediator is examined as PW10, his evidence discloses that on 28.12.2024 at about 12-00 noon while he was at his village, one Constable asked him to come to Tellamitta Girijana colony, then he along with PW8 went to Tellamitta Girijan colony, police asked him to act as mediator and they went to the house of deceased and found the deceased died before their arrival and his evidence further reveals that police observed the scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence and seized axe, stick, earth, blood stained earth, and also broken piece of leg of plastic chair which were marked as MO1 to MO5 and got prepared scene observation report and after that send the body for post mortem examination after conducting inquest.
23. His evidence further discloses that on 29.12.2024 at about 04- 00 p.m. Circle Inspector of Kodavaluru telephoned him to come to the police station, then he along with PW8 went to the police station and from there to
Dasaripalem and found the accused and the accused tried to escape, then police caught hold the accused and seized one knife, shirt and blue jeans short, which were marked as MO6 to MO8 and got prepared arrest-cum- seizure mahazar.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
24. Now it is relevant what is injury -
According to medical terminology, Injury means wound or trauma; harm or hurt; usually applied to damage inflicted on the body by an external force. In other words, as was observed in Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf
Khan And Anr, 1966 AIR 1773=1966 SCR 123, the expression "harm" has not been defined in the 'Indian Penal Code: in its dictionary meaning it connotes hurt, injury; damage; impairment, moral wrong or evil. There is no warrant for the contention raised that the expression "harm" in s.95 does not include physical injury. The expression "harm" is used in many sections of
Page 11 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 the Indian Penal Code. In ss. 81, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 100, 104 and 106 the expression can only mean physical injury. In s.93 it means an injurious mental reaction. In s.415 it means injury to a person in body, mind, reputation or property. In ss.469 and 499 harm, it is plain from the context, is to the reputation of the aggrieved party.
25. Dr Madhu Sudhan Reddy, Assistant Professor, Forensic
Medicine, ACSR Government Medical college, Nellore is examined as PW9 and his evidence discloses that on 28.12.2024 after receipt of requisition from Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem Circle, in Cr.No.143/2024 of
Kodavaluru he conducted post mortem examination at about 03-30 p.m. and he opined that the approximate time of death is 6 to 12 hours and it is coinciding with autopsy findings, his evidence further discloses that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is ―Due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖..
26. His evidence further reveals that as per the final report, he opined that the deceased died due to ―shock and Hemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖ and however, the viscera samples sent for chemical analysis shows presence of Ethyl Alcohol and through his evidence post-mortem certificate and final report are exhibited as Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
EVIDENCE OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS:-
27. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodavalur police station is examined as PW11, his evidence discloses that on 28.12.2024 at about 12- 00 hours he received report from PW1, basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No.143/2024 U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and issued FIR, said FIR is exhibited as Ex.P12 and submitted its copies to all officers concerned and further investigation in this case was done by PW12.
Page 12 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
28. The Investigating Officer i.e., Sri A. Subendra Babu, Inspector of Police is examined as PW12, his evidence discloses that in this case he received case file from PW11, after that he along with PW1, his staff members went to the scene of offence situated at Tallamitta Girijana colony,
Yellayapalem Panchayat of Kodavaluru mandal after securing mediators i.e.,
PW8 and PW10, he examined the scene in their presence and got prepared scene observation report and seized blood stained axe, blood stained plastic chair leg piece, one stick(firewood), controlled earth, blood stained earth and got prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence, said rough sketch is exhibited as Ex.P13. His evidence further reveals that he examined PW1 to
PW4, P. Venkata Ramanaiah, E. Subrahmanyam and recorded their statements and got photographed the scene and he got conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and send the body for autopsy, and examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their statements, he seized blood stained clothes i.e., short and T-shirt of the deceased which are marked as MO9 and MO10 under cover of police proceedings and he examined remaining witnesses and recorded their statements.
29. His evidence further reveals that on receipt of credible information on 29.12.2024 he went Dasaripalem center along with mediators i.e., PW8 and PW10, caught hold the accused and recorded his confessional statement in the presence of said mediators and seized knife, shirt, blue jeans short of the accused and he arrested the and produced
before the court for judicial custody, the arrest-confessional-cum-seizure
mahazar is exhibited as Ex.P16 and his evidence further reveals that he received autopsy report and he send the material objects for analysis through his letter of advice and he received analysis reports two in number and he also received final report dt.26.03.2025 and after completion of entire investigation, he laid charge sheet.
Page 13 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
30. Now it is relevant to see the essential ingredients of Section of law U/Sec.103(1) of BNS(Sec.302 of IPC)
(a) Essential Ingredients.- An offence U/Sec.103(1) of BNS(Sec.302 of IPC) has following essential ingredients:
(i) That the death of some human being was caused;
(ii) That such death was caused by the accused or was the consequence of the act of the accused;
(iii) That the accused did so
(a) with the intention of causing death, or
(b) that the accused knew that his act was likely to cause death; or
(c) The injury (inflicted or caused) by the accused was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death.
(b) Evidence.- For Prosecution. In order to bring home the charges leveled against the accused U/Sec.103(1) of BNS(Sec.302 of IPC), the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt :
(i) that the death of some human one has taken place;
(ii) That such death was neither suicidal nor accidental but it was homicidal;
(iii) That it was accused whose act or the consequence of his act, caused such death;
(iv) That the accused had no legal excuse or defence for causing such death or for causing such injury;
(v) That the accused did such an act:
(a) with the intention of causing death; or
(b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury,
(i) as the accused knew it likely to cause death; or
(ii) (a) That such an injury was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death, or
(b) That the accused caused death by doing an act which he knew, in all the probabilities, to cause
Page 14 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 death,
(iii) or the accused caused such bodily injury to such person as was likely to cause death.
31. The mode of proof may take diverse forms, it may be by both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. It may be through dying declaration, confession, evidence of near relations and so on. One or more modes of proof may be telescoped in a particular case. It may be borne in mind that burden of proving the case initially is on the prosecution which must prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
32. As stated by Phipson on Evidence in criminal cases the prosecution discharge their evidential burden by adducing sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case against the accused. If no evidence is called for the defence the tribunal of fact must decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its legal burden by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any defence evidence, the chances that the prosecution has so succeeded are greater. Hence the accused may be said to be under an evidential burden if the prosecution has established a prima facie case. Discharge of the evidential burden by the defence is not a pre-requisite to an acquittal. The accused is entitled to be acquitted "if at the end and other the prior the case, there prosecution or the prisoner". The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. It is an essential principle of our criminal law that a criminal charge has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The philosophy underlying this rule is the oft quoted maxim that it is better that ten guilty persons should escape than one innocent suffer.
33. The time honoured expression that the Court must be satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" has been accepted in the Anglo Saxon world as
Page 15 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 the standard of proof in criminal cases. Since the decision in Woolmington's case the direction to the jury has been that they must be satisfied of the prisoner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt if they want to convict him. Lord
Goddard suggested in England that this phrase should be abandoned. He had great experience in criminal matters. He suggested that the expression 'completely satisfied' or 'fully sure’ should be accepted as substitutes. But his view has not been accepted. The fourth edition of Halsbury's Laws of
England goes so far as to say that the phrase "reasonable doubt" should be avoided. No one has yet invented or discovered a mode of measurement for the intensity of human belief better than this formula of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". What does the expression "beyond reasonable doubt" mean? For a doubt to stand in the way of conviction of guilt it must be a real doubt and a reasonable doubt.
34. The law in India is the same and the prosecution is to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; falsity of the defence is not material,
Even when the accused is undefended Court is not absolved from satisfying itself whether the evidence is sufficient to rope the accused with the charge.
One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused. But leaving aside the cases of statutory presumptions the onus is upon the prosecution to prove the different ingredients of the offence and, unless it discharges that onus, the prosecution cannot succeed. The onus to prove prosecution case
Page 16 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 although is always upon the prosecution, defence witness examined may sometimes prove the case of the prosecution. A criminal court cannot by entering the realm of probability exonerate the prosecution from proving a fact essential to bring home the charge.
35. In a murder case, the trial Court is charged with the supreme duty of making proper appreciation of evidences are of law before reaching the finding that the case proved is culpable homicide amounting to murder as defined in Section 300, IPC. This Constitutional duty flows from Art.
because conviction u/s. 302, I.P.C. is liable to expose the accused to the extreme penalty, that of deprivation of life in regard to which the Court must follow reasonable procedure of due application of mind. Section 300, I.P.C.
in terms contemplates: "except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder". Therefore attention has to be paid by the Court to the exceptions of Section 300; and consideration of the case of accused in terms of the exceptions is a mandatory requirement of law and constitution.
Even if any particular exception is pleaded and that is not proved, by that the duty of the trial Court does not cease in regard to consideration of the case of the accused under other exceptions.
36. The learned counsel for accused has argued before the court that the accused never committed any offence against the deceased and he is no way concerned with this case and to grab the house property of the deceased, PW1 gave false report against the accused. The learned counsel
for accused has cross examined PW1 at length and in answer to cross
examination PW1 admitted that he has not mentioned in his report that accused stabbed his father with knife and he further stated that he do not know who scribed Ex.P1 report.
37. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel
for accused, PW2 stated that she along with her son went for doing
Page 17 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 agricultural coolie work and at present she along with her husband and son are residing in the house of the deceased and further stated that on the date of incident she along with her husband went to the police station, on that day police examined them.
