IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1021 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. Rep. By the Publkic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Appellant And Vemula Veresham and six others. … Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1021 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State. 2. Appellant is the complainant, in the Sessions Case No.448 of 2007. 3. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 13.02.2008, passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet in Sessions Case No.448 of 2007, acquitting the respondents 1 to 6/accused Nos.1 to 6, since the case against respondent No.7 was split up and numbered as P.R.C.No.106 of 2007, A-1 to A-6 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, “I.P.C.”) and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act. 4. We have perused the impugned judgment carefully. We have noticed that the court below has pointed out that the sole eye- witness, P.W.1, cited by the prosecution, in order to support its case, turned hostile and his evidence was not at all useful, in any manner, to support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1, was eschewed from consideration. We have no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the court below. 5. When the sole eyewitness turned hostile and his evidence is not taken into consideration and when there is no other evidence, including circumstantial, on record, in order to connect the accused with the offence, with which they were charged, without any iota of doubt, the view taken by the court below deserves to be accepted. 6. It is contended by the learned public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State, that the recovery of weapons, M.Os.3 to 8, ought to have taken note of by the court below. But, in this regard, the evidence that is on record is that of P.Ws.10 and 11. 7. From the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, it is to be seen that even they did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the confessional statements leading to recovery of the said material objects. 8. In the absence of any direct witness, other than the one of P.W.1, which was eschewed from consideration, on account of he becoming hostile, and the hostile testimony of P.Ws.10 and 11 as well, regarding the confessional statements that lead to the recovery of the material objects, we have no option except to agree with the finding recorded by the court below. 8. For the foregoing, the criminal appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 26th August 2009 LMV