THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1474/2007 Dt.29-6-2011 State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ….Appellant/Complainant 1. E.Rangaswamy Goud and others. ..Respondents/accused. ..Respondent/complainant The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.A.No. 1474/2007 JUDGMENT (per the Honourable Justice RAJA ELANGO) The State represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal dt. 31-1-2006 recorded against the respondents/accused in Sessions Case No.28/2004 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Gadwal. The prosecution story, as unfolded during the trial, which led to the acquittal of the respondents/accused, is as follows: The deceased K.Narsimhulu was an active youth leader belongs to one political party and the accused belong to rival political party. As the deceased was upcoming leader and settled some dispute in the village, the accused bore grudge against the deceased and planned to do away the deceased. On 17-1-2003, while the deceased was proceeding on motor cycle towards the house of one B. Thimmappa, situated adjacent to the house of A-7 at Kothalagidda village, all the accused armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased brutally and killed him by inflicting severe injuries on the head, face and abdomen. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, lodged a report covered under Ex.P-1 before P.W.11 (Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharur). He registered the same as a case in Cr.No.4/2003 and issued First Information Report covered under Ex.P-18. P.W.11 recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.10 (Inspector of Police, Gadwal), who took up investigation from P.W.11 visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation, inquest and prepared a rough sketch in the presence of mediators. After inquest, P.W.10 sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Area Hospital, Gadwal. P.W.9-Doctor conduced autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report covered under Ex.P-16 opining that the cause of death was due to cardio-respiratory arrest resulting from hemorrhagic hypovolaemic shock of intracranial injuries and poly trauma. P.W.10 arrested A-1 to A-4, A-6 to A-9 on 22-1-2003 and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of P.W.8 and another. After completion of investigation and on receiving relevant reports, P.W.12 filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal. Learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as PRC No.24/2003 and committed the case to the Sessions Division of Mahabubnagar District as the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as SC No.28/2004 and made over to III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Gadwal, for disposal according to law. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed three single charges for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences for which they stood charged, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and proved 49 documents and exhibited 11 material objects. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 was marked as Ex.D-1. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, deposed before the court that on the fateful day by 6 PM one Kurva Govindamma (P.W.2) informed her that her son was killed and the dead body was lying near her house. On that information, she visited the place and found the dead body of her son with bleeding injuries. Admittedly, this witness is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. P.W.2 informed P.W.1 regarding her witnessing the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence. Subsequently, she along with P.W.3 went to Gadwal and P.W.1 lodged a report with the police. Even as per the case of the prosecution, P.W.2 is also not an eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.3 is closely related to the deceased, P.W.1, and P.W.2. P.W.3 is the grand son of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the aunt of P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed before the court that on that particular day she heard loud voice. On such hearing, she immediately rushed to the place where she saw the dead body of the deceased. After deposing the same, she added that she noticed the presence of A-1 to A-10 and injuries on the body of the deceased as if she witnessed the occurrence. This version was relied upon by the prosecution to establish the presence of the accused and the manner in which accused attacked the deceased. P.W.4 speaks about the previous motive between the deceased and the accused. P.W.5 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. P.W.6 is a villager elder. He witnessed the recovery of material objects like sand stained with blood and some soil. P.W.7 deposed about recovery of material objects like blood stained earth, and chappals. P.W.8 is a resident of Gadwal. On the request made by the Inspector of Police, he (P.W.8) visited the police station where all the accused persons were present. In his presence, the investigating officer recorded the confessional statements of each and every individual, on which he signed and he also accompanied the accused and at their instance police recovered the weapons used in the commission of the offence. P.W.9 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased regarding the injuries sustained by him. He found the following injuries over the body of the deceased: 1. Laceration starting from left temple and forehead junction cutting through pinna carriage left ear extending upto left occiput 29 cms x 6 Ms x brain deep (exposing the brain tissue). 2. Laceration 4 cms above (1) injury running parallel upto the left occiput 22 cms x 7 cms x brain deep (tivse avaseration of brain tissue) 3. Laceration in between 1 & 2 8 cms x 5 cms x brain deep. 4. Laceration nape of the neck 6 cms x 2 cms x bone deep. 5. Laceration 1 cm below No.4 parellel to it measuring 6 cms x 3 cms. 6. Laceration 4 cms x 2 cms left side of forehead scalp deep. 7. Laceration left temple 4 cms x 2 cms x cartilage deep through left ear bone. 8.Laceration from left cheek to the corner of left triage of the neck 6 cms x 3 cms x 1 cm fracture left mandadie left. 9. Laceration 4 cms x 2 cms x fascial deep left shoulder. 10. Abrasion 3 in number curvilinear 1 cm apartand parellel to one another measuring 18 cm left shoulder. 11. Left upper arm post aspect curvilinear 10 cms x ½ cm x fascial deep laceration. 12. Left elbow post aspect laceration 2 cms x ½ cm x facial deep. 13. Left pectoral area 8 cms x 4 cms x ½ cm fascial deep. 14. 5 cms below 13 at parallel to it laceration 10 cms x 5 cms x visceral deep with fracture of left 7,8,9 ribs. 15. Laceration epigastrium 6 cms x 4 cms x visceral deep. 16. Laceration 5 cms x 2 cms x visceral deep over the left hypochondriam. 17. 4 cms below and parallel to 16 laceration 4 cms x 3 cms x visceral deep. Skull fracture, left frontal parietal temporal bones with subdural and intra cerebral hemorrhage clots expulsion of cerebral hemispheres through skull injuries, rest of the brain tissue damaged beyond recognition. P.W.10, who is the Circle Inspector of Police, deposed regarding investigation of the case. P.W.11, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, deposed regarding receipt of complaint from P.W.1 and registration of First Information Report, and placing the material for further investigation before P.W.10. P.W.12 deposed regarding preparation of rough sketch during the course of investigation and filing of the charge sheet after investigation. The trial court after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found all the accused not guilty of the offences and, accordingly, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. Hence, the present appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the trial Judge by the State. Heard the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the appellant/State as well as Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. There is no necessity of evaluating all the evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the evidence of the so called eye witnesses inspires confidence of the court, then there is necessity to appraise the other available evidence. Admittedly, in the present case, P.W.3 who claims to be an eye witness and prosecution also projected the said witness as an eye witness to the occurrence, but the said witness deposed in the chief examination that he found the dead body on hearing loud voice at the place of occurrence but he improved his version by implicating the accused with some overt acts. Further on perusal of the entire evidence, P.W.3 accompanied P.W.2 to the police station. Neither P.W.2 nor P.W.1 who are closely related to P.W.3 has not deposed before the court that P.W.3 informed them regarding the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused persons. Further at the place of occurrence, P.W.3 did not inform the mother of the deceased, P.W.1, who is his aunt, about the incident, which clearly shows that the evidence of this witness ie., P.W.3 about witnessing the incident is highly doubtful in the absence of establishing any motive or the presence of the accused and specific overt acts. A perusal of the entire judgment and the evidence made available on record, the judgment does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court. The Criminal appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. --------------------- A.GOPAL REDDY,J ----------------- RAJA ELANGO,J DT. 29-6-2011 Kmr