38. The learned counsel for accused also cross examined PW3 to
PW7 and in answer to cross examination, PW3 stated that accused is with the deceased in the same roof and further stated that she has no disputes with accused. In answer to cross examination PW4 stated that on the date of incident he was examined by Kodavaluru police at the scene of offence. In answer to cross examination, PW5 denied the suggestion that on the date of incident he was not in the village and he is deposing falsehood to help PW1.
In answer to cross examination PW6 admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through his villagers. In answer to cross examination PW7 also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident and he came to know about the incident through PW1.
39. The learned counsel for accused has argued before the court that PW3 to PW5 deposing falsehood to help PW1, for that PW3 to PW5 denied the suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for accused. Coming to the evidence of PW6 and PW7 they came to know about the incident though the villagers and through PW1.
40. The learned counsel for accused has cross examined PW10, in answer to cross examination, PW10 stated that at the time of arresting of accused he found blood stained on MO6 i.e., knife and at the time of arresting of accused no clothes were seized, but seized shirt and blue jeans short which were in the cover.
Page 18 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
41. The learned counsel for accused has cross examined PW11, in answer to cross examination, PW11 stated that he do not know who scribed the report i.e,. Ex.P1 and further denied the suggestion that basing on the false report he registered the case.
42. The learned Counsel for accused has cross examined PW12, in answer to cross examination, PW12 denied the suggestion that he has not obtained the signatures of the mediators on material objects and further denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation and without proper investigation he laid charge sheet mechanically.
43. The learned counsel for accused vehemently argued before the court that to grab the house of the deceased, PW1 filed this false case against the accused. But as seen from the record, it shows that about 10 years back the wife of accused went away by left the accused and since then the accused is residing with his father i.e., deceased in a colony house and as the accused is quarrelling with his elder brother i.e., PW1, PW1 who is unable to quarrel with the accused, shifted his family to his matrimonial village and resided there for some years and recently, he shifted his family to Thallamitta Girijana colony and residing separately and the deceased prepares food to the accused, the accused wanders in and around the village, without staying at home, if he stays at home, he used to quarrels with the deceased and used to beat the deceased asking to write the house in his favour and if the neighbours admonished him, the accused also quarrelling with them.
44. In this context on 28.12.2024 at about 10-00 hours PW1 went to the house of his father/deceased to give Idli and he noticed the accused quarrelling with the deceased with regard to write the house in his name and when the deceased not agree for the same, the accused stabbed his father(deceased) with a knife over the middle of his chest and on below
Page 19 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 abdomen, due to which the deceased fell down on the floor, meanwhile the wife and son of PW1 rushed there and witnessed the same and also the neighbours also witnessed the same, the accused threatened them by showing knife and out of fear they stood at some distance, then the accused took an axe and sat upon the deceased and hacked him over his forehead and lips with said axe due to which the deceased sustained severe cut bleeding injuries over his head, mouth, chest and below abdomen and died instantaneously in the pool of blood, then the accused escaped towards the fields and on that Muneeswaramma,m Polamma, Polaiah, China venkaiah,
PW6 and PW7 reached the spot and noticed the corpse of the deceased.
45. In order to bring home the guilt of the offence U/sec.103(1) of
BNS(Sec.302 of IPC) that the cause of death of some human one has taken place. Here in this case PW1 who is none other than the elder son of the deceased, clearly started before the court that accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest and stomach and then blood oozed and when he raised cries, on hearing his cries PW3 to PW5 and
E.Subrahmanyam came there and further the accused hacked the deceased with axe on his lips and middle of the forehead and he further stated that said axe is available in the house and on seeing the above said persons, the accused left the place and deceased died on the spot.
46. Further PW2 who is none other than the wife of PW1 also stated that she sent tiffin to the deceased with her husband/PW1 and as her husband did not return to the house, on that she went to the house of deceased and found the accused with axe and she also found injuries on the chest, abdomen, forehead and mouth of the deceased, then she asked her husband/PW1, her husband stated to her that accused killed the deceased.
Further the evidence of PW3 also clears that she heard cries of PW1 and when she came out from her husband and found the accused, then accused
Page 20 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 threatened them with knife that he is going to kill them and left the house and went into the fields, and when she went inside the house of deceased, she found injuries on the stomach, chest, lips and forehead of the deceased, blood is oozing out from the body of the deceased and floor is full of blood.
PW4 also stated that his house is adjacent to the house of scene of offence and about one year back while he was in the street, he heard cries of PW1, immediately he went to the house of accused and found accused killed the deceased with knife and after that deceased fell down on the floor and accused sat on his chest and took axe and hacked on forehead, mouth and lower lip of the deceased and came out of the house with knife and threatened them to kill and left the place.
