THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.881 OF 2007 JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused in S.C. No.16 of 2001 vide judgment dated 30-11-2004 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. A charge sheet has been filed against seven accused (A-1 to A-7), respondents herein, for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Arigala Venkateshwarlu was the father of PWs.1 and 5 and there were political factions in the village Singapet between the Congress and Telugu Desham parties. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be related to the deceased. A few days prior to the incident, A-2 has said to have insulted PW.1 by calling him as ‘miangadu’, and therefore, a quarrel took place between both of them and a criminal case was also said to have been instituted and the accused, who belong to one group, were said to be waiting for an opportunity to attack. Since they could not attack PW.1 or PW.5, on 06-01-2000, when the deceased went to the agricultural field, they formed as members of an unlawful assembly and A-1 and A-2 axed the deceased, and other accused also participated in the said attack. The said incident was witnessed by PWs.2 and 3 and PW.2, in turn, went and informed PW.1, who along with PW.4 and others, went to the scene of offence at the field of one D. Krishna Reddy and found dead body of the deceased. Thereafter PW.1 went to Kovuru Police Station and lodged a complaint, which was registered as a case in Crime No.4 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and investigated into. (a) During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and a panchanama of scene of offence was conducted, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The doctor opined that the death was due to head injury and injury to brain due to a sharp edged heavy weapon. (b) On 17-01-2000, the investigating officer arrested A-1 to A-5 near APSRTC bus stand at Allur and recorded their confessional statements and in pursuance of the confession of A-1 and A-2, seized two axes and A-1 to A-5 were sent for remand. On 20-01-2000, A-6 and A-7 were also arrested and sent for remand. After completion of the investigation, accused were charged for the above referred offences. 4. The said case was taken on file as P.R.C. No.38 of 2000 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovuru and made it over to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore and further it was made over to the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and thereafter to the Court of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court and from there to the Court of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Nellore. 5. For the charges framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC, they pleaded not guilty. 6. Then to substantiate its case, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked apart from M.Os.1 to 4. 7. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however no defence evidence was adduced. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found all the accused not guilty of the offences alleged against them disbelieving the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and accordingly acquitted them. Aggrieved of the said acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri M. Venkatanarayana, learned counsel representing the accused. 10. Now the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused, as members of unlawful assembly, attacked the deceased Venkateshwarlu and committed his murder ? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences they stand charged ? (3) Whether appreciation of evidence and consideration of the facts by the trial Court is reasonable and whether it warrants any interference by this Court ? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 11. This being an appeal against acquittal, we are aware of the fact that the limitations for interference are exceptional unless there is perverse rejection of the evidence of reliable evidence and ignoring any other circumstances, which unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. 12. The case of the prosecution wholly rests on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident and PWs.1 and 5, who are the sons of the deceased and who have gone to the scene of offence after the incident. 13. As far as the evidence of PW.2 is concerned, he is a resident of Gudimellapadu village of Prakasham District and he claims to be doing centering coolie work and during agricultural seasons, he comes to Singapet and on the date of incident while he was returning from the field, he saw the attack on the deceased. PW.3 is also said to be a person, who owns some lands in the neighbourhood of the scene of offence and at the time of incident, he was said to be there and has seen the accused crossing him and thereafter attacking the deceased. Their evidence is about the attack by A-1 and A-2 with axes on the deceased. 14. No particular overt-acts are attributed to A-3 to A-7 and in fact from the evidence of PW.2, his identification of A-6 and A-7 is also doubtful since he could not say about the same in the cross- examination by the counsel for A-6 and A-7. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the trial Court has discarded the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 on imaginary grounds though they are eyewitnesses to the incident and if their evidence is taken into consideration along with the medical evidence and also the fact that the complaint was lodged immediately after the incident, the prosecution story about attack on the deceased cannot be disbelieved and A-1 and A-2 are liable for the attack. 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused contends that PWs.2 and 3 are not at all present at the time of incident and due to political factions and after deliberations the complaint was lodged. According to him, though the complaint is said to have been registered at 11-30 AM, it has reached the Court at 6-15 PM and the distance between the police station and the scene of offence is not more than 20 K.Ms., and during day time there is frequency of transport and it is a circumstance, which shows doubt about reliability of the case of the prosecution. 17. Evidently, PWs.2 and 3 are related to the deceased and PWs.1 and 5 also. The question before the Court is whether PW.2 can be taken as an eyewitness, who Is said to be present at the scene of offence at the time of incident. It is needless to say that in the F.I.R. - Ex.P-1, it is not mentioned about the presence of PW.3 at the time of incident nor PWs.2 and 3 mutually corroborated about their presence at the time of incident. They spoke independently of their witnessing the incident. Therefore, the Court has to consider whether the presence of PW.2 on the day of incident at Singapet can be believed or not. Basically, PW.2 claims to be a coolie (centering labourer) and that he attends to agricultural coolie work is a different thing. However, he claims that he was staying at Singapet for about two months prior to the incident and he could not say where he was staying and in whose house he stayed. So far as PW.3 is concerned, he could not even go to the house of PW.1 to inform about the incident. Added to that there are neighbouring fields where crops were raised and as it was January month before Sankranthi festival, every agricultural activity will be brisk at that time and it is quite but natural to expect that neighbouring land owners and several people in the locality would be working in their agricultural fields at that time. But the investigating officer, during the course of investigation, did not examine any of the neighbouring land owners to show truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. Evidently, the evidence of PW.2 about his coming to Singapet for agricultural labour work from his own village, appears to be doubtful. Then the entire case of the prosecution has to be discarded because on his information only, the complaint has been lodged. The naturality is that, it is necessary for him to accompany to police station. But being, a close relative of the deceased and having taken all the pains to go and inform PW.1, he should have at least accompanied them to the scene of offence to show where the dead body is, and also would have proceeded to the police station for being available to give statement at the earliest point of time being an eyewitness to the incident. But he did not do so. These things improbablises the case of the prosecution and we are not convinced about the presence of PW.2 at the scene of offence at the time of incident because if he wants to attend the agricultural work, he can as well do the same in his own village and not at Singapet. 18. Thus, the lower Court after considering the evidence on record has given sufficient reasons to discard the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and the same cannot be said to be perverse and no reasons can be given for interference by us with the finding of acquittal by the lower Court. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or non-appreciation of the evidence, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________________ K.C. BHANU, J January 18, 2011. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J PV/MR