THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1217 of 2009 Date: 09.10.2009 Between : The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Appellant And Pitchuka Ramulu @ Rambabu, S/o. Venkanna, aged 40 years, C/ST, Kondakammari, E.Gokavaram village, Prathipadu, East Godavari District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1217 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State. 2. Appellant is the State and respondent is the sole accused in the Sessions Case. 3. This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Section 378 (3) and (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment, dated 15.11.2007, in Sessions Case No.85 of 2007, passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.”). 4. The brief facts that are necessary for proper disposal of the appeal, as per the prosecution case, may be stated as follows: The accused and the deceased are the residents of E.Gokavaram village. It appears that the accused had illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased. As such, the deceased bore grudge against the accused and as a consequence on 5.6.2006 in the evening, the deceased said to have threatened the accused and on that the accused got angry and hacked the deceased with a knife. The alleged incident was witnessed by P.Ws.4, 7, 8 and others. Basing on Ex.P.1 report lodged by P.W.1, Village Panchayat Secretary, the police registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and took up investigation. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 17, besides the material objects M.Os.1 to 4, and on behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. The Court below, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Now, the only point that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Court below was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence with which he was charged? 9. It is on record that except P.W.6, all other material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Of course, P.W.1, who is the Village Panchayat Secretary, who lodged Ex.P.1 report and also a mediator for inquest and the scene of offence, supported the case of the prosecution to some extent. But the said part of his evidence is not very relevant to fix the liability on the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 10. The only evidence that is to be considered undisputedly is the evidence of P.W.6, who is a child witness, aged about 14 years as on the date of his examination. He is said to be one of the eye witnesses to the incident. He was much younger when actually the alleged incident took place. From the judgment of the Court below, it could be seen that P.W.6 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not go out of the house of P.W.9 and witnessed the incident. Again in the very next sentence he deposed that he came out of house and witnessed the incident. It is very interesting to note that this witness further deposed that he came out of the house after the accused hacked the deceased and left the place. Therefore, it was noticed by the Court below that there are three different conflicting versions about his witnessing the incident by P.W.6. All these three versions are totally incoherent and there was no proper and plausible explanation, nor there is any possibility to reconcile all these three versions. 11. It was further deposed by P.W.6 that one day prior to his examination in the Court, he was kept in the Police Station and tutored by the Inspector of Police and that the Inspector of Police instructed him to depose in a proper manner. 12. From the said facts stated by P.W.6 in his deposition, what appears is – firstly, the solitary testimony of P.W.6, which is totally incoherent, cannot be placed reliance. In our view, such evidence is very weak and not capable of pointing out any accusing finger against the accused. It is also cannot be forgotten that there is no other corroborating evidence. Even if there is any other independent evidence, the same cannot support the evidence of P.W.6, inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.6 has three different versions, independent to each other; and secondly, P.W.6 was kept in the Police Station one day prior to his examination in the Court in order to train him up as to how he has to depose in the Court. These two aspects are sufficient to discredit the testimony of P.W.6. 13. Except the evidence of P.W.6, there is no other material evidence on record to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Court below. 14. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below, while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., in our considered view, are cogent and the evidence on record was well appreciated before arriving at such a conclusion. 15. For the foregoing, we see no grounds and the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, in limini, confirming the judgment, dated 15.11.2007, in Sessions Case No.85 of 2007, passed by the Court below, acquitting the accused for the offence charged against him. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 09.10.2009. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1217 of 2009 09.10.2009 (Msr)