THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1731 of 2006 Dated:22.02.2010 Between: State of A.P., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant And Beejam Subba Reddy, S/o.Pedda Subba Reddy, Age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kamalapoor, Nizamabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1731 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this appeal by the State under Section 378(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the challenge is to the judgment dated 27.08.2004, in S.C.No.2 of 2002, passed by the Court of the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. By the impugned judgment the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the sole respondent/sole accused who was tried for the charge for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case of the State is as follows. Reddy Narappa Reddy was sleeping in his hut near agriculture pump set situated in his field on the outskirts of Kamalapoor Village on the intervening night of 23/24th December 2000. Accused No.1 – Bejjam Subba Reddy, Bejjam Anjaneyulu Reddy and Sangu Brahmananda had enmity with the deceased and that they are suspected for killing Narappa Reddy. On 24.12.2000 at 12 noon, brother of deceased, Reddy Tirupathi Reddy, went to the Police Station and gave a report to P.W.9 – Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Navipet, who registered Crime No.147 of 2000 under Section 302 of IPC and took up investigation. P.W.10 – Inspector of Police, took up investigation and conducted inquest. During the course of investigation, P.W.10 examined fifteen persons. In the investigation the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that there was no material to file charge sheet against Bejjam Anjaneyulu Reddy and Sangu Brahmananda Reddy. But, charge sheet was filed against the respondent/sole accused before the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad. The learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and enquired into the matter in PRC.No.36 of 2001 and committed the case to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, who made over the same to the trial Judge. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and marked thirteen documents. It was the case that three years prior to the death of the deceased – Reddy Narappa Reddy, there were disputes between the deceased and the accused. There was a quarrel between them and accused threatened the deceased. To prove the gravemen of the charge, prosecution relied on evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7. They turned hostile. The Court below considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the charge is not maintainable. In this appeal the learned Public Prosecutor contends that there is sufficient evidence adduced before the Sessions Court to prove the guilt of the accused. We are, however, not able to accept the submission. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7. They turned hostile and did not speak about the prosecution case. Even the evidence of P.W.9 – Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report – Ex.P12, and the evidence of P.W.10 – Investigating Officer, also does not strongly support the case of the prosecution nor it can be the basis for convicting the accused. We are convinced that there is no sufficient material to warrant interference with the well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 22.02.2010 vs