IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 328 of 2005 Between: Y. Venkateswara Reddy … Petitioner V/s. Kandula Seetharam Reddy & 13-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Bommagani Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 328 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner defacto complainant (PW-1) against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in SC.No. 53 of 1998, dated 31-1- 2001. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows: In Mallareddygudem village, there are two groups. One is lead by Sri Usthela Veera Reddy of CPI and the prosecution witnesses in this case are his supporters, whereas, A-2 Kandula Sundara Mouleshwara Reddy is leading the other group belonging to CPI (M). The two groups are claiming supremacy in the village, and therefore, they were at loggerheads and clashes. On the intervening night of 10/11-8-1997 at about 0045 hours, the 14 accused gathered near the house of A-1 Kandula Seetharam Reddy with a common object of killing Usthela Veera Reddy in furtherance of their common object, the accused were armed with deadly weapons like axes, sticks etc., formed into an unlawful assembly and proceeded near the house of Parepally Purushotham. On seeing the prosecution witnesses, attacked them with axes, sticks and stones and caused injuries. A-1 and A-2 beat Somireddy Venkat Reddy with axes and caused injuries to them and he later succumbed while being shifted to the hospital. At 01-20 hours on 11-8-1997, PW-1 Yerabolu Venkateshwar Reddy presented Telugu written complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mellacheruvu, narrating all the facts. The Sub-Inspector forwarded the report to Station House Officer of his Police Station through a constable with endorsement to register the case. The Station House Officer registered the case in Cr.No. 56/97. The Sub- Inspector and Inspector conducted investigation in this case and filed the final report. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Nalgonda. On hearing both sides and on consideration of entire material, as it is not a fit case to discharge, charges under sections 148 against A-1 to A-14, under section 302 of IPC against A- 1 and A-2, under section 302 read with section 149 of IPC against A- 3 to A-14, for causing the death of Somireddy Venkat Reddy, under section 307 read with section 149 of IPC against A-3 to A-14 for causing injuries to prosecution witnesses, in order to cause their murder, were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined altogether 21 witnesses, among the witnesses examined, PWs 1 to 6, 8 to 1- are the injured and eye-witnesses to the incident. The incident has taken place by the side of the house of PW-7 Parepally Purushotham, as well as PW-15 Ambati Pratap Reddy. These two witnesses did not speak much about the incident proper. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. All the Accused denied the same. 6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Principal Sessions Judge found A-1 to A-14 not guilty and they were acquitted under section 235 Cr.P.C., for the offences under sections 148, 302, 302 read with section 149, 307 read with section 149 IPC. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 8. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner- defacto complainant argued that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have arrived to correct conclusion basing on Ex.P1 marked on behalf of the prosecution and the original complaint marked in Cr.No. 56 of 1997, which clearly show that both the cases as well as the scene of offences and the timings are different. The learned Sessions Judge should have convicted and sentenced all the accused basing on the motive, unlawful assembly with leathered weapons which are used and the overt acts clearly explained by the prosecution and more particularly Exs.P17 to Ex.P25 which itself corroborates the oral evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and other witnesses. It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased Somi Reddy Venkata Reddy died due to multiple head injuries caused by A-1 and A-2 and further the learned Sessions Judge failed to assess that the accused party is the aggressor as per the medical report. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that first of all the motive part of beating on that night, the group of people of PW-1 gathering at two places and the inconsistent manner in which the motive is sought to be spoken, would clearly show that the starting point of clash on that night is not placed in its true picture by the prosecution witnesses before the Court. They are hiding something. If they are serious about erection of “Dwajasthambam” on 24-8-1997, they need not assemble at two places on the night of 10-8-1997 and make discussion. So, the genesis for the occurrence is not forthcoming and convincing the conscious of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge has comprehensively discussed on all aspects in a lucid manner and observed that the only irresistible conclusion can be arrived is that both the groups clashed near the house of PW-7 Parepally Purshotham deliberately. Further it is very much clear from the judgment of the trial Court that the two groups have hell-bent by beating each other and they have deliberately clashed with each other and in that darkness, they beat each other and it is almost impossible to specify the overt acts and it is a pure case of melee. The accepted evidence of PWs 7 and 15 coupled with the evidence of PWs 4 and 10 would clearly show that at that dead part of night when it was dark, the two groups deliberately clashed and beat each other for more than half an hour till the police arrived. With regard to the counter case, it is submitted that PW-1 had admitted with regard to the same incident, the case is going on against himself and 23 more persons in the same Court in SC.No.71 of 1998. One of the overt acts alleged in that case is that Usthela Veera Reddy beat A-1 Kandula Seetharam Reddy with a stick on his head at his house. It is also alleged in the other case that this witness also beat some of the accused in that counter case. So there is clear admission that the two groups clashed even as per the evidence of PW-1. Ex.P1 report is not setting forth any of the essential ingredients and it is very cryptic and bald report. It is neither narrating the injury sustained by the injured nor attributing overt acts to any of the accused. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defacto complainant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 11. The learned Sessions Judge observed in the judgment that it is a case and counter-case and also there is no evidence to prove that the accused intended to commit the crime. Admittedly, the prosecution party went to the place of the accused and subsequently the entire melee took place. Further the learned Sessions Judge considered the fact that the entire occurrence was taken place in the dark night. Therefore, the question of identifying the real accused and attributing specific overt acts against each of the accused is highly impossible and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is quite unnatural and further the learned Sessions Judge has categorically discussed all the points in a lucid manner and appreciated the facts and circumstances and also the manner of attack that took place land the medical evidence and also the flaw in the investigation. Further the learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the entire evidence concluded that the investigating agency has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. In a case of revision against the order of acquittal, the scope of this Court is very very narrow and on the available evidence two views are possible, one view is in favour of the respondents-accused. Even if the said view is taken into consideration, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. On careful consideration of the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge gave cogent reasoning for his conclusion and I do not see any infirmity or perversity in the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, which is well-considered and on sound reasonings. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 22-10-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 328 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 101 Date: 22-10-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L