THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT VS. PONTHATI SIVA RAMI REDDY

2026 INSC 820Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 1 of 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2120 OF 2017

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH APPELLANT

HOME DEPARTMENT

VERSUS

PONTHATI SIVA RAMI REDDY AND RESPONDENTS

OTHERS

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh through its Home Department

is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh1

in Criminal Appeal No.1640 of 2009 dated 07.03.2014. By the said

judgment, the conviction of the respondents under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 resulting in

a sentence of life imprisonment as rendered by the Sessions Court

came to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II of the Penal

Code with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

years and fine of ₹5,000/- each.

1 For short, ‘the High Court’

2 For short, ‘the Penal Code’

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 2 of 16

2. As per the case of the prosecution, there were differences

between Atla Siva Govinda Reddy3 and Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy

since many years. The father of Atla Rama Pulla Reddy was stated

to have been murdered by the father of Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy

in 1997. There was also previous enmity between the family of the

victim and Ponthati Siva Rami Reddy and his brother Ponthati

Dasthagiri Reddy. It was alleged that on the intervening night of

08/09.03.2006, the victim was accompanied by PW1 as they

proceeded for watering their crops. The respondents4, who were

armed with deadly weapons, attacked the victim with sickles and

iron pipes. As a result of this assault, the victim suffered serious

injuries as he lay at the spot. PW1 proceeded to inform the family

members of the victim, who thereafter shifted him to a Government

Hospital. The statement of the injured victim came to be recorded

in the morning of 09.03.2006 between 06.45 a.m. to 07.30 a.m. by

the Medical Officer5. Shortly thereafter, the victim succumbed to

his injuries at 07.30 a.m. The Investigating Officer6 undertook

investigation of the crime and on completion thereof, filed the

3 For short, ‘the victim’

4 For short, ‘A1 to A4’

5 For short, ‘the MO’

6 For short, ‘the IO’

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 3 of 16

charge sheet.

3. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses in support of

the charge. At the conclusion of trial, the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Kadapa recorded a finding that A1 to A4 were

guilty of assaulting the victim, which resulted in his death. They

were, accordingly, convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. They were

sentenced to life imprisonment and were also directed to pay fine

of ₹5,000/- each.

A1 to A4 challenged their conviction by preferring an appeal

before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court was

of the view that there were various discrepancies in the

prosecution evidence brought on record. It, however, noted that

there was a long standing feud between the group of the victim and

A1 to A4. The Division Bench then proceeded to observe that it was

quite unlikely that four armed persons having attacked the victim

with the object of killing him would have left the spot without

ensuring whether he had died or not. On that premise, the Division

Bench proceeded to hold that it was a case for conviction under

Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code inasmuch as though A1 to

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 4 of 16

A4 knew about the likely result of the blows dealt by them, they

did not entertain the idea of killing the victim. The order of

conviction rendered by the Sessions Court was, accordingly,

modified and the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment

for a period of six years with fine of ₹5,000/- each. The State of

Andhra Pradesh has, thus, assailed the aforesaid judgment.

4. Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the High Court committed an error in interfering

with the well reasoned judgment of the Sessions Court and altering

the conviction from one under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the Penal Code to Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. In that

process, material evidence was overlooked by the High Court,

especially the statement of the victim recorded by PW10. The said

statement was made voluntarily by the victim describing the

manner in which he was assaulted by A1 to A4, which assault

ultimately led to his death. PW8, the MO who had treated the

victim prior to his death had stated in clear terms that when such

statement was recorded, the victim was conscious, coherent and

mentally fit to depose. Considering the brutality of the attack

carried out by A1 to A4, the injuries sustained by the victim to

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 5 of 16

which he ultimately succumbed as well as the post-mortem report,

it was clear that the conviction of A1 to A4 under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the Penal Code did not warrant any modification

whatsoever at the hands of the High Court. The observations made

in the impugned judgment on the basis of which the conviction

was altered were not supported by any evidence on record. It was,

thus, submitted that on a proper appreciation of the entire

evidence on record, the only conclusion that could be drawn was

the guilt of A1 to A4 as rightly recorded by the Sessions Court. It

was urged that the judgment of the High Court be set aside and

that of the Sessions Court be restored.