47. As seen from the evidence of PW5 that he heard cries of
PW1,on that he went to the house of deceased and found accused killed the deceased with knife and the accused sat on his chest and took axe and hacked on forehead, mouth and lower lip of the deceased and came out of the house with knife and threatened them to kill and left the place. As seen from the evidence of PW6 that when he enquired PW4, PW5 and other villagers, LW6-Subrahmanyam stated to him that accused stabbed the deceased with knife and hacked with axe on his forehead and lip. The PW7 also stated that when he enquired PW1, PW1 stated to him that accused stabbed the deceased with knife and hacked with axe on his forehead and lip.
48. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 discloses that accused killed the deceased. Coming to the evidence of PW6 and PW7 they came to know about the incident through PW1 and villagers that accused killed the deceased. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 is corroborating with each other in all aspects and also they also stated that the reasons for the dispute
Page 21 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 between the deceased and accused is as the deceased did not agree to write the house property in the name of accused.
49. The learned counsel for accused has argued before the court that PW1 falsely filed this case against the accused, and it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that said death of deceased was suicidal or accidental and further the learned counsel for accused not put any suggestion to any of the prosecution witness that said death of deceased is accidental or suicidal and further the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is corroborating with each other in all aspects with regard to the death of deceased that the accused caused the death of the deceased, it clearly shows that the death of the deceased was not a suicidal or accidental.
50. Further the prosecution clearly stated that due to the act of the accused i.e, the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest and stomach and also hacked with axe on his lips, middle of the forehead and as such, the deceased died. It shows that accused knows that his act may cause the death of the deceased and it further shows that accused has knowledge that his act may likely cause the death and as a result of which the deceased died.
51. PW9 i.e., Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has clearly stated that as per final report the deceased died due to ―shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖ and further stated that however the viscera samples sent for chemical analysis shows the presence of Ethyl alcohol. The Doctor i.e.,
PW9 clearly stated that the cause of death of deceased is due to ―shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖.
Page 22 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
52. The evidence of PW1 clears that accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest and stomach and also hacked the deceased with axe on his lips and middle of the forehead, the Doctor i.e.,
PW9 clearly opened that the cause of death to his knowledge is due to due to ―shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest‖ and further PW1 to PW5 also stated the samething and
PW6 and PW7 also stated that they came to know that the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest and stomach and also hacked with axe on his forehead and lips, on this aspect also the evidence of PW1 to PW7 is corroborating with each other.
53. In cross examination, PW1 stated that he do not know who scribed Ex.P1 report and further he admitted that it was mentioned in Ex.P1 report that ―మానాన్నమరియుమాతముుడుపొ ట్లరిసుబ్రమణ్యం, వయసుు 35 సంవతురాలుమాఇంట్ిదగ్గరలోనేమరొకకాలనిలోనివసిసుు నానరు‖. The contention of the learned counsel for accused is that accused is no way concerned with this case and further PW1 stated that he do not know who scribed the report. Though PW1 stated that he do not know who scribed the report, it cannot be said that the report itself is false and due to illiteracy, the report may scribe by any one, in general parlance when report was given by any person, the Head Constable or any police personnel scribe the report on the dictation of the complainants.
54. So far as proof of murder case is concerned. In the matter of oral evidence, perfect precision in details, is not the virtue of every witness.
Powers of observation and powers of retention vary from witness to witness, and dimensions of perception too, vary. But in this case, all the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW7 clearly stated that cause of death of deceased
Page 23 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 is accused stabbed the deceased with knife on his chest and stomach and also hacked with axe on his lips and forehead.
55. Firstly, the investigation must establish quite objectively that a bodily injury in present; secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved.
These are purely objective investigation. Thirdly, it must be proved that there must be an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type, described, made up of the three elements set out above, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Where the incident was proved by the prosecution witnesses without any contradiction or omission, it was not accepted by the Court that the complainant party was aggressor. The injuries on the person were also explained.
56. Coming to the evidence of mediators i.e., PW8 and PW10, they clearly stated that police seized axe, stick(firewood stick), blood stained earth and broken piece of leg of plastic chair i.e., MO1 to MO5 and on 29.12.2024 police also seized one knife and clothes i.e., MO6 to MO8 from the possession of accused. The evidence of mediators i.e,. PW8 and PW10 also corroborated with each other and with the evidence of investigating officer. Further medical evidence also corroborated with the bodily injuries that was sustained by the deceased and the accused has an intention to inflict that particular bodily injuries, it shows that the death of the deceased was not accidental or unintentional.
57. Further the evidence of a witness cannot be discharged or thrown out solely on the ground of a mere relationship if his evidence is found to be correct and reliable. Normally a near relative is the last person to ignore the actual culprit and to falsely implicate an innocent person. The fact
Page 24 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 the eye witness is the close relative of the deceased victim is no ground to discard his testimony. Here in this case, the deceased is the father of the
PW1, PW1 and other prosecution witnesses clearly stated that accused caused the death of the deceased. Further in this case the prosecution has established the bodily injuries sustained by the deceased and intention of the accused to cause such particular bodily injures and further the incident was proved by the prosecution witnesses without any contradiction or omission.
58. The learned counsel for accused has argued before the court that accused never committed any offence against the deceased and basing on the false report of PW1, police filed this false case against the accused.
For defence the accused may show that :
(i) That all or either of the essential ingredients of the section were absent;
(ii) That the case of the accused was covered under any of the five exceptions to the Section;
(iii) That the accused has a legal right to defend his person or property and the act was done for such protection;
(iv) That the incident in question was accidental in doing a lawful act and without any criminal intention or knowledge of its consequences although done with proper care and caution, within the meaning of the Section;
(v) That the act was done in good faith to prevent other harm, within the meaning of the Section;
(vi) That the accused was under seven years of age and this protected under Section.
(vii) That the accused was between 7-12 years of age and was of immature understanding at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, with the meaning of Section;
Page 25 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
(viii) The accused, at the time of the alleged commission of offence was not of sound mind (or was a person of unsound mind) within the meaning of Section;
(ix) The act was not intentional viz. The accused himself was incapable of judging or understanding the nature and consequence of such an act, (intoxication caused against his will) within the meaning of Sections;
(x) That the act was done, with the consent of the deceased, within the meaning of Section;
(xi) The act was done in good faith & for the benefit of the deceased, within the meaning of Section; or
(xii) That the act of the accused was covered under general exceptions given in BNS.
The accused may also show that he was not even present on the scene but was elsewhere; there was no ring of truth in the prosecution version; or that there was reasonable doubt in the prosecution story or that the accused was falsely roped in the trial.
59. This court relied upon the following citations:
Selvamani Vs. State (2024) 6 SCR 653 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at para No.85 held that :
85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
Page 26 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751, State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505,
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12
SCC 381, Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588,
State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and
State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587‖
State of A.P. V. Kanda Gopaludu 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 279
(SC)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 11 that :
In the case of Swapan Patra and Ors. v. State of W.B., [1999] 9 SCC242 this Court held in paragraph 4 at SCC p. 243 as under:- "It is well settled that inif the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— 2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— 3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodi a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain. Applying the aforesaid principle, we have no hesitation to hold that the circumstances established in the case complete the chain of circumstances to prove the charge of murder against the
Page 27 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 appellant Swapan Patra and, therefore, the conviction of appellant Swapan Patra has to be upheld under Section 302
IPC. So far as the other two appellants are concerned, as stated earlier, in the absence of any positive evidence even about their presence in the house at the relevant point of time, it is difficult to rope them in even if all other circumstances narrated earlier are established and, therefore, they are entitled to an order of acquittal."
Kamla Kant dubey Vs. State of U.P. (2015) ACR 820 wherein at Paragraph 17 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
17. It is settled principle that a conviction can well be founded on the testimony of a single witness if the court finds his version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particulars1. We find on the touchstone of these principles the testimony of PW1 is completely trustworthy. Out of three infirmities found by the High Court, one regarding place of occurrence is not correct at all. So far as other two infirmities are concerned, it is well accepted principle that the first information report need not contain every single detail and every part of the case of the prosecution. However, assuming them to be improvements, in our view the basic substratum of the Ramnaresh vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 4
SCC 257 which in turn relied upon Joseph vs. State of Kerala :
(2003) 1 SCC 465 and State of Haryana vs. Inder Singh :
(2002) 9 SCC 537 16 Page 17 matter does not get affected by such improvements at all. Even after segregating the part which appears to be introduced as improvement, the testimony of
PW1 is clear and creditworthy. The feature that there was strong motive for the respondents to commit the murder in question is also clear from the record and the trial court had accepted that the respondents had strong motive to commit the
Page 28 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 crime. The finding as regards motive has not even been touched by the High Court. While PW1 narrated facts regarding civil litigation, the fact that the respondents accused were being tried for the murder of his father and that there was a separate case instituted against them for having assaulted Brahmadeen, he was not countered in cross-examination. The motive therefore lends complete corroboration and assurance while appreciating the version of PW1.
60. Further, If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to he likely to cause. In this aspect, this court relief upon a citation reported in
Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand etc., in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704 -1705 of 2015,S.C.No.20/2018
reported in 2025 IN SC 148
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.37 to 42 held that:
37.From the perusal of the provision of Section 301 of the
IPC, it becomes manifest that Section 301 embodies what the
English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Under the Section, if A intends to kill
B, but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed to him.
