THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.808 of 2011 JUDGEMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The State represented by Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against the judgment dated 04.03.2009 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in S.C.No.206 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C and accordingly they were acquitted of the said offences. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as under: The marriage of Theriki Vonnamma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was performed with A.1 on 23.03.2000 at Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple in Basinepalli Village. After the marriage, the deceased joined A.1 to lead marital life with him at the house of A.1 to A.5. Out of their wedlock, the deceased begot one son and one daughter. Thereafter, A.1 addicted to bad habits and used to torture the deceased mentally and physically. About six months prior to the date of incident, A.2 divided the properties and allotted a hut to A.1 to stay separately, as the deceased was not willing to lead her life with A.2 to A.5. Since their division, A.1 to A.5 bore grudge against the deceased and developed ill feelings against her. While so, A.1 decided to dispose of his share of property and purchase an auto for his livelihood. Then the deceased objected A.1 for disposal of the property and demanded him to register the property in favour of their children and this was not liked by A.1. Later, A.1 discussed with A.2 to A.5 and hatched up a plan to murder the deceased. On the night of 07.10.2005, A.1 quarreled with the deceased and assaulted her and hence on the same night she went to her parents house and informed the same to P.W1-Kuntala Parthasarathi. Then P.W1 and another convinced her and sent her to the house of A.1 on the same night. On 08.10.2005 at the early hours, the deceased went to answer the calls of nature. At that time, A.1 to A.5 formed into a group with common intention to kill her. When the deceased came to their sheep pen situated near the well of Vankayala Ramappa in Basinepalli village fields, A1 to A5 attacked her and abused her. A.1 to A.5 pushed her down, trampled on her abdomen indiscriminately and beat her with hands. When A.2 to A.5 caught hold of the deceased, A.1 hacked her with a sickle on her head, which slipped and caused chopped injury. A.1 again hacked her with sickle and trampled on her abdomen, due to which, the deceased became unconscious. A.1 to A.5 took the body of the deceased and threw into dilapidated well of Vankayala Ramappa. Due to falling of body of the deceased, abdomen portion was hit to the bedding of motor pump inside the well, due which, she fell down into the bottom of the well and died. The same was witnessed by P.W.1-Kuntala Parthasarathi, P.W.7-Chintra Obulesu and L.W.13-Kumba Damasi Narayana. P.W.1 lodged a report under Ex.P.1 before the Police of C.K.Palli Police Station. Based on the said report, a case in Crime No.92 of 2005 was registered under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. On 13.10.2005 at 5.00 p.m the Inspector of Police arrested A.1 to A.5 near N.S. gate in the presence of P.W.13-K.Babulal and P.W.10-Bannala Ravi and on interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination and P.W.14-Dr.R.Sathya Prakash conducted post mortem examination and opined that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury No.5 i.e., abdominal injury. After completion of enquiry and receipt of all the reports, P.W.16 filed charge sheet against the accused. Originally, the case was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C against A.1 to A.5 and Section 498-A I.P.C against A.1, A.3 and A.4. Since the offence under Section 302 I.P.C is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Anantapur, which in turn, made over the case to III Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur for trial. 3. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. When the said charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 was marked. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly acquitted them from the charges with which they stood charged. Challenging the same, the State preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not necessary to discuss the evidence of all the witnesses, since the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7, who appear to be chance witnesses. 8. P.W.7 deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 a.m., while he was answering the calls of nature at sheep pen along with P.W.1, he heard the discussion of A.1 with his family members that they would kill the deceased and that after having discussion, the accused hide in the bushes near the well and when the deceased came there to answer the calls of nature, all of them kicked the deceased, beat her, hacked her and threw the dead body into the well. He further stated that A.1 hacked the deceased. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 deposed that the deceased was raising cries when the accused were beating her. But, he neither went to her rescue nor raised cries requesting to rescue the deceased, which is against the normal human conduct. 9. P.W.1 deposed that on 07.10.2005 at 8.00 p.m., the deceased came to him and informed that A.1 told her that he would sell away his land and purchase an auto and when she refused for the same, he beat her; that he (P.W.1) advised her to go to the house saying that he will talk to the elders on the next day; that on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m., he proceeded to his lands and at that time, the deceased came to the well of Vankayala Ramappa to answer the calls of nature; that at that time, the accused beat the deceased with their hands and legs; that while A.2 to A.5 caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased, A.1 hacked her with a sickle on her head and abdomen and thereafter, they threw the dead body in the well and that out of fear, he ran away to the village and informed the incident to his mother and brother. He further deposed that he witnessed the incident for about 15 minutes, but he neither went to the rescue of the deceased, who is none other than his sister, nor raised cries requesting to rescue her. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose about his coming to the scene of occurrence to answer the calls of nature and the presence of P.W.7, which creates a suspicion about the presence of both P.Ws.1 and 7 at the scene of occurrence and witnessing the incident. That apart, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7 has not been corroborated with the evidence of the doctor-P.W.14, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, since the doctor found a lacerated injury on the body of the deceased, which can be caused by a blunt object. But, during the course of cross-examination, the sickle – M.O.4 was not shown to P.W.14 to ascertain as to whether the same can cause such lacerated injury. P.W.14 deposed in his cross-examination that when a person is stampeded on the abdomen there is possibility of presence of marks of the foot and other internal organs such as spleen can be damaged, but in the instant case, no such internal injuries are found. This also creates a suspicion about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 7. Further, there is abnormal delay of five hours in lodging Ex.P.3-F.I.R, even though the police station is at a distance of 10 kilometers from the scene of occurrence, and the delay has not been explained properly. 11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the learned Judge rightly acquitted the accused and the judgment under appeal needs no interference. 12. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 04.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in S.C.No.206 of 2006. ____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J Date 27.07.2011 ____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J va