THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED: 07-07-2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No. 18517 OF 2008 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad ..... APPELLANT AND Atukula Katam Swamy .....RESPONDENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No. 18517 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) This appeal is filed by the state against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15-06-2007 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada in S.C No. 307 of 2006. The respondent – accused was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC and at the conclusion of trial was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the alleged offence. The State preferred this appeal with a delay of 332 days and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – accused, the delay was condoned. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Nos.1 and 2 who are the husband and wife are the parents-in-law of the respondent – accused. The allegation against the respondent – accused is that on 21-12-2005 at about 8.00 PM when both the deceased refused to send his wife to him, he picked up a quarrel with them and hacked them with a knife. According to the prosecution, the incident was witnessed by PWs 1 to 3. Basing on the report submitted by PW 1 under Ex.P-1 which also bears the signature of the Village Panchayat Secretary – PW 12, a case is Crime No. 142 of 2005 on the file of Yeleswaram Police Station was registered under Section 302 IPC. The Inspector of Police, Prathiadu – PW 16 conducted investigation and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire material available on record held that since the material witnesses who are the direct eye witnesses to the incident like PWs 1 to 3 have not supported the version of the prosecution, the prosecution failed to make out a case against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the State. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – accused. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent – accused murdered his parents-in-law in the presence of PWs 1 to 3 and he was caught hold by PWs 5 to 8 and handed over to PWs 9 and 10. The learned Sessions Judge after examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution acquitted the accused by way of a short judgment since none of the material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution claims PWs 1 to 3 as eyewitnesses. All the three witnesses turned hostile as they have not stated anything about the respondent – accused. PW 4 who is also present at the time of occurrence, according to the prosecution, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs 5 to 8 who are alleged to have caught hold of the accused and handed over to PWs 9 and 10 also not supported the case of the prosecution. PWs 9 and 10 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. PWs 11 to 16 are all official witnesses like photographer, village secretary, panch witness, doctor and the investigating officer. In the absence of any evidence to connect the respondent – accused with the offence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted him. Hence, we are also of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J RAJA ELANGO, J 07-07-2011 ks