THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615 of 2007 Dated : 25.10.2010 Between : The State of A.P. …. Appellant-Prosecution a n d G.Ajay Kumar … Respondent-Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.615 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) State preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against acquittal of the respondent-accused in Sessions Case No.242 of 2004 by the VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by judgment dated 16.03.2006. 2) The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The accused and deceased Kolli Durga Sankar @ Sankar are residents of Mallikharjunapet of Vijayawada Town and were friends. But, on coming to know the illegal intimacy of the deceased with the maternal aunt of the accused, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. On 22.02.2004 at 9.00 p.m. the accused took the deceased to a little distance from his place and picked up a quarrel with him. During such quarrel, the accused picked up a knife from his navel portion and stabbed the deceased on middle of the chest. On witnessing the incident, PWs 1 and 2, the parents of the deceased, rushed to the spot and in the mean time accused ran away with knife. When the deceased was shifted to hospital, he was declared dead at 9.30 p.m. 3) On 23.02.2004 at 0015 hours P.W.1 lodged a report before Police, basing on which, Police registered a case in crime No.84/2004 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, issued FIR. P.W.14 Inspector of Police took up further investigation, examined relevant witnesses and recorded their statements, observed scene of offence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch of the scene, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, got the autopsy held over the dead body of the deceased, arrested the accused and send him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused, which was numbered as P.R.C. No.9 of 2004 by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 4) On committal, the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and framed charge under Section 302 IPC, in which, the accused denied the charge and claimed for trial. 5) In order to prove the guilt of the accused, Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.28 apart from marking MOs 1 to 6. After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating evidence put to him available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Session Judge rendered the impugned judgment as stated above. 6) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7) The learned Sessions Judge disbelieving the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, acquitted accused. P.Ws.3 to 5, who were cited as eyewitnesses to the incident, turned hostile and deposed a different version from the version of PWs 1 and 2. Even the evidence adduced by PWs 1 and 2 is self-contradictory and contradicting with each other. 8) Even according to P.W.1, the father of the deceased, the dead body of his son fell on road in Arjun Veedhi, but not in front of his house, whereas it is the prosecution case that the incident took place in front of his house. Further, PW.1 in his complaint has not stated the presence of P.W.2, the mother of the deceased. 9) PWs 3, 4 and 5, eye witnesses to the incident, gave a different version. Even when they were directed to give statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also they have not informed any occurrence and also implicating the accused. 10) The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 does not inspire confidence of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge eschewing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who claims to be the eyewitnesses, acquitted the accused. It is well settled proposition that when there is possibility of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge after evaluating all the evidence considered, that it is unsafe to believe the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and acquitted the accused. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the present judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the present appeal has to fail. 11) Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J Dated : 25.10.2010. sur