5. On the other hand, Mr. A. Sirajuddin, learned Senior

Advocate for the respondents at the outset submitted that A1 to

A4 had suffered the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period

of six years as directed by the High Court. A1 to A4 had intended

to challenge their conviction that was maintained by the High

Court but as they were incarcerated, they failed to do so. According

to him, the conviction of A1 to A4 was in fact not liable to be

maintained and they were entitled to acquittal. Referring to

evidence on record, he submitted that though PW1 was cited as an

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 6 of 16

eye-witness, he had turned hostile. Thus, there was no other eye-

witness as claimed by the prosecution. Referring to the injuries

sustained by the victim that ultimately led to his death along with

the post-mortem report, it was submitted that recording of his

statement vide Exhibit P10 on the morning of 09.03.2006 was

highly doubtful. The necessary endorsements by the MO were

absent on the said statement, Exhibit P10. The overwriting as to

the time of recording of the said statement was also not explained

by the IO, PW17. He, thus, submitted that only on the basis of the

purported last statement of the victim, A1 to A4 had been

convicted. He, therefore, submitted that A1 to A4 having already

suffered the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six years as

imposed by the High Court, no interference at this stage was called

for. He, thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

The records of the case have also been perused.

7. A1 to A4 were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section

302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced

to suffer life imprisonment. In the appeal preferred by them before

the High Court, their conviction was altered to one under Section

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 7 of 16

304 Part II of the Penal Code and they were sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of six years with fine of ₹5,000/- each.

The State of Andhra Pradesh seeks restoration of the judgment of

the Sessions Court while A1 to A4 urge that they having served the

sentence imposed by the High Court, no interference be caused in

the same.

8. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions, it would

be necessary to refer to the relevant evidence brought on record by

the prosecution. PW1 was cited as an eye-witness by the

prosecution. According to him, on the night when the victim was

attacked, he along with the victim had been to their agricultural

fields for watering the same. While he was at some distance from

the victim, he heard the cries of the victim. When he reached the

spot, he found the victim lying down on the ground. He stated that

he carried him from the fields to a nearby graveyard and laid him

down on the tomb. After he shouted, Chinna Koulai had come

there. They carried the victim till his house and handed him over

to his relatives. This witness was, thereafter, declared hostile. In

his cross-examination, he stated that the distance between the

graveyard and the house of the victim was about 0.75 kilometers.

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 8 of 16

The distance between the scene of occurrence and the graveyard

was less than a furlong.

It is to be noted that the prosecution did not examine Chinna

Koulai who according to PW1 had arrived at the site after hearing

his shouts.

9. PW2 was declared hostile after he stated that he did not know

anything about the case. However, in his cross-examination, he

stated that on hearing some cries, he had gone to the graveyard.

There he saw PW1 as well as the victim, who was found lying at

the graveyard. According to him, the victim was taken to his

residence by him along with PW1. PW3, the brother of the victim,

stated that on the date of the incident, his brother had gone to his

fields for watering them. On being informed by PW1 that A1 to A4

had attacked the victim with weapons at the graveyard, he along

with Nagasudha, Prasad Reddy and Lakshmidevamma, his wife

rushed to the graveyard. There they saw A1 to A4 escaping from

the site while holding sickles and iron rods. He further stated that

his injured brother told him that A1 to A4 had attacked him with

sickles and iron rods and the place of the occurrence was stated

to be the graveyard. Thereafter, a jeep was brought to the

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 9 of 16

graveyard and the victim was shifted to the Government Hospital

in that jeep. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not

make any effort to inform the police about the incident nor did he

make any telephonic call in that regard. He also did not make any

written complaint. He further stated that while going to the

graveyard, he had not intimated this fact to any villager so as to

accompany him to the graveyard.

