THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1614 OF 2005 Dated:10.12.2009 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Appellant/Petitioner And Bayapureddi Srinivasula Reddy and others .. Respondents/Accused JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.221 of 2001 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur by the judgment dated 16.11.2004 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code led the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor to prefer the present appeal. The factual background for the appeal is that accused Nos.1 to 16 belonged to the political group of Bayapureddy Subba Reddy, while M.S.Govinda Reddy, P.Ravi, M.S.Srinivasulu Reddy, M.S.Eswar Reddy, M.S.Udaya Bhaskar Reddy, B.Lakshmireddigari Rama Subba Reddy, M.C.Pulla Reddy and P.Prasada Reddy belonged to the political group of Mettupalli Prabhakar Reddy. There were ill feelings between two groups since 1980 with number of cases and counter cases. On 08.12.2000 in the elections for the Primary School Vidya Committee for the Mandal Upper Primary School, M.C.Pulla Reddy belonging to the group of Mettupalli Prabhakar Reddy was unanimously elected as Chairman. The group of the accused aggrieved by the same formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the men of the rival group on 09.12.2000 at about 4.30 p.m., and accused Nos.1 and 2, who parked their motor cycle at Chakalikunta after crossing St.Joseph’s Convent School on the way from Proddatur to Chinna Settipalli village, stopped the tractor in which M.S.Govinda Reddy, P.Ravi, M.S.Srinivasulu Reddy, M.S.Eswar Reddy and M.S.Udaya Bhaskar Reddy were returning to the village. The tractor belonged to B.Lakshmireddigari Rama Subba Reddy and the moment the tractor was stopped, the accused Nos.1 and 2 took out the hunting sickles from their back and tried to hack M.S.Govinda Reddy on his head. When Govinda Reddy raised his left hand to resist their blow, he sustained a bleeding injury on the left palm. The other accused came out from the bushes in pursuance of their common object and while instigating the other accused, accused No.7 hacked M.S.Govnida Reddy on his right knee causing a bleeding injury, while accused No.5 hacked him with a hunting sickle on the left knee causing a bleeding injury. Accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 also caused injuries to Govinda Reddy on his right leg below the knee with their hunting sickle and the other accused also hacked him with their weapons causing bleeding injuries on the right thumb, right wrist, right fore-arm, right palm, left wrist, left fore-arm and other parts. Govinda Reddy fell down and the other eye witnesses to the incident ran away due to fear. Accused left the scene and then M.S.Udaya Bhaskar Reddy shifted Govinda Reddy to the Government Hospital, Proddatur in an auto and on the complaint of Govinda Reddy, Crime No.123 of 2000 was registered by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, Proddatur. The Inspector of Police seized the blood stained clothes of Govinda Reddy under police proceedings and prepared a panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence before independent mediators. The motor cycle and tractor were seized before the mediators and the accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The medical officer opined Govinda Reddy to have sustained three grievous injuries and other simple injuries. The left arm of Govinda Reddy was amputated at NIMS, Hyderabad and hence, accused were prosecuted for the said offences. After the accused entered appearance before the Magistrate and after they were furnished with the copies of the documents, the case was committed to the Court of Session. To charges under Sections 148, 326, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code respectively framed against the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty. PWs.1 to 9 were examined; Exs.P1 to P10; M.Os.1 and 2 and Exs.D1 to D9 were marked during the trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and they had no defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment firstly concluding that M.S.Govinda Reddy, PW.1 sustained grievous and simple injuries at the relevant time due to hacking. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the injured, PW.1 and the medical Officers, PWs.6 and 7 in this regard. The trial Court then considered whether the formation of accused into an unlawful assembly and their consequential action, as alleged by the prosecution, have been established by the evidence of the prosecution. The trial Court noted that the contradictions between the witnesses would show that PW.2, P.Ravi was only a chance witness, whose presence was not probablised and the presence of PW.3, M.S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, who is a businessman with a fertilizer shop at Proddatur at the scene, at the relevant time, was also improbable in the absence of any reason for not running his shop on that day. The trial Court also referred to the long standing disputes between the two political groups and PW.1, the injured specifying only the names of 12 accused in the earliest version in Ex.P1, in which even the name of the 12th accused was incorrectly stated. The trial Court further referred to the statement of injured, PW.1 before the police about identifying 14 persons and some more persons being parties to the attack and the admitted ill feelings between the groups and long standing enmity made the trial Court not to accept the version of the prosecution witnesses, more so, in the light of the delay in the First Information Report. The trial Court further observed that PW.1 neither contested the elections nor referred to the elections to the Vidya Committee, which were claimed to have formed the background for the alleged attack by the accused and the circumstance that the hospital intimation, Ex.P8 did not even specify the attack on PW.1 to be by known persons leave alone specifying their names was also relied on by the trial Court as further improbablising the credibility of the prosecution story. The absence of any explanation for the delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate was also referred to and the implication of the accused beyond those specified in Ex.P1 was also considered not proper. Referring to the various precedents cited before it with particular reference to faction cases, the trial Court considered the guilt of the accused to have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them. The grounds of appeal seek to contend that the solitary testimony of injured, PW.1 was alone sufficient to base a conviction of the accused, more so, when his version was corroborated by the medical officers, PWs.6 and 7. The State, therefore, desired the acquittal to be reversed. Sri K.