THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1348 of 2004 Date: 01.7.2010 Between: Gudapudi Ravindra, Nellore District. …………..Defacto-complainant. And K.Ashok Kumar Reddy @ Ashok Reddy, Nellore District. …..Accused. 2. The State of A.P rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ………..Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1348 of 2004 JUDGEMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2004 passed in S.C.No.324 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge found the accused-K.Ashok Kumar Reddy not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 & 382 IPC and acquitted him accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- Accused-K.Ashok Kumar Reddy borrowed an amount of Rs.12,000/- from Veerapalli Balamma (herein after referred to as the deceased). The deceased was insisting the accused for repayment of the amount borrowed from her. Therefore, the accused bored grudge against the deceased. On 16.5.2001, the deceased along with others had been to Nellore for purchase of certain articles and clothes in connection with the marriage of her relative. After shopping, she started returning home along with her relatives. She reached Podalakur Village in the afternoon where her relatives parted with her to go to nearby place of Podalakur Village to distribute the wedding cards and whereas the deceased started to go to her native village. While she was at the bus station, the accused spotted her. The accused stated to have demanded the accused for repayment of money for money borrowed from her. It is the version of the prosecution that the accused killed the deceased and recovered gold ornaments from her dead body. The deceased did not return home thereafter. P.W.1-Gudapudi Ravindra, who is the brother of the deceased searched for her but his search proved to be futile. On 17.5.2001, at about 9.00 P.M, he went to the Police Station, Podalakur and presented Ex.P1 report. The Station House Officer, Podalakuru Police Station received Ex.P1 report and registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2001 under Woman Missing and issued Ex.P13-First Information Report. P.W.1 found the dead body of the deceased near a vagu in the forest area near Simhapuri bus station on 24.5.2001. He presented Ex.P2 report before the Station House Officer, Podalakur Police Station. The Station House Officer, Podalakur altered the section of law from Woman Missing to Sections 302 & 379 IPC and issued Ex.P14 altered First Information Report. During the course of investigation, the accused came to be arrested on 26.5.2001 and M.Os.1 to 6-gold ornaments belonging to the deceased came to be recovered by the police at the instance of the accused. After due investigation, a charge sheet came to be laid before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as P.R.C.No.52 of 2001 and committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Nellore as the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Nellore, took the case on file as S.C.No.324 of 2001. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charges under Sections 302 & 397 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nellore. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses and proved 16 documents and exhibited 14 material objects. The plea of the accused was one of total denial of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and after hearing the prosecution and the accused, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused, and, thereby proceeded to record acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 302 & 382 IPC, by judgment dated 30.6.2004. The said judgment is assailed by P.W.1- Gudupudi Ravinder, brother of the deceased, in this Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the 2nd respondent-State. 5. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the material brought on record and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the 1st respondent-accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 382 IPC. The learned counsel refers the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 in support of his submission that the deceased was lost seen alive with the company of the accused, and, therefore, the accused was held to be responsible for the death of the deceased. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- accused submits that the trial Court has considered the material brought on record in right perspective and recorded acquittal of the 1st respondent-accused, and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 397 (1) and 401 Cr.P.C. 7. Indisputably, none of the witnesses claims to have seen the accused doing away the life of the deceased. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.3 to 5 are the witnesses to speak about the deceased in the company of the accused on the evening of 16.5.2001. P.Ws.3 to 5 are residents of the village to which the deceased and P.W.1 belong. They did not choose to inform P.W.1 on 16.5.2001 of their seeing the deceased in the company of the accused. They did not whisper till the dead body of the deceased came to be traced. The conduct of P.Ws.3 to 5 leads to any amount of doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the trustworthiness of their testimony. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5. According to the prosecution, M.Os.3, 4 & 5-gold ornaments belonging to the deceased came to be recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused. P.W.8 is the panch witness to speak of the recovery. It is admitted by P.W.8 in his cross-examination that all the gold ornaments shown to him are bright, new and polished. When such is the admission of PW.8 in the cross- examination, the version of the prosecution that the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased came to be recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused false to ground. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 & 382 IPC. I do not see any flaw in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 397 (1) and 401 Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:01.7.2010 mrb