THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.96 of 2008 Dated:- 19th January, 2011 Between:- The State of A.P., rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. …Appellant AND Harijana Kommu Sreeramulu, S/o. Ramudu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.96 of 2008 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar) The State preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 01.12.2005 passed in S.C.No.250 of 2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder, the accused/respondent herein, who was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 354 IPC, was acquitted. The respondent herein will be hereinafter referred to as the accused, for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Kambagiri Ramudu – the deceased is the resident of Kocheruvu village, Dhone Mandal of Kurnool District. The accused and other material witnesses also hail from the same village. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was having illegal contacts with several women including married women in the village. The accused got married about two years prior to the date of incident and since about three months prior to the date of incident the deceased had been following the wife of the accused, teasing her and making efforts to develop illegal contacts with her. The accused, after coming to know about the same, warned the deceased, but in vain. On 27.01.2005 at about 05:00 P.M., the deceased went to the house of the accused and once again teased his wife. The accused was present in the house at that time who came out of the house, slapped the deceased and threatened the deceased with dire consequences. On 08.02.2005 at about 06:00 P.M., the deceased left his house carrying a minor girl by name Deepti Kumari (aged about four years) – the daughter of elder brother of the deceased along with him for bringing back the she buffaloes. The accused followed the deceased hiding a hunting sickle underneath his clothes. The father of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.2, also followed them. At about 06:30 P.M., when the deceased arrived near the fields belonging to one Vadde Hanumanna adjacent to the Dhone – Kurnool road, the accused approached the deceased and took him to the fields of said Vadde Hanumanna on the pretext of answering the calls of nature and the accused suddenly removed the hunting sickle and hacked the deceased indiscriminately. In the said process, said minor girl Deepti Kumari, who was in the hands of the deceased, also received bleeding injury on her cheek. The father of the deceased who arrived at the spot also witnessed the incident. One Ala Nagi Reddy, who was examined as P.W.3 and who came to the place of incident for answering the calls of nature, also witnessed the incident. The injured minor girl Deepti Kumari was shifted to the Government Hospital, Dhone, for treatment to the bleeding injury. On the next day, i.e., on 09.02.2005 at about 09:00 A.M., the mother of the injured minor girl Deepti Kumari, namely, V.Madiga Lakshmi Devi gave a statement to the police which was reduced into writing and basing on the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.29 of 2005 under Sections 302, 304 IPC against the accused and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the police visited the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 – the Sub Inspector of Police, Dhone P.S., recorded the statements of P.W.1 and other witnesses. Then the investigation was taken up by P.W.11 – the Inspector of Police, Dhone, who visited the scene of offence and verified that the investigation had been done by P.W.10 and after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused. 3. When a charges under Sections 302, 324 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to the accused, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate it’s case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.Os.1 to 9. None were examined on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D.1 – Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, Ex.D.2 – Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, Ex.D.3 – Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 and Ex.D.4 – Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 were marked. 5. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the charges framed against the accused and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred this appeal. 6. Sri D. Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submits that the prosecution examined P.Ws.2 and 3 who have witnessed the incident and that their evidence is corroborating with the medical evidence and that the learned Principal Sessions Judge did not consider their evidence. He has taken us through the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also the judgment of the trial Court in support of his contentions. 7. Per contra, Smt. C.Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent / accused submitted that P.W.2 is none other than the father of the deceased and P.W.3 is also the resident of the same village and that their presence at the scene of offence at the time of incident is doubtful and that their conduct in not reporting about the incident to anybody in the village till 04:00 P.M. on the next day i.e., till the arrival of the police shows that they had not witnessed the occurrence of the incident. It is also her submission that the contradictions and omissions marked in their evidence shows that their version is not acceptable. It is also her submission that in the FIR, the name of the accused was mentioned as Ramudu, S/o. Harijana Nenne Yellappa, but whereas, the accused herein is Kommu Sreeramulu, S/o. Ramudu. 8. We have considered the above rival contentions. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any acceptable evidence against the accused. 9. P.W.1 – V. Madiga Lakshmi Devi is the sister of the deceased. She is not an eye-witness to the incident. P.W.7 – the injured minor girl Deepti Kumari, who was aged about four years at the time of the incident, is the daughter of P.W.1. She is an eye-witness to the occurrence. But she did not say anything against the accused, though learned Sessions Judge tried to make her speak about the occurrence of the incident. Even according to P.W.1, the injured minor girl Deepti Kumari did not speak anything about the incident or as to how she received the injury. Thus, the evidence of this witness is not inspiring confidence. 10. P.W.2 – P.Kambagiri is the father of the deceased. He deposed that he followed the deceased on the date of incident to the scene of offence. He further deposed that he ran away after the incident towards nearby hills and returned to the village only on the next day at about 04:30 P.M. and did not speak about the incident with any person till such time. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused and as observed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, the conduct of this witness is suspicious and does not inspire confidence. This witness, being the father of the deceased, would have immediately rushed to the nearby police station and lodged a complaint, had he really witnessed the incident. Being a natural witness, he would not have kept quiet leaving P.W.7 – the injured minor girl Deepti Kumari at the spot. There is no reason for him to escape from the village soon after the incident and coming to the village only on the next day of the incident. Thus, the evidence of this witness is not inspiring confidence and cannot be believed. 11. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 – Ala Nagi Reddy is also not inspiring confidence. He deposed that he had left to his house after the incident afraid of the situation and came to the village at about 05:00 P.M. on the next day evening i.e., after the police came to the village. He had also admitted that he did not state before the police as in Ex.D.4 that Sreeramulu (the accused) was dealting blow on the neck of the deceased and then the deceased went towards his father (P.W.2) and then Sreeramulu chased P.W.2 with hunting sickle. He also admitted that he did not state before the police that he did not inform to anybody about the incident as he was afraid of the accused. Thus, this witness is also not inspiring confidence. 12. P.W.4 – Burugula Nagaraju is the circumstantial evidence in this case. He deposed that he found the accused coming opposite to him with a sickle in his hand. He deposed that when he questioned the accused as to why he was running in a state of tension, the accused did not respond and went away. He further deposed that he went near the scene of offence and identified the dead body of the deceased. According to this witness, he did not find any other person at the scene of offence. He had also not spoken about the presence of P.W.2 or P.W.7 at the scene of offence. He further deposed that after the incident, he ran away to his house and did not take the matter seriously because it was not concerning with him. The conduct of this witness shows that his evidence is not a reliable, trustworthy and thus, not inspiring confidence. 13. P.W.5 – Kommu Sehkar speaks about the prior incident i.e., the quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased. Even if the evidence of this witness is accepted, that only proves the motive of the accused and even if the accused had the moive of killing the deceased, the same is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. 14. Though other witnesses were examined, no useful purpose would be served in dealing with the evidence of those witnesses in detail. 15. No doubt, the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him and it is a homicidal death. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime and, therefore, the accused cannot be found guilty of the charges framed against him. Admittedly, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with several ladies and his conduct was not good. Admittedly, in the whole process of trial, the wife of the deceased did not come forward to say anything about the deceased. 16. Thus, we hold that the learned Principal Sessions Judge was right in finding the accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 354 I.P.C. and acquitting him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 01.12.2005 passed in S.C.No.250 of 2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 19th January, 2011 Bvv