IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.274 of 2005 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Gunturu Srinu and 3 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The State preferred the appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor against the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.242 of 1999 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, dated 01-04-2002. The factual background for the appeal is that Natta Kasulu and Dokku Chinnodu were residing in proximate houses and they had serious disputes and enmity about the border for their houses. Dokku Chinnodu wanted the elders to intervene and to settle the dispute and the first accused, Mekathoti Venkateswara Rao, Tenali Venkatesu and Dasari Samrajyam intervened, which was not liked by Natta Kasulu and his sister-in-law, Natta Mariyamma. Therefore, the first accused, a village elder, wanted to eliminate Natta Kasulu and in pursuance of common intention of the accused 1 to 4, on 21-04-1999 at about 9.00 P.M., Natta Kasulu was attacked by the accused and the first accused armed with a knife stabbed on the right side of his neck, while the second accused attempted to hack on the head of Kasulu with a knife. When Kasulu raised his hand, he sustained an injury on the right palm, while the third accused stabbed with a knife on the head of Kasulu. The fourth accused beat on the forehead of Kasulu with stout stick and when Kasulu raised shrieks, the accused absconded. On the statement of Kasulu, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada II Town Police Station registered Cr.No.46 of 1999 and had visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene and examined the witnesses. He drafted an observation report and the medical officer, who examined Kasulu, opined the injuries of Kasulu to be simple. The accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and they were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the offence was taken cognizance by the Magistrate and after the copies of documents were furnished to the accused on their entering appearance, the case was committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session. The trial Court to whom the case was made over, examined the accused and framed a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence, when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they did not produce any defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that Natta Kasulu, the injured, died before he could be examined by the trial Court and that PWs.2 to 9 turned hostile. The trial Court also noted that while Kasulu stated in his statement to the police about being injured with knives, the evidence of Medical Officer as PW.10 and Ex.P.8, the medical certificate, mentioned the abrasions and lacerations to have been caused probably only by blunt objects. The trial Court also observed that the enmity between the accused and the deceased is admitted and it considered the presence of PW.1, the sister-in-law of Natta Kasulu, at the scene to be highly doubtful. The trial Court also scanned the evidence of PW.1 with reference to her interestedness and the trial Court also observed that when none of the neighbours supported the case of prosecution and there was no sufficient light at the scene of offence and when PW.1 did not speak about specific overt acts of each accused, the failure of the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt is evident, more so, when the investigating officer had not even taken the care to collect the blood stained earth from the scene of offence. Consequently, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offence with which they were charged. The grounds of appeal questioned the conclusion of the trial Court as being contrary to law, evidence and probabilities and it was contended that merely because the witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case and the evidence of PW.1 could not have been disbelieved in entirety, more so, when the medical evidence is in support of the prosecution version. Sri K. Venkateswararao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor strenuously reiterated the contentions of the prosecution, while Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the respondents-accused defended the impugned judgment. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of any of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt? PWs.2 to 9, the independent witnesses, were totally hostile and they denied so turning hostile due to any fear of the accused. Except the suggestions made to the said witnesses, which were without any independent corroboration, there is nothing on record to presume that PWs.2 to 9 would have turned hostile only to help the accused. PW.1, the sister-in-law of the injured Natta Kasulu, was obviously not at the scene since inception and she deposed that on hearing some cries from kacherychavidi, she enquired passersby and when told about the altercation between the accused and Kasulu, she rushed to the scene. By the time she reached the scene, Kasulu already fell down with bleeding injuries on her own version and the accused were stated to have run away on seeing PW.1. She did not state about any of the overt acts of the accused and she did not name the persons who informed her about the altercation nor did she name any of the neighbours, who allegedly gathered at the scene and she only stated about the accused and Kasulu being present at the scene when she went there. She did not state about any weapons with which the accused were armed and the evidence of PW.1, which is necessarily tainted with interestedness, could have been acted upon only if there is some independent corroboration, which is required as a rule of prudence. The statement of the deceased Kasulu, which led to the registration of crime, was specific about the accused 1 to 3 injuring him with knives and also the fourth accused having been alleged to have injured him with a stick. The earliest version of Kasulu did not state about there being any eyewitness to the occurrence and his version is as though people gathered after the assault on which the accused escaped from the scene. While alleging that PW.1 brought him to the police station, he did not state about the witness having come to the scene even while the accused were present after the assault. The medical evidence of PW.10, who issued Ex.P.8 wound certificate, is specific that injuries 2 to 7 may be caused by any blunt object, while it was injury No.1 alone that could have been caused by a sharp edged blunt weapon. If so, the version of the deceased Kasulu about the assault by A-1 to A-3 with knives cannot be considered to have been corroborated by the medical evidence. The accused claimed the case to have been foisted due to previous enmity, which was alleged by the prosecution itself and any suspicion arising out of PW.10 finding injuries on the person of Kasulu, which could have been inflicted at or about the time of incident cannot, by itself, be sufficient to conclude the involvement of the accused in causing such injuries in the absence of any definite evidence and any suspicion cannot be equated to proof. Under the circumstances, the trial Court could not have come to any other conclusion than about the failure of the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there are absolutely no circumstances to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court, which cannot, therefore, be considered to be perverse, unreasonable or baseless. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 11-02-2010 Ksn