If A aims his shot at B, but it misses B either because B moves out of the range of the shot or because the shot misses the mark and hits some other person C, whether within sight or out of sight, under Section 301, A is deemed to have hit C with the intention to kill him. What is to be noticed is that to invoke Section 301 of the
Page 29 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
IPC, A shall not have any intention to cause the death or the knowledge that he is likely to cause the death of C. This Section lays down that culpable homicide may be committed by causing death of a person whom the offender neither intended nor knew himself to be likely to kill. If the killing takes place in the course of doing an act which a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, it must be treated as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out.
38. Having noticed salutary principles on which Section 301 of the IPC is based, it would be instruct to refer to law on the point as laid down by this Court. In Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1972 SC 502 the accused was deliberately trying to shoot at a fleeing man who had criticized his father in a School
Committee Meeting, but unfortunately, his own maternal uncle came in between him and the intended victim and thus got killed.
This Court has held that the act of the accused was nothing but murder under Section 302 read with Section 301 of the IPC.
39. In Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore reported in 1979 UJ 659 (SC), the intention of the accused was to kill prosecution witness No. 15 by firing a shot at him, but the accused shot the fire and killed the deceased. A plea was raised before this
Court that the appellant would be guilty of offence under Section 304-A or 307 of the IPC. While negativing the said plea, this Court has held as under:
―This appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act is directed against the judgment of the Mysore High Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. Detailed facts of the case have been narrated in the judgment of the
High Court and it is not necessary for us to reproduce
Page 30 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 the same here. The main allegation against the appellant was that he had shot the deceased
Nazirunnissa and Killadher. So far as the facts are concerned both the Sessions Judge and the High
Court have concurrently found that the case was fully proved. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the first appellant wanted to kill PW. 15, but as PW.
15 was not available at that time, Nazirunnissa come in between and she was shot, therefore the appellant could be guilty of an offence under Section 304(A) or under Section 307 IPC. This view of the learned
Sessions Judge was legally erroneous as rightly
pointed out by the High Court. Section 301 furnishes a complete answer to the view taken by the Sessions
Judge. It is obvious that the appellant has the
intention to kill PW.15 and if with this intention, he kills somebody also, he is undoubtedly guilty of committing murder. There is evidence of PWs. 13, 14 and 15 to show that A.1 fired that shot and killed the deceased. There is no escape from conclusion that the appellant committed an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. In these circumstances, the High
Court was right in correcting the error of law committed by the Learned Sessions Mr.
Udayarathnam, tried to bring the case of the appellant within the ambit of Section 304 (a) or Section 307 but on the fact found it is not possible for us to accede to her contention. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.‖
40. In Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1991
SC 982: 1991 CrLJ 597, appellant Jagpal had shot at Surjit Kaur
Page 31 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 even though he aimed at only Kapur Singh. After applying doctrine of transfer of malice as contemplated under Section 301 of the
IPC, this Court has held that Jagpal had made himself punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
41. In Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 CrLJ 464, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused had fired freely towards the fleeing complainant party and the first shot had injured one person whereas second shot had resulted into death of ten year old son of the complainant. It was noticed that firing was resorted to in a commercial locality. The Sessions Court had acquitted the accused, but acquittal appeal was allowed by the
High Court and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 301 and other provisions of the IPC. It was submitted before this Court that the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence led by the prosecution did not establish that the appellant had any intention to commit murder of an innocent boy aged ten years with whom there was no question of having any enmity or any occasion to take a revenge. According to the learned
Counsel of the appellant, even from the evidence, it was possible to hold that such death of the boy was absolutely unintentional and at best it could be held that such firing was a rash and negligent action on the part of the appellant. It was argued by the learned
Counsel of the appellant that act committed by the appellant was not murder under Section 302 read with Section 301 of the IPC as held by the High Court, but was an offence under Section 304A of the IPC. Negativing the said contention, this Court has held that gun was not fired in the air just to frighten the complainant and his companions, but the gun was fired by the appellant towards fleeing person even when by the first shot one of such person was injured.
According to this Court, such firing was resorted to in a locality where there were number of shops and provision of Section 301 of the IPC was clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the
Page 32 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 case. Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 301 of the IPC was upheld by this Court.
42. In view of the principles laid down by this Court in above quoted decisions, it is evident that even if it is held for the sake of argument that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased, it will have to be held that doctrine of transfer of malice, as contemplated under Section 301, is applicable. Now, the point would arises whether the accused was liable for punishment under
Section 302 of I.P.C.
61. Further In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.
62. The standard of proof in criminal cases is not the same as in the civil. Importantly, in criminal cases the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is upon the prosecution. It must standard by itself. Essentially accused need not establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, in some cases where the burden of proof relating to a fact in issue in a case is on the accused, the standard of proof required of him is not the same as is required from the prosecution. This proposition of law is no more res-integra. Upon such proof as is adduced, if there is a real and reasonable doubt as to his guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The law always requires that the conviction should be certain and not doubtful. If the
Page 33 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 evidence on record establishes the truth of the charge and satisfies the reason and judgment of the court such evidence must be taken to have proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt justifying conviction.