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, Smt.P.Rajani Reddy and Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, were heard at length. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of any or all of the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt? POINT:- The admitted background for the alleged incident was the faction fight between the two political groups since 1980 and the consequential cases and counter cases between the members of both the groups since then. The immediate provocation for the incident was stated to be the elections conducted to the Vidya Committee of the Mandal Upper Primary School in which a follower of Mettupalli Prabhakar Reddy was claimed to have been unanimously elected as a Chairman. There was absolutely no reference to the elections in the evidence produced by the prosecution and more so as to why and how many persons belonging to the group of the accused were disabled for contesting the elections and how any responsibility for such disability could have been attributed to any member of the group of Mettupalli Prabhakar Reddy. M.S.Govinda Reddy, PW.1, who appeared to be the sole eye witness of the entire attack by the group of the accused was neither a contestant nor an elected candidate and it is also not clear as to how he was connected with the elections in question. If the motive behind the alleged attack, on formation of an unlawful assembly, was the disadvantage the group of the accused suffered in the said elections, why they aimed the attack on PW.1 was, thus, unexplained. The long standing enmity and disputes, the series of cases between the groups and the absence of establishment of any link between the elections to Vidya Committee and the incident make it necessary that the evidence of interested prosecution witnesses should be scrutinized with extra care and caution before any attempt for acceptance and it will be an accepted rule of prudence to look for satisfactory corroboration from independent circumstances to such evidence before acting on the same. The analysis of evidence produced before the trial Court in the impugned judgment was deep and detailed and ex facie there appear no strong reasons to deviate from the conclusions of the trial Court which appear to be broadly based on ordinary and natural course of human events. Insofar as M.S.Govinda Reddy, PW.1 receiving grievous and simple injuries at or about the time of alleged incident is concerned, the evidence of PWs.1, 6 and 7, the injured and medical officers respectively, was rightly accepted by the trial Court and the amputation of the left arm of Govinda Reddy, who was in physical presence before the trial Court bears ample testimony to the said aspect. However, when it comes to the question as to who caused such injuries, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, who all belong to the same political group, is necessarily tainted with interestedness and though every interested evidence is not false evidence, it also does not call for acceptance at face value. The presence of PW.2, P.Ravi at the time of the incident became doubtful due to the contradictions specified in detail in the impugned judgment as to when PW.2 entered the tractor to travel along with the injured and others and further due to the absence of any specification by PW.2 in the evidence about travelling in the tractor along with Govinda Reddy from Chinna Settipalli village to Proddatur. PW.3 claims to have purchased vegetables which were kept in a bag in the tractor, but the investigating officer did not find any such bag of vegetables in the tractor or trailor. The contradictions between PW.3 and other witnesses as to when and how the other witnesses came to the scene made the probability of the other witnesses being the eye witnesses doubtful while the absence of any explanation from PW.2 as to why he went to Proddatur on that day was rightly considered to be making the said person a chance witness. PW.3 was hiding himself behind the bushes during the incident according to the evidence which was not specified earlier and the improbability of his so hiding was carefully analyzed by the trial Court in the impugned judgment. As to why he was not running his fertilizer shop at Proddatur on that day and why he proceeded towards Chinna Settipalli village in the tractor along with Govinda Reddy and others was unexplained and significantly in spite of the large number of the accused attacking Govinda Reddy and others, who were going in the tractor, with dangerous weapons, no other person received even a scratch from any accused. While there was no strong reason disclosed by the record, which instigated the accused to indulge in such a murderous attack on Gonvida Reddy alone, the claims of the witnesses about their clothes also being stained with blood were contradicted by the Inspector of Police, PW.9, who was positive that the clothes of nobody else were stained with blood. PW.1 was noted to be neither a witness nor an accused in any of the cases between the rival groups and the injured, PW.1 vacillated about the names of the persons who attacked him in not naming all the accused in Ex.P1, incorrectly describing one or two accused in Ex.P1, improving his version about identifying the attackers in the statement before the police and deposing against all the accused before the Court. The trial Court rightly referred to the precedents cautioning the Courts to be extremely wary about the evidence in faction cases, more so, if there was delay in preferring the First Information Report. The conclusions of the trial Court about the delay, firstly in registering the First Information Report and secondly the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate are not factually in dispute and as to why the hospital intimation, Ex.P8 did not at least state the attack on PW.1 to be by known persons is unexplained. The allegations against accused in such cases require to be established beyond all possible suspicion and the significant circumstance about the attempt to falsely implicate the leader of the faction B.Lakshmireddygari Rama Subba Reddy in the incident further makes the credibility of the prosecution version open to more suspicion. Though PW.1 was severely injured obviously due to the use of dangerous weapons and had even lost one of his arms, the entire truth not being placed before the Court makes the benefit of reasonable doubt available to the accused and the conclusions of the trial Court in this regard about the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged offences beyond such doubt cannot be faulted as baseless or unreasonable. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 10th December 2009 KH