THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.305 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State. 2. Appellant herein is the State and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are A-1 to A-3, respectively, in Sessions Case No.194 of 2007. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 26.08.2008, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.194 of 2007, acquitting the respondents herein, A-1 to A-3, respectively, of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”), the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.05.2006 at about 8 am., while the deceased was proceeding towards thrashing flour of paddy in his village, on the way, at about 9 am., A-1 to A-3, due to old disputes, attacked him and axed him on his head and hands, due to which the deceased died on the spot. Basing on a complaint made by P.W-1, who is the wife of the deceased, a case was registered and investigation was pressed into service. After completion of all the necessary formalities, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused. 5. When the charge under Section 302 IPC read with 34 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9, besides M.Os.1 to 5, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, none was examined, but Ex.D-1 was marked. 7. The trial Court, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, acquitted the accused of the offence with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of P.W-2, who is no other than the son of the deceased. 9. The testimony of P.W-2, who was cited as eye- witness, was to the effect that from a distance of about 25 to 30 feet he saw A-1 armed with axe and A-2 and A-3 armed with knives and hacking his father. He further stated that the cause of killing his father was that the accused were apprehending that his father was observing sorcery. During the cross-examination, it appears that P.W-2 admitted that Krishnaiah garden, from which direction he allegedly saw the attack on his father, was containing trees of 6 and 7 feet height and was fenced and that he witnessed the occurrence standing on the donka. Further, he says that if he stands at the thrashing floor, he cannot see the place of occurrence. It is on record that he admitted that he stated before the Police that he saw the scene of offence from the side of the garden as in Ex.D-1. The trial Court recorded that the said narration of P.W-2 about his witnessing the occurrence was full of contradictions and accordingly, opined that the testimony of P.W-2 in this connection was absolutely doubtful. The trial Court had made a further elaborate discussion of the evidence of P.W-2 about his witnessing the occurrence and having regard to the variance, the testimony of P.W-2 was found to be untrustworthy. 10. The trial Court recorded a finding that P.W-5 is the alleged witness for confession of the accused, in pursuance of which, M.Os.3 to 5 were seized under Exs.P-5 to P-7. However, in the cross-examination, he admits that he does not know the contents of Exs.P-5 to P-7- confessional panchanamas. 11.The trial Court further recorded that in Exs.P-5 to P-7-confessionl panchanamas there were corrections in the date and time of the confessions. All those corrections or interpolations, as the case may be, were categorically pointed out and were put on record by the trial Court. 12 Having regard to these palpable defects in the confessional statements and in the light of the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding the testimony of P.W- 2 as untrustworthy, we are of the view that the trial Court proceeded in a right direction in appreciating the evidence on record. 13. We do not see any irregularity or irrationality committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. 14. For the foregoing, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 04th February 2010 DR