THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1382 of 2004 16th September, 2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant And: Exhinallu Anjineyulu and 4 others … Accused / Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1382 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal, at the instance of the State, filed against acquittal of the accused by Judgment dated 29.08.2003 in S.C. No.8 of 2001 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty. The respondents herein who are A4 to A8 in the original charge sheet, are arrayed as A1 to A5 in the above said Sessions Case. The respondents/accused herein along with other accused were prosecuted for offences under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with 149 IPC, alleging that PW1 is a resident of Gurrappadu village of Guntakal Mandal, and that the father of A1 in the original charge sheet obtained a document for Ac.15.00 cents of land by playing fraud on his father and in that connection there are ill feelings between A1 and PW1’s elder son; and in that connection, A1 caused injury with a sickle on his head. However, PW1 did not give any complaint to the police, out of fear. On 30.08.1994 at about 7.00 a.m., PW1 along with his elder son PW3 went to ‘Kayaloni Chenu’ to see the groundnut crop and while they were returning, at about 8.30 a.m., when they reached near Pamuleti Bavi, A1 and his brothers-in-law came upon him and hurled with sickles. A1 instigated the other accused to kill PW1 and hurled his sickle which caused injuries to his left leg and he fell down. Thereafter, he instigated the other accused to beat him. Then his son PW3 ran away. Accused No.2 caused injuries with sickle on his right hand. Accused No.3 caused injuries on the left middle of the leg and left thumb. The brothers-in-law of original accused No.1 caused injuries to PW1 on his right fore leg, right palm, and caused bleeding injuries and he fell down. Accused No.1 thought that PW1 died and went away. Then the son of PW1, i.e. PW3 came and shifted him in RTC bus to Gooty Government Hospital. The police constable came to the hospital and recorded his statement, which is Ex.P1. Originally, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3 and also on the present accused and the same was registered as P.R.C. No.6/95 and the case was committed to Court of Sessions and the same was registered as S.C.No.461/96. Sessions Case No.8 of 2001 was split up against the present accused from Sessions Case No.461 of 1996. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with 149 IPC, against the accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to establish the charges, examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MOs. 1 to 6. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. Taking into consideration the said evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the said charges and thereby, acquitted them. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the present appeal is filed at the instance of the State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, except taking us through the impugned Judgment, could not point out on what points the acquittal of the accused is liable to be set aside in this appeal. After going through the judgment, it is evident that in Sessions Case No.461 of 1996 in P.R.C. No.31 of 1996, A1 to A3 in the charge sheet were convicted by judgment dated 07.07.1997 and subsequently, in the Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1997 before the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, the said conviction and sentence were set aside by judgment dated 29.06.2001. Therefore, A1 to A3 were acquitted in the appeal. The accusations made against them are that A1 to A5 formed into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and caused injuries to PW1. According to prosecution, as per the averments made in the charge sheet, A1 is the brother-in-law of other accused. At his instigation they attacked PW1. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that PW1 has deposed about the overt acts only against the original accused A1 to A3, but not against the present accused A1 to A5 (A5 to A9). Ex.P1-statement of PW1 recorded by the police constable in the hospital also does not disclose the names of the present accused. Moreover, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 1997, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, has disbelieved the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and thereby acquitted the accused. Further, PW3 has not spoken anything about the specific overt acts of the present accused. Moreover, in the complaint, it is mentioned that all the accused came in a mob and attacked PW1, but PW1 has not spoken anything about the present accused in his evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has also found that the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, who are the driver and conductor of the RTC bus in which PWs.1 to 3 went to the hospital after the incident, did not support the version of the prosecution. Moreover, when the other accused who are A1 to A3 in the original charge sheet were acquitted in the said appeal on the same evidence produced by the prosecution, the present accused cannot be convicted by relying on the same evidence of the prosecution. Therefore, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 307 read with 149 IPC and thereby acquitted the accused, and the said finding does not warrant any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 16th September, 2011 KSM