THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 982 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. C. Bhanu) 1. This criminal appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2003, passed in S.C.No.1174 of 2000, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby accused Nos.1 to 11 were found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and accordingly they were acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows. PW.1, who is the father of Bathula Ramamohana Rao @ Ramu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), purchased an extent of Ac.2.24 cents of land from the father of A.1. Since then A.1 and his followers were obstructing PW.1 in cultivating the land. Therefore PW.1 filed an injunction suit and obtained temporary injunction from the Judicial First Class magistrate, Mangalagiri. Prior to the date of incident, PW.1 raised a plantain garden in that land. When the plantain garden was ready for yielding, in the month of May, A.1 and his followers cut the plantain garden. Therefore, PW.1 lodged a report with Thulluru Police Station. Thereafter, during the Panchayat Elections, PW.1 supported one Puli Babu Rao for the post of Sarpanch on behalf of Congress-I, whereas one Machavarapu Venkata Rao contested for the same post on behalf of T.D.P. A.1 and his followers supported Machavarapu Venkara Rao, who was ultimately elected as Sarpanch of Uddandarayunipalem. Because of these reasons, both the groups developed enmity against each other. The elders of the village also tried their level best to settle the disputes between the two groups, but in vain. On 18.07.1996, at about 5 p.m. the deceased along with PW.2 went to the house of PW.5 to request him to arrange tillers. After talking with PW.5 they went to Mandadam Village, where the deceased purchased pesticides. Later they went to their fields and kept pesticides in the hut and started to their village on scooter. At about 6 p.m. when they reached near the burial ground of Modilingayapalem, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with a common object to do away with the life of the deceased, attacked the deceased with lethal weapons. A.1 hacked the deceased with an axe on his neck, and A.3 hacked the deceased and caused multiple injuries, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. PW.2, who witnessed the incident, ran away towards Northern side fields due to fear. PW.3 and one Tadikonda Sambasiva Rao (LW.4), who were coming to the village on cycle, saw the incident. PW.2 immediately went to the house of PW.1, informed about the incident to him, and fled away from the village due to fear. On receiving the information on the same day at about 7.15 p.m., PW.14-the Inspector of Police instructed the police to arrange a police picket in the village. PW.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint with PW.12, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.64 of 1996 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and instructed the S.I. Guntur Taluk Police Station to record statement of PW.1. PW.14 also prepared rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. At the time of observing the scene of occurrence, he seized two rings, one wrist gold chain and one gold chain from the dead body of the deceased along with Rs.252/- at the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he got photographed the scene of occurrence through the photographer. Later he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After inquest the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. PW.16-the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. After completion of investigation and after receiving all the reports, he filed the charge sheet. 3. Since A.1 died, the case against him was abated. Insofar as A.5 is concerned, the prosecution has withdrawn the case against him under Section 321 Cr.P.C. 4. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, and 302 IPC against A.3, and for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC against A.2, A.4 and A.6 to A.11 were framed. 5. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 besides the case properties MOs.1 to 12. 7. After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The case of the accused is one of total denial. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 8. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against the accused ? 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, is consistent and trust worthy, hence the trial Court ought not to have given much importance to the omissions and improvements, which are trivial in nature, and ought to have convicted the accused for the charges framed against them. He also contended that the medical evidence is corroborated with the ocular testimony. Therefore, he prays to set aside the order of the trial Court. 11. In dealing with the order of acquittal, the appellate Court would wholly not interfere with the same, not for the reason that it has no power to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, but for the reason that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent, unless contrary is proved and the presumption is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Therefore, unless there are compelling or substantial reasons in the judgment, or the judgment is not based upon any proper appreciation of evidence on record, or any inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration, or admissible evidence has been over looked by the trial Court, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly when a perverse finding is given by the trial Court, this Court can interfere with the same. 12. The entire case rests upon the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. The evidence of PW.3 would go to show that A.4 caught hold of the tuft of one person and A.3 was cutting the neck of that person with a knife. Similarly, the evidence of PW.2 would go to show that on 18.07.1996 at 9 p.m. the deceased came on his scooter and requested him to come along with him to go to Velagapudi for cultivation of yokes (Arakalu). Then they went to Madadam to purchase insecticides. When they were returning to home on scooter, near the burial ground, all the accused attacked the deceased. According to him, A.3 took out a knife from the hands of Talluri Sambasiva Rao and hacked the deceased on his right thigh. Out of fear, PW.2 tried to run away, then he saw one Tadikonda Sambasiva Rao and Bindupalli Rama Mohana Rao coming from Modulingaipalem on a cycle towards the scene of occurrence. 13. If really, the incident had taken place, in the manner stated by PW.2, certainly he would have rushed to Police Station to lodge a complaint, but he did not go to the police station. On the other hand, he went to the house of PW.1 and informed the same. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that he was a chance witness. Further more, if really PWs.2 and 3 are eyewitnesses to the incident, certainly there would not have been any difference in the narration of the main fabric of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW.2 is totally inconsistent with the evidence of PW.3. 14. Admittedly, there were disputes between the accused group and the deceased group prior to the incident. There is allegation against the accused that they have cut the plantain garden that was raised by PW.1. Similarly, there were disputes between the accused and the deceased with regard to Panchayat elections. One group was supporting Congress-I candidate for Sarpanch post whereas another group was supporting the candidate, who contested on behalf of TDP. So in view of enmity between the prosecution witnesses, and the deceased, it is not safe to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are close associates of the deceased. Two other persons, who were coming at the time of incident, were not examined by the prosecution. No explanation was forth coming as to why they were not examined. 15. No doubt the prosecution may not be able to examine the witness after witness, but at the same time they are not supposed to give up the material witnesses, who speak about the incident and also about the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, this circumstance would clearly go to show that the accused appear to have been falsely implicated. Further more PWs.2 and 3 categorically stated that A.3 took out a knife from Talluri Samba Siva Rao. Therefore, their evidence would go to show that Talluri Samba Siva Rao was also present at the scene of offence, but the prosecution has not examined the said Talluri Sambasiva Rao. 16. The specific case of the prosecution is that, all the accused along with Morakonda Venkata Rao and Thulluru Sambasiva Rao formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with a common object to do away with the life of the deceased. No reasons were given for not impleading those two persons as accused in the case, when it is clear from the evidence that they also shared the common object with the other accused. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly not placed any reliance on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. 17. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) _____________ (K.C. BHANU, J.) 9th August, 2010 Js.