THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1762 of 2009 Date: 18.12.2009 Between : The State of A.P., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Appellant and Machireddy Krishna Reddy, S/o. Gurava Reddy, aged 54 years, R/o. Ganapavaram village of Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1762 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant- State and none appeared for the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3. 2. This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment, dated 07.07.2008, in Sessions Case No.389 of 2007, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, acquitting A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.10.2006 at 12.30 hours, the defacto-complainant Machireddy Anki Reddy, s/o. Matta Reddy, resident of Ganapavaram, lodged a complaint stating that on 21.10.2006 Kethireddy Sathyanarayana Reddy along with his party workers visited the place where the water pipes leading to his agricultural fields were damaged and presumed that the deceased-Machireddy Linga Reddy had damaged the pipe lines. As a result thereof, there were some misconceptions between two groups of that locality belonging to two political parties. Consequent upon the same, on 22.10.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., when his younger brother Machireddy Linga Reddy, who was the deceased, coming on his cycle with green grass bundle, on the way at the fields of Madduri China Malla Reddy, the accused along with others attacked the deceased and killed him by beating with sticks and throwing a bounder on his head. Basing on the said report, the police of Munagala Police Station registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, read with Section 149 IPC and took up investigation. 4. The investigation revealed that A.1 to A.3 and the deceased families are agnates and there are disputes between them in respect of shares. On 17.10.2006 at about 11-00 hours Matta Reddy beat Machireddy Koteshwaramma, who is the wife of A.2, with stick while she was proceeding through his lands and threatened her with dire consequences, which is the object matter in Crime No.129 of 2006 under Section 324 IPC. As such A.1 to A.3 hatched up a plan to do away the deceased who always used to pick up quarrel with them. Accordingly, on 22.10.2006 at about 10.30 a.m., A.1 to A.3 waylaid at the scene of offence, attacked the deceased and beat him with sticks on head, chest, face and when the deceased fell down on the ground, threw a boulder on the face and murdered him and fled away from the scene of offence and burnt the sticks which were used in the commission of offence into ash to screen away the evidence. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the police laid the charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and deleted the names of eight persons. 5. When the charges framed were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9, besides marking material objects MOs.1 to 6. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. The Court below, after considering the entire material including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found all the accused not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present criminal appeal. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State contended that P.W.1 is the sole eye witness and there is no reason for the Court below to discard his testimony. He further contended that the Court below was in serious error in discarding the evidence of P.W.1 on account of small discrepancies, which are ignorable. It is his further contention that P.W.1 is the sole eye witness and the others are only supporting witnesses. Therefore, when the evidence of P.W.1 is absolutely consistent, there is no reason for the Court below to discard his evidence. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration, in this criminal appeal is whether the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record before arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 is the only eye witness to the scene of offence. P.Ws.3 and 4 are either hearsay or supporting witnesses, who did not actually witness the commission of offence by the accused. 11. It was pointed out by the Court below that P.W.1, who is the elder brother of the deceased, deposed that on 22.10.2006 morning at about 8-00 a.m., he along with the deceased went to the land to attend agricultural work and that at about 10.00 a.m., the current came and they checked the motors and that at about 10.30 a.m., A.1 to A.3 and eight others attacked the deceased nearby stone hill. He further deposed that the deceased raised cries as ‘Annayya’ and that he ran towards stone hill where he saw all the accused and eight others and that A.3 has thrown a boulder on the head of the deceased. He specifically deposed that he gave Ex.P.1 report on the same day at about 6-00 p.m. i.e., evening. 12. It was specifically pointed out by the Court below that in the cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that the distance between the village and his lands is at about 2 kms and that the pathway i.e., donka is covered by trees and bushes and that the distance between the place of incident and his well is about one furlong and he was one furlong away from the stone hill where the offence was being perpetrated by the accused along with others. 13. It was further pointed out by the Court below that in the chief- examination, P.W.1 deposed that he had given Ex.P-1 report on 22.10.2006 at 6-00 p.m. in the evening. When the offence took place at 10.30 a.m., in the morning, the reason for lodging Ex.P-1 report at 6-00 p.m., in the evening was not explained. 14. Further, the case of the accused is that both the accused and the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 belongs to two different political parties. It is further on record that Ex.P.1 report shows that the report was given at 12.30 hours on 22.10.2006. Therefore, the Court below found that there is discrepancy in between the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 report given by him. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 report, absolutely there is a variation as regards the time of occurrence of the incident and changed the entire scenario. 15. Normally, mere change in the narration of time of commission of offence may not be very relevant and may be a minor discrepancy. But, in the present case, it is to be seen that in the chief examination before the Court, P.W.1 deposed that he gave Ex.P.1 report at 6-00 p.m. i.e., in the evening. But, Ex.P.1 report shows that the report was given on 22.10.2006 at 12-30 hours. It is further to be noted that as per the evidence of P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, he received the report at 12-30 hours on 22.10.2006. Therefore, there are various contradictory statements as regards the time of occurrence of incident. 16. The Court below also found that in Ex.P.1 report and before the police, P.W.1 did not state about A.3 throwing the boulder on the head of the deceased, which resulted in his death. There is no reason for P.W.1 in not mentioning that particular fact in Ex.P.1 report, which in our considered view, is a vital fact that ought to have been mentioned at the earliest point of time. The above omission has been admitted by P.W.10, investigating officer. Further, as per Ex.P.1 report and the evidence of P.W.1, A.1 to A.3 and eight others have attacked the deceased and A.3 threw a boulder on the head of the deceased. But, in Ex.P.1 report and before the Court also, P.W.1 aimed at only A.1 to A.3 only and there is no whisper about the other persons, who are allegedly involved in the offence. 17. Therefore, in view of the vital discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 report given by him and also having regard to the material omission in Ex.P.1, the Court below rightly arrived at the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be treated as a reliable one. There are no other corroborating witnesses in order to establish the case of the prosecution and in view of the absence of any such corroboration; the solitary testimony of P.W.1 is hard to be believed. There is any amount of doubt apparent on the face of the evidence of P.W.1. In such circumstances, we do feel that it is not safe to agree with the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. 18. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below, while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, in our considered view, are cogent and the evidence on record was well appreciated before arriving at such a conclusion. 19. For the foregoing, the criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 20. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 07.07.2008, in Sessions Case No.389 of 2007, passed by the Court below. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 18.12.2009 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1762 of 2009 18.12.2009 (Msr)