THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.439 of 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto complainant against the judgment dated 10.12.2003 on the file of the court of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.1174 of 2000 wherein accused No.3 was acquitted for the offences under Sections 148, 302 and accused Nos.2, 6 to 11 along with Accused No.4 were acquitted for the offences under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that one Bathula Venkateswara Rao (LW.1), who is the father of Bathula Ramamohana Rao @ Ramu (the deceased) purchased a land to an extent of Ac.2-24 cents from Tadikonda Lakshminarayana, who is the father of A-1. Since then A1 and his followers are obstructing LW.1 in cultivating the land. LW.1 got an injunction order in the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Magistrate Court, Mangalagiri. During that year LW.1 raised a plantain garden in that land and at the time of yielding, A1 and his followers cut the plantain garden and LW.1 reported the same matter in Thulluru Police Station. During the Panchayat elections, LW1 supported a candidate i.e. Puli Babu Rao, who contested for the post of Sarpanch on behalf of Congress-I. Whereas Machavarapu Venkata Rao contested for the same post on behalf of Telugu Desam Party. A.1 and his followers supported Machavarapu Venkata Rao, who was elected as Sarpanch of Uddandarayunipalem. As such, both the groups developed enmity against each other and they reported cases which were registered in Thulluru Police Station. The elders of the village were also tried their level best to settle the land dispute amicably but in vain. In view of the above grudge, A1 and his followers, i.e. A2 to A11 Machavarapu Venkata Rao and Thalluri Sambasiva Rao who are deposed in Cr. No.63/96 are waiting for an opportunity to wreak vengeance against LW.1 and their family members. 3. On 18.7.1996 at about 5.p.m. the deceased along with Morakonda Bapa Rao (LW.2) went to Karumanchi Sundara Rao for asking him to arrange tillers. After talking with Karumanchi Sundara Rao (LW.7), the deceased and LW.2 went to Mandadam village where the deceased purchased pesticides. The deceased had a talk with Ginjupalli Rama Mohana Rao. Afterwards the deceased along with LW.2 came to their fields and had talk with LW.5 i.e. Karri Bodemma and Karri Kumar (LW.6) and kept pesticides in his hut which is in his field and started to their village on his scooter at about 6 pm along with LW.2. When they reached near the burial ground of Modilingayapalem, all the accused along with Machavarapu Venkata Rao and Thulluru Sambasiva Rao formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, having the common object to do away with the life of the deceased while they attacked the deceased with lethal weapons. A1 hacked the deceased with an axe on his neck and A3 hacked the deceased and caused multiple injuries and the deceased died on the spot. LW.2 witnessed the incident and ran away due to fear towards northern side fields. At that time Ginjupalli Rama Mohana Rao (LW.3) and Tadikonda Sambasiva Rao (LW.4) were coming on cycle to the village. LW.2 immediately went to the house of LW.1 and informed about the incident to him and fled away from the village due to fear. On 18.7.1996 at about 7.15 pm, K.Babu Rao LW-19-Inspector of Police, received the information and he proceeded to Uddandarayunipalem village at about 8.30 p.m. and he asked the Sub Inspector, Thulluru P.S. to arrange a police picket and LW.19 instructed Sub Inspector, Guntur Taluk P.S. to record the statement of LW.1. R.Mohan Rao (LW.17) Sub Inspector of police recorded the statement of LW.1 and he sent the same to P.Mallikharjuna Rao, H.C.453, of Thulluru P.S. registered the case in Crime No.64/96 under Section 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC. LW.19 took up investigation and he seized the scooter of the deceased at the scene of offence in the presence of Tadikonda Omkar (LW.12) and Mandadapu Sivaprasada Rao (LW.13) under the cover of observation report duly attested by them. He also prepared a rough sketch and also seized two rings, one wrist gold chain and one gold chain from the dead body of the deceased along with Rs.252/- at the scene of offence and he also photographed the scene of offence. LW.19 conducted inquest over the dead body of he deceased in the presence of LW.13 and Nandigama Jagan Mohana Rao (LW.14) under the cover of Inquest report duly attested by them. LW.19 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The dead body was sent to Dr.K.Mahipal Reddy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Guntur (LW.16) for post mortem examination. The involvement of Tadikonda Venkateswara Rao s/o. Nagamalleswara Rao and Tadikonda Nageswara Rao s/o.Veeraiah is not revealed during the examination of eye witness, so they were deleted from the list of the accused. On 13.8.1996, LW.19 arrested A.2,A.3, A.6,A.10 at R.T.C. Bus sand near Rahim Tyres shop in Guntur and sent them for remand. LW.20, M.Krishna Murthy, Sub. Div. Police Officer, (LW.20) arrested A.11 on 17.9.96 at 8. am. After completion of investigation, LW.20 filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri. The learned Magistrate took the case on file under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and registered it as P.R.C.No.40 of 1996. Since the offence under Section 302 is triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, Guntur Division. After receiving the record, the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur took the case on file and made it over to the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur for disposal according to law. Thereafter, as per the orders of this court (High Court), the case was transferred to V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 besides marking M.Os 1 to 12. 4. After conclusion of the trial, considering the evidence and other material brought on record by either side, the trial court found the accused No.3 not guilty for the offences under Sections 148IPC and 302 IPC and also found Accused Nos. 2, 6 to 11 not guilty for the offences under Sections 148, 302, read with Section 149 IPC and accordingly acquitted them. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned public prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the court below ought to have taken into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially PWs 2 and 3 who are eye witnesses to the scene of offence. 7. This court has thoroughly gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. As pointed out by the court below, there is contradiction in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are eye witnesses to the scene of offence and their evidence is not on similar lines. As such, there is no corroboration to each other’s evidence. The evidence of other prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, the prosecution has not made one Talluri Sambasiva Rao as one of the accused in this case and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly acquitted Accused Nos. 2,3,6 to 11 and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J -03-2009 Stp