THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 463 of 2009 Date: 17.11.2009 Between Latchi Venkateswara Rao Petitioner/Complainant And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 463 of 2009 Judgment: The de facto complainant, who was examined as PW.1 in S.C. No.547 of 2007, filed the present revision aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.11.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, in S.C. No.547 of 2007, acquitting the accused therein. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Sessions Case for the sake of convenience. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant (hereinafter referred as PW.1) is the husband of the deceased Latchi Jayaprada. Accused Nos.1 and 2 and PW.1 are residents of Pudivada village, Nagaram Mandal. Accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1. The accused and PW.1 are neighbours to one another. On 20.08.2006 at about 12.00 Noon PW.1 and five others assaulted A1 with sticks and in that regard a case in Crime No.60 of 2006 was registered under Section 326 read with 34 IPC, which was subsequently numbered as C.C. No.12 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle. The accused developed grudge against the family of PW.1 and waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against them. The further case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2007 the deceased went to her fields for grazing the buffaloes and returned to home at 4.00 PM leaving the buffaloes in the fields. However, on the instructions of PW.1, at about 5.30 PM she again went to the fields to bring back the buffaloes, but she did not return till late evening. PWs.1, 3 and other family members searched for the deceased through out the night. On the next day morning at about 10.30 AM, PW.1 found the dead body of the deceased in the neighbouring fields of one Mallikarjuna Rao. On the report given by PW.1, case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C and FIR was issued. PW.1 suspected the hand of the accused in the commission of offence. The police after completing investigation laid charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.2 who claimed to have witnessed the actual incident of A1 strangulating the deceased with towel while A2 caught hold of the deceased. The prosecution also tried to rely upon the evidence of PW.4 to show that he had seen both the accused going towards the field of one Mallikarjuna Rao in a hurried manner. The other incriminating evidence is that of PWs.5 and 6, according to whom the accused went to panchayat office of Siripudi village and made extra judicial confession statement and the same was reduced into writing by PW.5. The other incriminating evidence appearing against the accused is seizure of towel MO.10 at the instance of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 mainly on the ground that he is not the resident of the village Padamatipalem Pudivada, Nagaram Mandal, where the offence had taken place and that his village is separated from the scene of offence by four villages and that he did not reveal the incident to anybody till he was examined by the police 30 days after the date of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge also disbelieved the evidence of PW.4 mainly on the ground that the village of PW.4 and scene of offence are separated by four villages and that he had no lands adjacent to the scene of offence and that he did not inform anybody that he had seen the accused going in a hurried manner towards the lands of Mallikarjuna Rao. The learned Sessions Judge also did not believe the extra judicial confession mainly on the ground that there was no necessity for the accused to make extra judicial confession statement before PWs.5 and 6 after 20 days of the date of offence and that Exs.P6 and P7 do not contain the signatures of the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though PW.2 belongs to other village but he had witnessed the occurrence and the lower Court ought to have believed his evidence. It is also submitted that PW.2 is an independent witness and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW.4, who had seen the accused hurriedly going away from the scene of offence. It is also submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 with regard to extra judicial confession statements made by the accused. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the learned Sessions Judge require interference. It is settled law that in considering an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to keep in mind (1) the views of the trial Judge to the credibility of witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. In case between A.R. Singh v. Government of Manipur[1], it was held that finding of acquittal when based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be reversed. As seen from the evidence let in by the prosecution in this case, PW.1 is the husband of the deceased. PW.3 is the son of PW.1. The evidence of PWs.1 and 3 reveals that there was enmity between the accused and the family of PW.1. Their specific case is that on the date of offence, the deceased went to bring back the buffaloes at about 6.00 PM, and she did not return to their house and on the next day they found the dead body of the deceased in the fields of one Mallikarjuna Rao. The enmity is two fold. It may be the root cause for commission of an offence and also may be a cause for false implication of accused in a criminal case. The evidence of PW.7 the Doctor, who conducted Post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, reveals that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to strangulation and neurogenic shock due to spinal cord rupture. Ex.P9 is the Post- mortem certificate issued by PW.7. The evidence of PW.7 and other evidence on record establishes that the death of the deceased is unnatural and it is the case of murder. However, the accused cannot be convicted on mere suspicion. There may be enmity between the accused and PW.1, but that itself is not sufficient to convict the accused. What is required is legal and acceptable evidence. There should be cogent and reliable evidence. Whether the evidence of a witness is reliable or not depends on several circumstances. The evidence must be natural and probable and it should be in conformity with the normal human conduct. In this case, PW.2 claims to be an eye witness. Admittedly, PW.2 is not the resident of the same village in which the offence had taken place. PW.2 claims to be grazing cattle in the fields near the scene of offence. He claims to have witnessed the occurrence. Admittedly, his village is separated by four villages from the scene of offence. He is unable to give the distance between his village and the scene of offence. Admittedly, he did not inform to anybody about the incident till he was examined by the police 30 days after the date of incident. He claims to have identified the towel used by the accused at the time of offence. It is clear that if at all PW.2 had witnessed the occurrence, he would have reported the matter to others and his conduct of silence about 30 days is against the normal human conduct. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected his evidence. Coming to the evidence of PW.4 he is also not the resident of the village where the offence had taken place and his village is at a distance of four villages from the scene of offence. He also claims to have seen the accused while going towards the fields of one Mallikarjuna Rao in a hurried manner. He has also admitted that he did not inform about the incident to anybody. Thus it appears that his evidence also rightly rejected by the lower Court. The remaining evidence is extra judicial confession. Admittedly, PW.5 or PW.6 had not obtained the signatures of the accused in Exs.P6 and P7. Ex.P6 is the alleged extra judicial confession statement of A1 and Ex.P7 is the alleged extra judicial confession statement of A2. No specific reasons have been shown by the prosecution under what circumstances the accused went to panchayat office and made confession statements before PW.6. The learned Sessions Judge has assigned valid reasons for rejecting the alleged extra judicial confession statements and the prosecution case. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.11.2009 Nsr [1] AIR 1976 SC 2191