THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 07-07-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 849 OF 2011 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Inuru Munisiddulu and seven others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 849 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) This appeal is filed by the state against the order of acquittal dated 06-11-2009 recorded against the respondents – accused by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi in S.C No. 252 of 2007. The respondent – accused No.1 was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the respondents – accused Nos.2 to 8 were tried for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and at the conclusion of trial were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the alleged offences. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 to A-8 are inter related and they are all Mutharasi by caste and residents of Karakambadi Village. The defacto complainant PW 1 Inuru Venkatarathnamma alias Ratnamma is also related to the accused. It is alleged that on 03- 12-2006 at 9.30 AM, the son of PW 1 Inuru Sri Hari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) went to laundry cart of Chakali Muniraja on a Hero Honda motorcycle at the auto stand for getting his dress ironed and there he was killed by the accused. Basing on the complaint given by PW 1, a case in Crime No. 144 of 2006 on the file of Renigunta Police Station was registered under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The Inspector of Police, Renigunta – PW 20 conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire material available on record held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the respondent – accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also failed to establish the guilt of the respondents – accused Nos.2 to 8 for the offence under Section 324 beyond reasonable doubt. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Mainly, the entire case of the prosecution, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, stands on the evidence of PWs 8 and 6. The other witnesses cited as eyewitnesses to the case turned hostile as they have not supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly to the effect that the respondents - accused were present and caused the death of the deceased. PW 1 is the mother of the deceased. As per her version, she on information went to the place of occurrence and shifted the injured person to the hospital where he was declared as dead. PW 6 is the father of the deceased who claims that he witnessed the occurrence on that date and shifted the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. When the evidence of PWs 1 and 6 is compared, the evidence of PW 1 is so natural and PW 6 appears to be the person introduced by the prosecution to substantiate its case. The main contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that though there are no more number of eye witnesses to prove the case, even on the basis of testimony of one witness the accused can be convicted. We are of the view that there is no dispute about the said proposition when the evidence of the witness is believable and cogent in nature. In the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, PW 8 stated that he was helping his father in tele link shop at the time of examination by the police. Whereas, in the cross examination he stated that his father is no more and he died prior to the recording of his statement by the police. Hence, it is to be inferred that statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C is not as per the version of the witness concerned and the same was recorded by the police as per their wish. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that eight persons involved in the crime and the injured sustained 12 injuries, but PW 8 stated only A-1 as assailant and attributed two overt acts against him, that he caused injuries on the head and the another is beating on his body with a stick, but the corresponding injuries are not available in the post mortem report. PW 8 has also not deposed about the presence of other witnesses at the time of occurrence. In the absence of any specific and clinching evidence adduced by PW 8 merely placing reliance on the evidence of the said witness, that too when it is totally contradictory, we are of the view that it is unsafe to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned single Judge. In view of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, we are inclined to examine only the evidence of PWs 6 and 8 and there is no necessity to evaluate the evidence of other witnesses since the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PWs 8 and 6. In view of the fact that evidence of PWs 8 and 6 is not reliable and cogent in nature, we are of the view that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed as against respondent – accused No.1. Insofar as the other respondents also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as there is absolutely no evidence. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 07-07-2011 ks