THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Criminal Appeal No.591 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused. 2. Appellant herein is the State and respondents 1 to 3 are accused Nos.1 to 3, respectively, in Sessions Case No.515 of 2007. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 12.02.2009, passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in Sessions Case No.515 of 2007, acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”), the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased is son of P.W-1; that the families of one Pundra Srinivas Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and A-1 to A-3 are related to each other; that there used to be some petty quarrels between these two families and in that connection, one Kavva Raji Reddy lodged a complaint with the Police; that when one Mahender Reddy, the brother of the deceased, was called to the Police Station, he committed suicide, and the same is subject matter of Crime No.22 of 2000 under Section 174 Cr.P.C; that the deceased bore grudge against Kavva Raji Reddy as he was responsible for the death of his brother; that in that connection, the deceased killed Kavva Raji Reddy on 21.06.2000 and he was convicted by the trial Court, but, later acquitted by the High Court; that, on 13.04.2005, the deceased while proceeding towards Burugukunta, on the way went to the agricultural well of one Venkat Reddy and joined a party, hosted by one Kavva Srinivas Reddy and later, when he was carrying chicken curry to his house, on the way, A-1 to A-3 caught hold of him near the cattle shed of one T.Narsi Reddy, attacked him with sticks and threw a big boulder on him, due to which, he died on the spot; that A-1 to A-3 abandoned the dead body of the deceased there and left the place; that P.W-1-the father of the deceased, after coming to know about the death of his son, went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased and lodged a complaint at Keshavapatnam Police Station; that during the course of investigation, accused were arrested and some weapons, which were said to have been used for killing the deceased, were recovered from them; and that after completion of all the necessary formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 5. When the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC framed against the accused was read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-28, besides M.Os.1 to 13, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The trial Court, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. P.Ws.4 to 7 were meant for speaking about the fact that the accused and the deceased were “last seen together”. However, in view of their hostile attitude in the trial Court, they were declared as hostile and their evidence was eschewed from consideration. 9. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, only spoke about the previous disputes between their family and the accused family and nothing more. Admittedly, P.W-1 came to know about the death of the deceased, upon intimation by P.W-3, so his evidence does not throw any light on the aspect of the death of the deceased and much against the accused connecting them with the offence. 10. Therefore, the only aspect that remains on record to be addressed is the recovery of the weapons used in commission of offence. 11. No doubt, the weapons were allegedly recovered from the accused, as spoken to by P.W-10. 12. But, it is rather intriguing to note that the weapons that were recovered from the accused were some stones and sticks. In fact, these stones and sticks can be found anywhere. In other words, the weapons recovered from the accused are such articles that can be pressed into service from any place. There were no blood marks whatsoever on the said stones and sticks. Therefore, the trial Court was unable to believe the said recovery also. In other words, even if such a recovery was effected, the same will not have any credibility and the same cannot be a clinching factor in order to point out the offence against the accused. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in the Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, in limini. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 17th March 2010 dr