THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1656 of 2009 Date: 16.11.2009 Between : The State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Appellant. And Palepu Periyya, s/o. China Kamraju, 28 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, Fishing, Pallam Village, Katrenikona Mandal and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1656 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant- State as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- Accused Nos.1 to 6. 2. Appellant is the State and respondents are accused in the Sessions Case. 3. This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Section 378 (3) and (1) of Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 07.05.2008, in Sessions Case No.72 of 2007, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, acquitting the Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C., 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and 201 I.P.C. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that all the accused are residents of Pallam village of Katrenikona Mandal. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are the children of maternal uncle of Accused No.1. One Palepu Srinu, elder brother of Accused No.1 was murdered in the year 2004. The accused were suspecting the involvement of the deceased-Bommidi Narasimha Murthy and his brothers P.Ws.1 and 2 in committing the murder of the said Palepu Srinu and waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased. On 14.9.2006 in the night the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Godavari branch near Neela Revu Bridge for fishing. Accused Nos.1 to 6 also went for fishing and on noticing the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2, who were fishing in another boat, the accused tried to attack them. Then the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the bank and ran towards Pallam Village. The accused 1 to 6 also chased them and beat the deceased with a stick and on receiving the head injury, the deceased fell down. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed it and apprehending danger to their lives they ran away to the Village. On 15.9.2006, basing on the report under Ex.P1 given by P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Katrenikona Police Station registered a case in Crime No.151 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and took up investigation. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the police laid the charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C., 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and 201 I.P.C. 5. When the charges under punishable Sections 302 I.P.C., 302 read with 34 I.P.C., and 201 I.P.C., were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 18, besides marking MOs.1 to 11 material objects. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, except marking Exs.D.1, marked portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. 7. The trial Court, having considered the entire material including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found the accused not guilty of the offences with which they were charged and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present criminal appeal. 8. The only point urged by the learned Public Prosecutor in order to maintain this appeal is that the extra-judicial confession made by A.1 to P.W.7 ought to have been taken into consideration in order to convict the accused. 9. At the outset, we are clear that this is the only point raised and no other point was raised. Therefore, we are dealing with this aspect only. 10. The trial Court while dealing with the evidence of P.W.7, who was the Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time, before whom allegedly A.1 had made the extra-judicial confession, observed that P.W.7 admitted that there was police picket in the village and A.1 to A.6 are absconding soon after the incident. In such circumstances, if really the accused wanted to make any confession, in normal course, they would make such confession before P.W.7 at his residence, so that they would avoid notice by the police personnel available in the picket. It is admitted by P.W.7 that the accused came to him at 1-00 p.m. As an ordinary prudent person, the accused would try to avoid the police and make a confession before any person seeking his interference and help. But meeting P.W.7 at 1-00 p.m., was something felt as a doubtful circumstance. It was further noticed by the trial Court that P.W.7 took A.1 to the police, where his statement was recorded. The contents of the confession said to have made by A.1 before the Inspector of Police after the accused were taken to the Police Station are replication of the first statement made before P.W.7. However, it was specifically pointed out by the trial Court that there were two statements on record and it cannot be said that either of the two statements is a statement really made by the accused. It was further pointed out that the exact version made by A.1 cannot be reproduced before the police as it was before P.W.7 in a different place. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly because of the availability of two statements on records, the trial Court opined that this is a serious ground to be doubted and accordingly the evidence of P.W.7 as regards the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was discarded. The trial Court also pointed out some discrepancies as regards the preparation of observation report and conducting inquest and taking into account all these material defects, the trial Court acquitted the accused from the offences with which they were charged. 12. The reasons assigned by the trial Court, while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they were charged, in our considered view, are cogent and the evidence on record was well appreciated before arriving at such a conclusion. We do not find any illegality or irrationality in the judgment rendered by the trial Court. 13. For the foregoing, the criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed as having no merits. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, dated 07.05.2008, in Sessions Case No.72 of 2007, passed by the trial Court. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 16.11.2009. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1656 of 2009 16.11.2009 (Msr)