IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.208 OF 2005 Date:17.12.2009 Between:- Bobba Pedakotaiah ..Revision Petitioner/Defacto Complainant And State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents/Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 ORDER:- This Criminal Revision case is filed by P.W.1-de facto complainant against the Judgment dated 28.09.2004 in Sessions Case No.358 of 2000 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder A-1, A-3 and A-4 were found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. and as such, they were acquitted of the said charges. Since A-2 was no more by then, the case against him abated. The cash of Rs.80,000/- and the gold ornaments-M.Os.1 and 2 were ordered to be confiscated to the State. 2. Deceased No.1- Yendluru Subbaiah along with his wife – Mangamma-deceased No.2 were residents of Kommi village, Kondapuram Mandal of Nellore District. Both of them were not blessed with any children. Deceased Nos.1 and 2 were having an extent of Ac.7-00cs of wet land and Ac.4-00cs of dry land along with one terraced house at Kommi village. Deceased No.1-Subbaiah had given Ac.1-70cs of his land to A-1 by way of an oral gift. He had also given Ac.0-70cs to P.W.1, who is the brother of his wife-Deceased No.2-Mangamma. A-1, though remotely related to deceased No.1-Subbaiah, was expecting to succeed to his property as his legal heir, and as such, he was not happy with the action of deceased No.1-Subbaiah in disposing of his property in favour of his relatives, including P.W.1. A-1 entered into conspiracy with A-2 to do away with the life of deceased No.1-Subbaiah and deceased No.2-Mangamma. In furtherance thereof, they took A-3 and A-4, who are the sons of A-1, into their fold. A-2 was hired for doing away with the life of deceased Nos.1 and 2. 3. On 18.05.1999, there was a Pandiri Bajana going on in the locality and while deceased Nos.1 and 2 were sleeping infront of their house, A-1 to A-4, in furtherance of their common object, went to their house after consuming liquor and throttled deceased Nos.1 and 2 to death while they were sleeping. Thereafter, they entered the house and took away Rs.80,000/- from the almyrah as well as gold ornaments. On coming to know about the incident, P.W.1, who was present at the place of Pandiri Bajana, reached the house of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and found both of them lying dead on their cots in front of their house. On the next day morning i.e., on 19.05.1999, P.W.1 reported the matter to Station House Officer, Kondapuram Police Station and basing on his complaint- Ex.P-1, registered Crime No.19 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. against dayadaas (agnates) and investigation was taken up by P.W.12-Inspector of Police. 4. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 read with 34 I.P.C. whereupon, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nellore in P.R.C.No.38 of 1999. Thereafter, the case was transferred from the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and again, from there to the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore by virtue of the orders of Hon’ble High Court in R.O.C.No.2042/E/01 dated 26.08.2003. However, as seen from Para No.5 of the Judgment, a charge was framed against A-1 to A- 4 under Section 302 I.P.C.; a charge under Section 392 I.P.C. against A-1 and a charge under Section 393 read with 34 I.P.C. against A-2 and A-3. But, nowhere in the Judgment of the trial Court, the charge against A-2 and A-3 for the offence under Section 393 read with 34 I.P.C. is referred to, including Para No.17, which is the operative portion of the Judgment. 5. To substantiate its case, the Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os.1 to 7 on its behalf. However, no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the defence. 6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of Prosecution witnesses as well as other material brought on record by the Prosecution, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore found A-1, A-3 and A-4 (A-2 since died) not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C and acquitted them. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 7. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the trial court committed error in acquitting A-1, A-3 and A-4 (A-2 since dead) though the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 supported the prosecution case and that the contents of seizure mediatornama and relevant portion in mediatornama respectively - Exs.P-8 and P-9 also support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that at the relevant time, he was attending the Pandiri Bajana and that at about 6 a.m., while he was going home from there, he came to know that his sister-deceased No.2 and brother-in-law-deceased No.1 were killed, that he went there and found their dead bodies lying on the cots in front of their house, that he found nail marks on their necks and it appeared that his brother-in-law-deceased No.1 also suffered injury to his testicles. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased No.1-Subbaiah used to lend money to several villagers after obtaining requisite documents from them. It is further evident from his evidence that deceased Nos.1 and 2 also used to keep cash and gold ornaments in their house and that he had narrated all the facts to the police at the time of preferring Ex.P-1- complaint. However, his cross examination reveals that he had seen recovery panchanama M.Os.1 to 3 for the first time at the time of their identification. Though he denied a suggestion in his cross examination that he did not state in his complaint-Ex.P-1 anything about the gold ornaments of the deceased, the contents of Ex.P-1-complaint are to the contrary. If at all he had the knowledge of the ornaments of the deceased, he could have, of course, stated before the police at the time of preferring Ex.P-1-complaint itself. 8. The evidence of P.W.5 is to the effect that he only carried confession statement of A-1, A-3 and A-4 (A-2 since dead) from P.W.6-Village Administrative Officer and handed it over to the Station House Officer, Kondapuram police station and that when he reached the police station, all the accused were present there. So far as the evidence of this witness is concerned, it neither proves nor disproves the case of the Prosecution. He only carried a document handed over to him by P.W.6, which in turn, was handed over to the police. He had no knowledge about the contents thereof. 9. Coming to the evidence of P.W.6-Village Administrative Officer of Chintaladevi Village, it is to be seen that he was present at the scene of offence while the police conducted the scene of observation report and other proceedings. He only stated in his evidence that the police recovered M.Os.4 to 7 in his presence. It is further seen from his evidence that on 28.05.1999, at about 11 a.m., A-3 and A-4 came to him and confessed to the crime, which was reduced into writing and sent it to police through P.W.5, that thereafter, the police came there and apprehended A-3 and A-4. He also stated that he accompanied the police to Kommi village, where A-1 was apprehended while he was getting down from a bus at about 10 p.m. He also stated that the police recovered M.Os.1 to 3 ornaments and cash of Rs.60,000/- at the instance of A-1 from dibba in the backyard of house of one Sriramulu under the cover of seizure panchanama-Ex.P-8 in the presence of P.W.6 and L.W.8-Sk.Khasim. He further stated that on the following day, he accompanied the police to the house of A-2 and that on A- 2 producing Rs.20,000/-, the police seized the same in his presence under Ex.P-9. L.W.8-Sk.Khasim was also present. However, he admitted in his cross examination that he scribed Exs.P-8 and P-9 to the dictation of the police. He also admitted that Ex.P-9 speaks about the recovery of M.O.1-Chandraharam, gold ornament from A-2. 10. Coming to the evidence of P.W.12-Investigating Officer, he has stated only as to the nature of investigation done by him. However, in the cross examination, he admitted that though he pressed the dog squad into service, he did not get any clue as to the actual culprits, who had done away with the life of deceased Nos.1 and 2. 11. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, the only witness available is P.W.6-Village Administrative Officer, who spoke as to the confession of the accused, however, his evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any other prosecution witness. Though P.W.12-Investigating Officer denied the suggestion that his evidence is weak and he, being an Investigating Officer, it could be said that he is an interested witness. The trial Court, having considered the said facts in proper perspective, arrived at a right conclusion that the Prosecution failed to make out the case gainst the accused and accordingly, acquitted A-1, A-3 and A-4 for the offences with which they were charged. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is convinced that the impugned Judgment dated 28.09.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.358 of 2000 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore does not call for any interference and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____​___________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 17th December, 2009 AMD