HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No.27501 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State. 2. Appellant is the State and respondents 1 and 2 are accused Nos.2 and 3, respectively, in Sessions Case No.513 of 2007. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 15.07.2008, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Sessions Case No.513 of 2007, acquitting the respondents- accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”), the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 4. Originally, the charge sheet was filed against three accused. But, since A-1 was not traced, the case against him was split up and the trial Court had commenced and proceeded against A-2 and A-3 only. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that about two months prior to the incident, L.W-9-Gaddamanuguru Hari, P.W-8, who is no other than the brother of the deceased, and others warned A-1 and others, who used to tease the pilot colony locality girls, and a quarrel took place between them, in which A-1 beat P.W-8; that the deceased on coming to know that A-1 beat his brother-P.W-8, beat A-1 before the public and his friends; that since then, A-1 bore grudge against the deceased and his friends and in pursuance thereof, hatched a plain with A-2, to do away the life of the deceased and was waiting for an opportunity; that while so, on 06.06.2002, at about 9 pm., when the deceased went to Satyanarayana Kirana shop for purchasing some articles, on seeing him, all the three accused pounced on the deceased, while A-2 and A-3 caught hold of the deceased, A-1 stabbed the deceased on his head and neck with knife indiscriminately; that due to severe bleeding injuries, the deceased fell on the ground; that after committing the offence, the accused fled away from the spot; that later, on information about the said incident, P.W-1 rushed to the scene of offence and with the help of others, shifted the deceased to Singareni Hospital, where the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment; and that after completing the necessary formalities, the Police filed the charge sheet. 6. When charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against A-2 and A-3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21, besides M.Os.1 to 3, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, none was examined and Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 8. The trial Court, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, acquitted the respondents herein-A-2 and A-3 of the offence with they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. P.W-1, who is the father of the deceased, gave the complaint-Ex.P-1. P.W-2 is the mother of the deceased. P.W-8 is no other than the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the brother of the deceased. 10. P.W-1-the father of the deceased deposed that on the date of the incident i.e., on 06.06.2002 at about 9 pm., his son went to the shop of one Chary in order to purchase some chocolates and within ten minutes thereafter, one Venkateswarlu came to his house and informed him that the accused hacked the deceased in front of the pan shop of Chary. He further deposed that upon the said information, he along with his wife-P.W-2 and sister went to the shop of Chary and found the deceased in a pool of blood and also noticed cut injuries on the face and neck and that immediately, he shifted him to the hospital. He gave the complaint- Ex.P-1 to the Police. 11. P.W-2 corroborated the evidence of P.W-1 in all respects. P.W-8 deposed that on the date of the incident he was at Tenali and received a telephone message about the death of the deceased and that he came to know that the deceased was killed by A-1. 12. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 10. P.Ws.1, 2 and 8 are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They came to know about the death of the deceased only after the incident. Therefore, not much can be elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 8. The other witnesses, except P.W-10-doctor, have turned hostile. P.W-10-doctor deposed that he found as many as nine injuries on the person of the deceased and issued wound certificate- Ex.P-7. The evidence of P.W-10- doctor makes it clear that the death of the deceased is homicidal. Except, P.Ws.1, 2 and 8, who are related to the deceased, all other prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Apart from that, there are no other circumstances that are explained nor capable of explanation by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. 13. Therefore, from a perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial Court, we are of the view that there was nothing before the trial Court that could be done in such circumstances, especially, when the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, except acquitting the accused of the offence with which they were charged. 14. We see no reason to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment rendered by the trial Court and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, in limini. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU 10th March 2010 dr