THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1457 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The state filed this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 09.05.2009 passed in SC. No.799 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder Accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 306 and 201 of IPC. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: Respondents 1 to 5/Accused Nos.1 to 5 were the police officers working in different cadres. On 26.08.1991, at about 1.30 a.m., when the Muta coolies under the leadership of Pw.1 were sleeping on the stack of paddy bags unloaded by them from a lorry in front of Jagan Mohan Rice Mill situated at Kobaltpet, Guntur, Lw.7-Perli Vijaya Kumar, who was going on the road, woke up PW.1 and informed that one Thammisetty Punnaiah (deceased) and Lw.6 committed theft of paddy bags from the said stack of paddy bags, and Pw.3, who was coming in the opposite direction, caught hold of the deceased and handed over to PW.4, who was on picket duty. PW.4 with the assistance of P.Ws.1,2 and LWs.4 to 6 took the deceased to Pattabhipuram Police station and handed over to Accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 2 put the deceased in police lockup without obtaining any report either from Lw.1 or Pw.4. On 27.08.1991 at about 4.15 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging in the lockup. Later, in order to legalise the custodial death of the deceased, Accused No.4 obtained a report from PW.1 on 27.08.1991 after the death of the deceased and manipulated the record showing that the deceased was arrested when he was produced by PW.1. Accused No.5 had torn up page No.89 of the Sentry relief book and tampered with the records of the police station. PW.13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, having learnt about the death of the deceased, drafted police proceedings regarding the custodial death of the deceased and registered the case as Crime No.90 of 1991 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Pattabhipuram Law & Order Police Station. Subsequently, the case was entrusted to C.I.D. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against Accused Nos.1 to 5 before the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, and it was numbered as PRC. No. 5 of 1998. Thereafter, as the offence under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Division, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Guntur. Thereupon, the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, made over the case to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, by numbering it as SC.No.799 of 1998. During the course of trial, accused Nos.4 and 5 died and therefore the case against them was abated. On behalf of the prosecution, twenty witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P32 and M.Os.1 to 20. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked. On consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against Accused Nos.1 to 3 and, accordingly, by judgment dated 09.05.2007, acquitted them for the offences for which they were charged. Assailing the same, the state filed the present criminal appeal. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The prosecution, in all, examined Pws.1 to 20, but except P.Ws.6 and 7, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. However, since PW.6 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who acted as panch during the course of inquest and Pw.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, I am of the considered view that the evidence of these witnesses alone is not sufficient to hold that the accused/respondents are responsible for the death of the deceased. Further, the alleged offence took place on 27.08.1991 i.e., about 20 years back and the trial Court pronounced the judgment in the year 2007. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court giving benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot, therefore, be faulted. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 08.12.2010 v v