THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 07-07-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 851 OF 2011 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Ankireddi Sudhakara Reddy and six others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 851 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This criminal appeal by the State through Public Prosecutor is against the order of acquittal dated 22-09-2009 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in S.C No. 72 of 2008. The respondents – accused Nos. 1 to 7 were tried for the offence under Section 148 IPC; accused Nos. 1 to 4 were tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC and accused Nos.5 to 7 were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and at the conclusion of trial were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the alleged offences. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents – accused. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 4 hacked the deceased Gangireddy Rajagopala Reddy @ Rajareddy to death and accused Nos.5 to 7 instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 in killing the deceased who was elected as Panchayat President of Gunakanapalli Village defeating accused No.5 by a margin of 67 votes hardly four months prior to the termination of his life. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 13 and 5. According to the prosecution, PWs 1, 2 and 13 along with the deceased were chit chatting at the shop of PW 5 situated at Parnapalli bus stand, Pulivendula before the deceased was about to leave to his village Gunakanapalli on his motor cycle and when he was going to take his motor cycle parked on the road margin right in front of the shop of PW 5, accused No.1 shouted at the deceased as “dorikinaadu champandira” (kill him as he is present here) and saying so, he hacked on the forehead of the deceased. As the deceased fell down by the hacking of accused No. 1, accused Nos.2 to 4 also hacked the deceased indiscriminately on his face, hands and on his chest. Accused Nos.5 to 7 instigated accused Nos.1 to 4 to see him not alive. PWs 13, 1, 2 and 5 being threatened to be put to the same fate, they remained in helpless condition. PW 5 who was declared hostile stated that he was not present when the deceased was beaten. PW 1 who was examined and who is the prime witness was not cross examined on the same day and later, when he was cross examined, he resiled from the earlier statement made in the Court. PW 2 who is another eyewitness has not stated about either witnessing the accused hacking the deceased or accompanying the deceased in the auto as stated by PW 1 in his chief examination. According to the evidence of PW 1, himself, PWs 2 and 13 have taken the injured in an auto, but their clothes were not stained though the deceased was profusely bleeding with injuries. Therefore, their witnessing the incident or shifting the deceased to the hospital was rightly not believed by the trial Court. PW 13 is a person who has given report to the police about the accused killing the deceased and shifting him to the hospital, but he also turned hostile as he stated that the police simply obtained his signatures on the blank papers and did not give any report as mentioned in Ex.P-12. A retired Mandal Revenue Officer who was working at the time of occurrence was examined as PW 10 to speak about the arrest of accused No.1 to 4 in his presence and leading to recoveries on 31-12-2006 as per the disclosure statement Ex.P-8. He stated that his signatures were obtained by the police at the police station at the instructions of the Circle Inspector of Police and he disowned the previous statement made to the police. Though he was cross examined, nothing has been elicited from his evidence. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to connect the accused to the crime and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted all the accused for the charges levelled against them. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are not persuaded to come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the respondents - accused. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. A. GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 07-07-2011 ks