10. PW4 is the widow of the victim. She stated that after her

husband had gone to the fields for watering the crops, PW1 had

come to the house of the victim and informed her that A1 to A4

had attacked her husband at the graveyard. She along with PW3

and two others rushed to the spot where they saw A1 and A2 who

were armed with sickles and A3 and A4 who were armed with iron

pipes. She further stated that the victim also told her that he was

attacked by A1 to A4. In her cross-examination, she denied the

suggestion that PW1 and PW2 had carried the victim to her house

after the incident.

11. These are the material witnesses who according to the

prosecution had either witnessed the incident or had immediately

come to the site on getting information of the attack on the victim.

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 10 of 16

It is seen that insofar as the site of the occurrence is concerned,

PW1 had categorically stated that the victim was assaulted in his

fields. PW1 had, thereafter, carried him to the graveyard and laid

him on the tomb. It was thereafter that Chinna Koulai had come

at that place and both of them had carried the victim to his

residence. Insofar as PW2 is concerned, his presence is not

acknowledged by PW1 despite the fact that PW2 states that he and

PW1 had shifted the victim to his house. PW3, the brother of the

victim claims to have seen A1 to A4 escaping from the site of the

incident after the assault. He further states that the assault took

place at the graveyard. He further states that a jeep was brought

to the graveyard from where the victim was shifted to the hospital.

This version is completely belied by the depositions of PW1 and

PW2 inasmuch as they do not refer to the presence of PW3 at the

site. On the contrary, they state that they carried the victim from

the graveyard to his house. They also do not refer to any jeep being

brought at the graveyard to carry the victim to the hospital. A

doubt is, thus, created with regard to the site of occurrence of the

attack on the victim as well as the actual presence of A1 to A4

immediately thereafter. There is also inconsistency as to whether

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 11 of 16

the victim was taken to his residence as per PW1 and PW2 or

whether he was taken to the Government Hospital in a jeep as per

PW3 and PW4.

12. PW8 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon at the Government

Hospital, who stated that he examined the victim at 05.30 a.m. on

09.03.2006. He further stated that he had given an intimation to

the police at 05.30 a.m. as per the document at Exhibit P6. He

further stated that the victim expired at 07.30 a.m. and an

intimation in that regard was given to the police as per Exhibit P7.

He stated that the victim was coherent, conscious and mentally fit

to give his statement that was recorded by the police at about

06.45 a.m. He further stated that he had signed the said statement

of the victim at 06.45 a.m. and the document was at Exhibit P8.

In his cross-examination, he accepted the suggestion that if a

patient suffered severe injuries, then tranquilizers would be

administered to the patient. He further stated that a patient having

a head injury may not be continuously conscious. He admitted

that his presence before 06.45 a.m. when the statement of the

victim was recorded had not been stated by him. He admitted that

there was a correction made with regard to the time mentioned in

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 12 of 16

the statement, Exhibit P8.

13. PW9 is the Doctor, who conducted the Post-Mortem

Examination of the victim. The report at Exhibit 9 indicates

twenty-two injuries on the body of the victim. Four injuries were

caused by a sharp edged weapon while the others were caused by

a blunt object like an iron rod. This witness accepted the

suggestion that on receiving such injuries, the patient could lose

consciousness and loss of memory. Speech was also likely to be

slurred. PW10 is the police officer, who received the medical

intimation from the Government Hospital. He stated that he

recorded the statement of the victim from 06.00 a.m. to 06.45 a.m.

The same was certified by the doctor on duty, PW8. The statement

is at Exhibit P10. While answering questions put by the Court, he

stated that the statement of the victim was recorded between 06.00

a.m. to 06.45 a.m. He admitted that there was a correction in the

time as regards receipt of the medical intimation from the

Government Hospital, vide Exhibit P6. Originally, the time written

was ‘06.50 a.m.’ which was later on corrected as ‘05.50 a.m.’ There

was an overwriting of figures ‘6’ and ‘5’.

