HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1787 of 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) The State filed this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the judgment, dated 10.10.2005, passed by the Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in Sessions Case No.518 of 2004, acquitting the respondent-sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows: The deceased was younger brother of the accused, both of whom are having disputes about irrigation water for their respective lands. While so, on 4.9.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. taking undue advantage of loneliness of the deceased at his field at the outskirts of Katikinapalli, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased by disturbing the flowing of water to the deceased’s field and there was wordy duel between them. The accused, who was entertaining an idea of killing the deceased, immediately beat the deceased with a spade on his head and when the deceased fell down, the accused again beat the deceased on his neck. While the deceased was struggling for life, the accused fled away from the scene throwing the spade at a distance of 100 yards from the deceased. The accused while fleeing away from the scene approached his senior paternal uncle P.W.1, who was in the adjacent field, and informed him that he beat the deceased with a spade and, therefore, he was struggling for life. On that, P.W.1 and the father of the accused P.W.2 reached the scene and found the deceased in a pool of blood. When they were trying to shift the deceased after offering water, he was succumbed to injuries. On the next Day, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to Dharmaram P.S. which was registered as Crime No.74 of 2003. During the course of investigation, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and post mortem examination was held by P.W.9 the Medical Officer. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution conducted trial by examining as many as 11 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1 to P.11 apart from M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused is his younger brother’s son and there are disputes between the accused and the deceased in respect of taking water to their fields. While himself and his brother P.W.2 were sitting under a tree in his field on the date of the incident, the accused came to them and informed them that the deceased was struggling for life due to injuries and requested them to go and see him. Then, they went there and saw the deceased struggling for life and later he died. It is his further evidence that they observed injuries on the head of the deceased and he gave Ex.P.1 complaint to Dharmaram P.S. 5. According to P.W.2, the accused is his eldest son and the deceased is his youngest son. The accused and the deceased used to quarrel in connection with land and water. On the date of incident at about 4.00 p.m., while he was spraying pesticides at his field and P.W.1 was at a distance of six yards, the accused came running with a spade to P.W.1 and touched his feet and told P.W.1 that when the deceased pushed him, he beat the deceased with a spade. Immediately thereafter, they rushed to the deceased and found the deceased struggling for life. When he questioned, the deceased told him that the accused hacked him with a spade. On hearing his cries, his wife and others came to the scene and by then the deceased died and subsequently the accused escaped from the scene. 6. P.W.3 deposed that the accused is son of his elder brother and P.Ws.1 and 2 are his elder brothers. The accused and the deceased used to quarrel in connection with a landed property and water for their fields. He further deposed that on the date of the incident at about 5.00 p.m., on hearing the cries of P.W.2, he went to P.Ws.1 and 2 who were at the dead body of the deceased by then. 7. P.W.4 turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the elders for the panchayat held in connection with the dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding landed property. P.W.7 is the photographer. P.W.8 is the panch witness for the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers. 8. P.W.9, the Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, District Head quarters, Karimnagar, deposed that he conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries: 1) Laceration of the scalp right parietal region 2 x ½ cm skin deep. 2) Laceration of the chin 1 x ½ cm skin deep. 3) Transverse fracture of skull in the posterior aspect of both parietal bones of 8 cm in lengh. 4) Sub dural and intra cerebral hemorrhage on left side of brain. and he issued Ex.P.9 post mortem examination report opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury. 9. After evaluating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charge leveled against him, by judgment dated 10.10.2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the State filed this appeal. 10. We have heard both sides and also perused the entire record. 11. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically stated the reasons for the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 12. Even according to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence, as it is the case of the prosecution that on 4.9.2003 in the evening, while P.W.1 and his brother P.W.2 were sprinkling insecticide to their field at the outskirts of Katikenapalli Village, the accused came and informed that the deceased, who was attending field work at his agricultural land, picked up a quarrel with him, while pumping water to their field. In this connection, he beat the deceased with a spade on his head, due to which, he fell down and struggling for life. On hearing it, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed towards the deceased and gave water to him, but he died. Whereas it is the evidence of P.W.1 that on the date of the incident, himself and his brother P.W.2 were sitting under a tree at his field, then, the accused came and informed them that the deceased was struggling with injuries and requested them to go and see him and on hearing the same, they went there and saw the deceased struggling for life, while in his evidence P.W.2 stated that on the date of incident at about 4.00 p.m. when he was spraying pesticide at his field and P.W.1 was at a distance of six yards, the accused came running with a spade to P.W.1 and touched his feet and told him that when the deceased pushed him, he beat the deceased with the spade. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 reveals that they are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. 13. P.W.2, who is brother of P.W.1, deposed before the Court that on enquiry, the deceased told him that the accused hacked him with a spade. But, the same was not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement police and the same was also accepted by the Investigating Officer which clearly indicates that the witness improved his version before the Court. 14. P.W.2 also stated before the Court that the accused touched the feet of P.W.1 and informed that he caused injuries to the deceased, but P.W.1 has not stated anything about the same in his evidence. 15. Further, P.W.10 the Investigating Officer also stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, the dead body was put on some leaves. But, he is unable to explain as to how the dead body was kept on some leaves, if at all the incident had taken place in the manner put forth by the prosecution. Admittedly, in Ex.P.7 inquest report, it is not mentioned that the dead body was put on some leaves and P.W.8, panch witness for Ex.P.7 inquest report, also did not depose anything about the same. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the place of occurrence is shifted from one place to another place. 16. Further, the occurrence happened on 4.9.2003 at about 5.00 p.m., whereas the complaint was lodged on the next day i.e., 5.9.2003 at 5.00 p.m. From this it is clear that there is an inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P.1 report with the police. 17. It is also evident from the record that the police station is only 4 kms away from the place of occurrence and there is evidence to show that the villagers informed the incident to the Investigating Officer on the same day. However, the Investigating Officer has not registered any case on the basis of information received by the villagers, whereas he registered the case only on the next day on the basis of Ex.P.1 report given by P.W.1. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that there is possibility of consultation and due deliberations soon after the incident as to the implication of the accused. 18. In view the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the said judgment does not suffer with any infirmity or perversity and there is no apparent error on the face of the record also. 19. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 28th July, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1787 of 2007 (Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) (Dismissed) 28th July, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1787 of 2007 Dated:28-07-2011 BETWEEN: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant AND Koosi Rajaiah …Respondent/ Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: