THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1365 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against common judgment made in S.C.Nos.176 and 177 of 1997 dated 5.12.2001 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool acquitting the respondents-accused (for short ‘the accused’) under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 436 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. The accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 read with Section 149 IPC for murdering Seshi Reddy (D1) and Parappa (D2) and the Court below on the consideration of the matter, held that no material was placed to convict the accused for the said offences in other words the prosecution failed to establish the guilty of any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused, whereas being aggrieved by the said judgment, the wife of the accused filed the present revision. It is the claim of the revision petitioner that the Court below erred in acquitting the accused of the offences, though ample evidence was placed to prove the guilt of the accused. Briefly, the prosecution version is as follows: A1, A2, A5, A6, A8 to A10, A12 to A16 and A22 to A34 are the residents of Gongegandla village and the remaining accused are the residents of B.Agraharam village. The deceased No.1 was resident of Ternekal village, and he was Ex-MLA of Pattikonda constituency. The deceased No.1 was also a resident of Gonegandla village. One Nagabhushan Reddy and Prabhakar Reddy, residents of B.Agraharam village of Gonegandla mandal near Ternekal village got enmity with A3. On 6.10.1994, A3 and his followers murdered three followers of Nagabhushanam Reddy and consequently Cr.No.71 of 1994 of Yemmiganur Rural Police Station was registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC on a report. In retaliation to that, Nagabhushanam Reddy and his followers murdered Animi Reddy, father of A3 and A4 and consequently, Cr.No.57 of 1994 was registered on the file of Gonegandla P.S. under Sections 147, 148, 336 and 302 read with 149 IPC on a report. A3 and A4 suspected that the deceased No.1 supported Nagabhushanam Reddy in killing their father. The deceased No.2 got enmity with one Vasudeva Naidu who was murdered in the month of June 1995, following which a murder case was registered, in which he and his followers were cited as the accused. Then it was also suspected that the deceased No.1 supported the deceased No.2 in the murder of Vasudeva Naidu. On 18.4.1996 at about 8.30 a.m. the deceased 1 and 2 along with P.Ws.1 to 8, 10, 12 and others went to Gongegandla to canvass for Congress candidate in the Kurnool Parliamentary elections held on 27.4.1996. Having come to know about it A1 to A34 armed with bombs, hunting stickles, iron rods, spades and crowbars formed into unlawful assemblies, which were seen by P.Ws.2, 3 and Vinayalu, by reason of which the latter ran and informed the deceased 1 and 2 about that and also advised them to escape from the place. Then the deceased No.1 sent P.W.10 to bring police and then P.W.10 brought PC 1167 (P.W.13), PC 2289 (P.W.14), PC 2427 (P.W.15) and PC 2802 (P.W.16) to the scene of offence. However, A1 to A34 attacked and caused injuries to the deceased 1 and 2 and also P.Ws.1 to 9, whereas the deceased 1 and 2 succumbed to the injuries received by them. Then they also set fire to the terrace of a flour mill there and caused damage and some villagers extinguished the fire. Further, P.W.1 gave report in the Police Station at Gonegandla about the incident which was registered in Cr.No.36 of 1996, whereas A1 to A34 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 436 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 Explosive Substances Act and ultimately they were acquitted of the charges. Heard. Now the point for consideration in this case is whether the Court below properly examined the evidence adduced and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the judgment passed by it is tenable or not. In order to establish the prosecution version the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9 examined as the injured and eyewitnesses and so also the evidence of P.Ws.13 to 16 also examined as the eyewitnesses are very important. P.Ws.1 to 9 did not support the prosecution version and therefore they were declared as hostile witnesses of the prosecution and while cross-examining them got marked relevant portions of their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Exs.P2 to P13 respectively, whereas Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P1- First Information Report statement dated 18.4.1996. Further, P.Ws.13 to 16 Police Constables also examined to speak about the incident deposed to the effect that they found several persons at the scene of offence, but they were not in a position to identify the actual assailants. There was no specific evidence from them about the specific overt acts of A1 to A34 in the incident. Further, there is evidence about inquest and post-mortem examination over the dead body and also the investigation done by the Investigating Officer of the case, which circumstances are not sufficient to establish the charges levelled against A1 to A34. There is also no other circumstantial evidence. Hence, there is no basis to convict and punish A1 to A34 in respect of the charges levelled against them. The trial Court properly appreciated the evidence adduced and acquitted A1 to A34 and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 18.7.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.1365 of 2004 18.7.2011