63. But in this case, the learned counsel for accused no where pleaded that the accused was falsely roped in the trial and there was no right of truth in the prosecution version.
64. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, testimony, while not direct evidence of the stabbing, support the broader context of the accused’s behaviour and the deceased’s circumstances, corroborating with the prosecution’s case. The behaviour as described by P.W.1, corroborate with the motive for the accused’s actions on the day of incident, although P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7 were not an eye witnesses, their observation of gathering outside the deceased’s house and the information relied by them about the accused’s violent act with stabbed with knife on the chest and stomach of the deceased and hacked with axe on the lips, on the forehead substantiate the timeline and circumstances surrounding the attack. This background of harassment and subsequent attack corroborate the theory of prosecution that the accused acted with intent thereby supporting the charge under section 103(1) of BNS (302 of I.P.C.).
65. This background establish the motive for the action of accused on the day of incident corroborates with series of events and supports the assertion that the accused acted with intention. The prosecution witnesses consistently maintained truthfulness of their statements, reinforcing the theory of prosecution that the action of accused were deliberate and thereby supporting the charge under 103(1) of BNS (302 of I.P.C.). The testimony of
P.W.1 as an eyewitness, corroborates the sequence of events and the mens rea of accused supporting charge under 103(1) of BNS (302 of
I.P.C.).
Page 34 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
66. The evidence of P.W.12 discloses that on 29.12.2024 after examination of the witnesses and after receipt of credible information he along with P.W.8 and P.W.10 caught hold the accused, and he recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of the mediators and said confession statement is marked as Ex.P16 and also seized M.O.6 to
M.O.8 under Ex.P16 after that he arrested the accused, the P.W.12 recorded his confession Ex.P16, after caught holding the accused, there is nothing on record to disbelieve Ex.P16, Ex.P16 is reliable and is admissible.
67. The testimony of P.W.8, P.W.10 are also corroborating for the point of determination regarding whether the accused intentionally or knowingly caused the death of his father. Involvement of P.W.8, P.W.10 in the investigation provides the detailed account of the physical evidence collected from the scene of offence including material objects which directly link the accused to be stabbing with knife and hacking with axe as described by P.W.1, corroborate with the motive for the accused’s actions on the day of incident, although P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7 were not an eye witnesses, their observation of gathering outside the deceased’s house and the information relied by them about the accused’s violent act with stabbed with knife on the chest and stomach of the deceased and hacked with axe on the lips, on the forehead substantiate the timeline and circumstances surrounding the attack. This background of harassment and subsequent attack corroborate the theory of prosecution that the accused acted with intent thereby supporting the charge under section 103(1) of BNS (302 of
I.P.C.).
68. The testimony of P.W.8, P.W.10 are also corroborating for the point of determination regarding whether the accused intentionally or knowingly caused the death of his father. Involvement of P.W.8, P.W.10 in the investigation provides the detailed account of the physical evidence
Page 35 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 collected from the scene of offence including material objects which directly link the accused to be stabbing with knife and hacking with axe.
69. The testimony of PW8 i.e., preparation of scene observation report (Ex.P4), PW10 who is present at the time of inquest and also observation of scene, their signatures are marked as Ex.P9, P10 and the inquest report (Ex.P14) further substantiate the circumstances of the deceased’s death, confirming that the injuries were consistent with an attack i.e., stabbing with knife and hacking with axe.
70. The medical evidence i.e., Doctor(PW9) who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased opined that death due to shock and hemmarage as a result of head injury and stab injury sustained to chest. His evidence is not shattered during cross examination and his evidence is corroborative to the case of prosecution. His testimony provides critical medical evidence confirming the cause of death as a result of head injury, supporting the prosecution case under Sec.103(1) of BNS.
71. The PW12, the Investigating officer in this case denied the allegations of false implication, his testimony corroborates the investigations thoroughness, following procedural steps such as witness interviews and forensic analysis thereby supporting the case and his evidence is also corroborative for the point of determination regarding whether the accused intentionally or knowingly caused the death of his father(deceased). As the officer who took over the investigation, his role in examining the material witnesses and his efforts in sending the material objects for forensic analysis i.e., RFSL, demonstrate the through and methodical approach to the investigation. RFSL report further supports the findings of the post-mortem, providing scientific backing to the cause of death.
Page 36 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
72. From all these facts and circumstances, this court opinins that collective evidence presented by PW1 to PW12, along with the exhibits and material objects, forms a compressive narrative supporting the charge
U/Sec.103(1) of BNS against the accused for the murder of his father Potluri
Polaiah(deceased). PW1 P. Venkateswarlu, provided fundamental testimony detailing the accused’s history of harassment, motivated by his demands to write the house in his favour. This testimony is corroborated by PW2 to
PW7, they confirmed that the accused behaviour towards the deceased and the events leading upto the fatal stabbing and hacking with knife and axe, aligning with the timeline of the incident.
