IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2008 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Dulla Subba Rao .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused for an oﬀence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment in S.C.No.34 of 2003 on the ﬁle of Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, dated 18-12-2006. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam police station ﬁled the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.43 of 2002 alleging that Borigorla Galaiah took a loan of Rs.2,000/- from the accused and earlier the accused took a loan of Rs.10,000/- from Kollipedda Munemma. On 22-07-2002 at 8.00 A.M., when Borigorla Balaraju was standing outside the house, the accused mockingly questioned him about his father. When Galaiah came out, the accused demanded his money and Galaiah asked him to discharge the loan due to Munemma. There was hot exchange of words and the accused went to his house, brought an axe and hacked on the left side of the head of Galaiah resulting in a bleeding injury. Galaiah fell on the road and the accused hacked him with axe on the neck. When Rachagorla Srinu and others witnessed the incident and intervened, the accused threatened them and escaped. Rachagorla Veeraiah and others took Galaiah to Tripuranthakam in a tractor and from there to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. On the report of Rachagorla Srinu, H.C.786 registered the crime and the Sub- Inspector of Police prepared a rough sketch of the scene and seized the blood stained clothes of Galaiah. The accused surrendered before the Court and the axe was seized before mediators under a Panchanama after the accused was handed over to police custody. The medical oﬃcer opined the injuries to be grievous and simple and hence, the charge. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, took cognizance of the oﬀence in PRC.No.79 of 2002 and furnished copies of documents to the accused on his appearance. On committal, the Court of Session made it over to the trial Court, which framed a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15, D.1 to D.3 and M.Os.1 to 5 during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no other defence evidence was produced. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that Ex.P.2 report was not established due to PW.4 denying presenting any such report. The evidence of PW.1, the injured, was noted not to refer to the name of his son and Balaraju, son of PW.1, referred to by PW.1 and PW.5, was not examined by the prosecution. Even the wife of the injured turned hostile as PW.3 and so was the evidence of PW.2, who stated about PW.4 and PW.5 also being eye witnesses contrary to the denials of PWs.4 and 5. Apart from the witnesses being partisan and interested, the evidence of the medical oﬃcer or investigating oﬃcer throws no direct light on the incident. Even the mediators for recovery of M.Os.1 to 5 turned hostile and any evidence of the investigating oﬃcer regarding recovery of M.O.5 axe was inadmissible. Hence, the trial Court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The State ﬁled the appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor contending that PW.1, PW.2 and PW.9 proved the essential ingredients of the oﬀence and the trial Court should have convicted the accused. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the accused. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused needs to be reversed on any reasonable and convincing grounds? The injured-PW.1 admitted that he had no enmity with the accused prior to the incident and the very allegations of loans from the accused to PW.1 and to the accused from the sister-in-law of PW.1 show the earlier cordial relationship between the parties. Mere exchange of words leading to a murderous by the accused does not appear natural in such background and the alleged transactions of loans were not shown to be evidenced by any document. PW.2 is the sister-in-law of PW.1 and it is as though she was standing in front of her house throughout to witness the incident without even attempting to intervene. Apart from her interestedness due to relationship, her claim about the others named by her witnessing the incident was not corroborated by those persons. PW.3 turned hostile and denied witnessing the incident and more importantly PW.4, who was claimed to have set criminal law into motion, himself turned hostile and denied giving Ex.P.2 report or knowing anything about the case. The wife of the allegedly injured-PW.1 turning hostile is the height of incredibility of the prosecution story and the alleged mediator for Exs.P.5 and P.6 claimed to have signed the Panchanamas at the police station without witnessing anything. So was the other mediator PW.7 and the evidence of PW.9, the doctor, alleged a simple injury of nail marks on the front of the neck, which was not attributed to the accused by the prosecution story. The evidence of the investigating oﬃcers as PWs.10 and 11 cannot add any further strength to the version. When except the injured PW.1 himself, the evidence of the others, apart from the oﬃcial witnesses, no way supports the case of the prosecution, the trial Court cannot be considered wrong in extending the beneﬁt of doubt to the accused under such circumstances and there cannot be any interference in appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-11-2011 Ksn