14. When the depositions of PW8, PW9 and PW10 along with the

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 13 of 16

relevant exhibited documents are considered, it is seen that while

PW8 stated that he had given intimation to the police at 05.30

a.m., PW10 who acted on the said intimation, stated that the time

mentioned of receiving the intimation at Exhibit P6 was originally

written as 06.50 a.m., which was then corrected to 05.50 a.m.

There is a doubt created with regard to the time when such

intimation was actually given by PW8 and received by PW10. The

overwriting on Exhibit P6 at the instance of PW10 further

enhances such doubt. Further, if the statement of the victim at

Exhibit 10 is perused, it is seen that the same is in great detail. It

narrates the previous history as well as enmity between the victim

and A1 to A4. The said statement runs into a page and a half. It is

in fact a ‘blow by blow’ account given by the victim vividly

describing the attack in detail. Considering the nature of injuries

suffered by the victim, which were twenty-two in number with

many of them being grievous, such detailed narration by a

seriously injured victim does raise a serious doubt. The victim was

under treatment for serious injuries suffered by him and as

suggested to the Doctor on duty, the likelihood of the effect of

tranquilizers on the victim cannot be ruled out.

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 14 of 16

15. Coming to the deposition of PW17, the IO, it is seen that he

failed to explain the absence of any reference to the bloodstains of

the victim on the clothes of PW1 or PW2 or other witnesses, who

claimed to have brought the victim to the hospital. He further

stated that he did not make any enquiry as to who brought the

victim from the scene of occurrence to the Government Hospital.

He admitted that PW3 and PW4 did not state to him that they had

gone to the graveyard with a torchlight, nor did he state that he

was informed by PW1 about the attack by A1 to A4. Numerous

omissions in this regard have been brought on record in his cross-

examination.

16. The High Court on re-consideration of the evidence on record

proceeded to modify the conviction of A1 to A4 from one under

Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. On re-

appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, we do

notice that there are material inconsistencies in the case of the

prosecution that impel us not to restore the conviction of A1 to A4

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code as urged

on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any sufficient ground

raised in the appeal in that regard. In the absence of any challenge

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 15 of 16

being raised by A1 to A4 to their conviction under Section 304 Part

II of the Penal Code, we are inclined to dismiss the criminal appeal.

17. Before parting, we state that the following observations of the

High Court in the impugned judgment do not meet our approval.

The said observations read as under:

“Though no witness spoke on these lines, what appears to this

Court is that, on the eventful night, the farmers went to the field

for irrigating their crops, may be on account of shortage of

power or water; and in a scuffle, the deceased received serious

injuries in the hands of the accused. Had there been a clear

intention, or plan for the accused to kill the deceased, there

would not be an occasion for the deceased being shifted to the

hospital, and is being in a position to speak. If four persons,

armed with deadly weapons, attack an individual, with an

objective of killing him, normally, they would leave the spot,

only after confirming that the attacked person breathed his

last.”

The High Court having itself noted that no witness had

deposed on the aforesaid lines, there was no reason at all for it to

comment further on the matter. The aforesaid observations are

based purely on surmises and conjectures. The order of conviction

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code has been

modified by the High Court to one under Section 304 Part II of the

Penal Code on this basis. Though the learned counsel for the

Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2017 Page 16 of 16

appellant argued vehemently against the reasonings given by the

High Court, the evidence on record is, however, not sufficient to

restore the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the Penal Code. On the other hand, A1 to A4 having suffered the

sentence as imposed by the High Court and the modified

conviction having not been challenged by them, in our view, the

matter deserves a quietus.

18. As a result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

…...………………………..J.

[ UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

AUGUST 10, 2026.