THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No.1588 of 2007 Date of Judgment: 12-07-2011 Between: State of A.P.rep. by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..Appellant and 1.Ramreddipeta Vinod Goud and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No.1588 of 2007 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) 1. This appeal through Public Prosecutor is directed against the order of acquittal passed against A1 to A3 in S.C.No.21 of 2005, dated 24-04-2006 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Medak. 2. The gravaman of the charge against the accused was that on 16-08-2003 night they caused the death of Md.Aejaz Khan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and caused disappearance of evidence by throwing the dead body on the main road. 3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the course of trial may, brief, be stated as under: A1 is the resident of Kamalapur village and A2 and A3 are residents of Nizampet village. The deceased is the brother of P.W.1 and resident of Nizampet village. The deceased was eking out his livelihood by running an auto. A1 developed illicit intimacy with one Nagalaxmi four years prior to the date of incident. In that connection, the village elders conducted a Panchayat wherein the accused (A1) was advised to stop the extra marital relationship with Nagalaxmi. Later on, the deceased developed extra marital relationship with the said Nagalaxmi. In that process, A1 bore grudge against the deceased and hatched a plan to do away the life of the deceased. On 16-08- 2003, A1 to A3 along with the deceased consumed liquor; thereafter they went to Dhaba hotel and again they consumed liquor upto 10.15 P.M. As per their plan, A1 to A3 left the Dhaba hotel along with the deceased and A1 drove the auto of the deceased and proceeded towards Kamalapur and near culvert No.60/1 the accused killed the deceased by stabbing indiscriminately and thrown the dead body on the road to conceal the offence. A1 dropped A2 and A3 at Dhaba hotel and returned back to the scene of offence and pushed the auto into the bushes. On 17-08-2003, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, lodged a compliant—ExP1 with the police stating that his brother, Md.Aejaz Khan (deceased) has not returned to home on 16-08-2003 night and while searching he found the auto of the deceased in between Shankarampet and Kamalapur villages and found the dead body in the premises of police station. Basing on the said compliant, P.W.12—ASI, Shankarampet registered a case in CR.No.32 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC and handed over the investigation to P.W.14. During the course of investigation he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and others and recorded their statements; visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.W.8 and 9; seized the material objects; draw rough sketch of scene of offence; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and then sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Sangareddy for conducting postmortem examination. P.W.13, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to throat injury. On 21-08-2003, the accused were arrested and sent to remand. After completion of investigation and after receipt of relevant documents the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet. 4. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed two charges against the accused. When the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses—P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and exhibited M.Os.1 and 2. On behalf of defence, portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2 were marked as Exs.D1 and D2. 6. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence found the accused not guilty and acquitted them of the charges. Against the same, the State preferred the present appeal. 7. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel for the respondents/accused and perused the entire record. 8. There are no direct eye witnesses in this case and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Before examining the case of the prosecution the principles laid down in PADALA VEERA REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. (AIR 1990 SC 79) are kept in mind. 9. P.W.1, brother of the deceased lodged a report—Ex.P1 stating that the deceased was eking out his livelihood by running auto. Since the deceased did not return to home on the night of 16-08-2003, they went in search of him and while searching they found the auto of the deceased besides the road between Shankarampet and Kamalapur villages. On enquiry it came to know that the dead body is at police station and death occurred due to stabbing and beating cruelly. 10. P.W.6., who is a panch witness and who last seen the deceased in the company of the accused, deposed that he is running Dhaba at Shankarampet where the accused and the deceased alleged to have taken liquor and chicken on the date of incident i.e.16-08-2003. He has not supported the case of the prosecution; hence declared hostile. 11. P.W.2, who is no other than the father of the deceased, never suspected the role of the accused in causing the death of the deceased. He stated that on the date of incident at about 8 P.M. the deceased informed him that he is going to Nizampet. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution that accused and deceased together had liquor and chicken at the Dhaba of P.W.6 is false. 12. Curiously, P.W.3 in whose auto the dead body of the deceased was shifted from the scene of offence even before conducting panchanama of the dead body stated that he do not know the name of the deceased, who was also running auto. According to him, police took him to the scene of offence, which is after Dhaba near Kamalapur Shivar where the dead body of the deceased was lying on the road and the police constables asked him to help to shift the dead body to auto; when he refused, the police people themselves shifted the dead body in his auto to police station; on the next day morning when he visited the police station he came to know that the deceased was also auto driver and resident of Nizampet village. His evidence only shows that the dead body of the deceased was shifted from the place of occurrence to the police station in his auto, which is no way useful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. 13. Even according to P.Ws.1 to 3 threats were exerted by A1, but they have not lodged any complaint against him, which itself goes to show that the said witnesses were introduced only to implicate the accused. 14. The confession of A2 and A3 never led to seizure of any material objects. Therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that A1 to A3 killed the deceased. None of the family members of deceased ever stated that A2 and A3 took the deceased to Dhaba as called by A1. Further, FIR which was issued at 10 A.M. reached the Court at 7 P.M. According to P.W.12, crime was registered on receipt of compliant whereas P.W.14 —Investigating Officer stated until his arrival to the police station crime was not registered. From the above evidence, it shows that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the chain of events to connect the accused with the commission of offence. 15. From the above discussion, there are no compelling circumstances to come to a different conclusion than arrived by the trial court. 16. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _____________ RAJA ELANGO,J. 12-07-2011 Murthy