73. The evidence of PW1 is found to be trustworthy and sufficient and further the evidence of PW2 to PW7 also corroborated with each other in all aspects with the evidence of PW1. The evidence of PW1 and others is reliable and further the evidence of direct witness i.e., PW1 who is eye witness and the evidence of medical evidence and Investigating officer is also corroborating with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses on all aspects and further the intention of the accused is proved by the prosecution and further recovery of crime weapons also proved by the prosecution with the evidence of PW8 and PW10. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 and other prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved that the accused caused the death of the deceased and chain of evidence must be complete and there is no room for reasonable doubt.
74. As a result of the evidence discussed above, this court holds that accused intentionally and knowingly caused the death of the deceased
Potluri Polaiah, his father at their residence, Tallamitta Girijana colony,
Yellayapalam village, Kodavaluru mandal and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and prosecution has established the guilt
Page 37 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026 of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, this court find the point in the positive.
CONCLUSION AND RESULT:-
75. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and he is convicted U/Sec.258(2) of BNSS.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2026.
Sd/- N. Saraswathi
Special Judge for trial of Offences
under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.
Hearing on quantum of sentence:
76. Heard the accused regarding quantum of sentence, His submission is recorded on a separate sheet. During quantum of sentence the accused submitted that he is innocent and pleaded mercy of the court and take lenient view. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and manner in which it is committed by the accused, it is not expedient and sagacious provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act for a lenient view as the offence is serious in nature and it is heinous offence and it is an offence against the father.
77. In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for life for the offence punishable U/Sec.103(1) of BNS and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 5(five) months.
Page 38 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
78. The period of remand undergone by the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 30.12.2024 to till date shall be set of U/Sec.468 of BNSS.
79. MO1- Axe, MO2- Firewood stick, MO3-Controlled earth, MO4-
Blood stained earth, MO5-Broken piece of leg of plastic chair, MO6-Knife,
MO7-Shirt, MO8-Blue Jeans Short, MO9-T-shirt and MO10-Short of the deceased shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
80. The accused is appraised about the right of appeal and free legal aid.
81. A free copy of judgment is supplied to the accused at free of cost.
Pronounced by me in the open court, typed by the stenographer,
corrected by me on this the 31st day of March, 2026.
Sd/- N. Saraswathi
Special Judge for trial of Offences
under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- V Additional District & Sessions Judge
NELLORE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE
PW1-Potluri Venkateswarlu, defacto complainant -- NONE --
PW2-Potluri Venkataramanamma, wife of PW1
PW3-Eaga Polamma, independent witness to the incident
PW4-Gandhalla Kanakaiah, Eye witness to the incident
PW5-Gandhalla China Kanakaiah, Eye witness to the incident
PW6-Indla Kondaiah, independent witness
PW7-Potluri Venkataramanaiah, independent witness
PW8-Kottu Subbaiah, Mediator for scene observation et.,
Page 39 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
PW9-Dr Madhu Sudhana Reddy, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, ACSR Medical College, Nellore
PW10-Yekollu Vamsidhar Reddy, Mediator for scene observation etc.,
PW11-Ch. Koti Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodavaluru police station
PW12-A. Surendra Babu, Inspector of Police, Buchireddypalem circle
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE
Ex.P1: Report -- NIL –
Ex.P2: Thumb mark of PW1 on inquest report
Ex.P3: Thumb impression of PW4 on inquest report
Ex.P4: Scene observation report
Ex.P5: Signature of PW8 on inquest report
Ex.P6: Signature of PW8 on arrest-cum-seizure mahazar
Ex.P7: Post-mortem report
Ex.P8: Final Opinion
Ex.P9: Signature of PW10 on scene observation report
Ex.P10: Signature of PW10 on inquest report
Ex.P11: Signature of PW10 on arrest-cum-seizure mahazar
Ex.P12: F.I.R
Ex.P13: Rough sketch
Ex.P14: Inquest report
Ex.P15: Police Proceedings
Ex.P16: Confession-arrest-seizure mahazar
Ex.P17: Analysis report dt.21.02.2025
Ex.P18: Another report dt.06.03.2025
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1- Axe
MO2- Firewood stick
Page 40 of 40 SC.No.171/2025 Dt.31.03.2026
MO3-Controlled earth
MO4-Blood stained earth
MO5-Broken piece of leg of plastic chair
MO6-Knife
MO7-Shirt
MO8-Blue Jeans Short
MO9-T-shirt
MO10-Short of the deceased
Sd/- N. Saraswathi
Special Judge for trial of Offences
under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- V Additional District & Sessions Judge
NELLORE