HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.500 OF 2007 Dated:06-10-2010 BETWEEN: State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant AND Kesava Reddy & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.500 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Raja Elango) State, represented by Public Prosecutor, preferred this appeal questioning the acquittal order, dated 02.05.2005 passed in S.C.No.300 of 2004 on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty acquitting the respondents-accused 1 to 15 of the charges punishable under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C. 2. The story of the prosecution as narrated during the course of trial is as under: The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are all residents of Chagallu village. Peddakotla Viswanatha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was also resident of Chagallu village. A.1’s father and A.5’s father are brothers, A.7 is the brother-in-law of A.2, A.8 is the brother’s son of A.9, A.13 is A.9’s brother’s son. A.2 and A.3 are brothers. A.1 belongs to Congress Party. There were disputes between A.1 and deceased with regard to Rasta. The house of A.1 and the house of deceased are opposite to each other. The dispute was there for the last 8 to 10 years. In the Grampanchayat elections held in 2001, one Lakshminarayana contested for sarpanch post, supported by A.1. Whereas, the deceased supported one Bayanna. In the said elections Bayanna got elected. There were elections for Vidya Committee and one Beeti was supported by the deceased and she was elected unanimously. On 23.10.2003 at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased, his brother and their mother were taking meals. At that time, P.Ws.3,4 and others came there. After discussion, they all went to Harijanawada and requested P.Ws.5 and 6 to beat drums in jatara. While they were returning at 9.00 p.m., the deceased was going ahead. Suddenly, all the accused surrounded the deceased, A.1 shouted and hacked the deceased on the left side face of deceased while A.2 hacked on the bridge nose of the deceased. A.3 and A.5 hacked on the chest of the deceased. All other accused hacked the deceased with hunting sickles. P.W.1 witnessed the incident as there were street lights. On 24.10.2003 at 9.05 p.m., P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of telephonic information, proceeded to Chagallu village, where, one P.Krishna Reddy gave Ex.P.1 complaint. On receipt of Ex.P.1 complaint, P.W.12-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Muchukota registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC and issued F.I.R.-Ex.P.8. On 25.10.2003, P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report under Ex.P.4. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and others and recorded their statements. P.W.13 drafted a rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.10 and seized the material objects-M.Os.1 to 4 and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. On 25.10.2003, P.W.11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tadipatri, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P.7. He opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. P.W.13 arrested the accused on 4.11.2003 and in pursuance of their confessional statements, he seized the weapons under Ex.P.6 in the presence of P.Ws.9 and 10. After completion of investigation and on receipt of relevant reports, P.W.13 laid the charge sheet against the accused. 3. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked besides material objects 1 to 22. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D.1 to D.14 were marked. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence and mainly considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who claim to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, was of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and accordingly, acquitted them of the charges. 5. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor who has taken us through the entire evidence on record and also the findings recorded by the lower Court. 6. The Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415] observed that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Further in dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal, it must be shown by the prosecution that there are compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the same. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether there are any compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the lower Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who claim to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, does not inspire confidence of the Court since they have not reported the matter either to the police or to any of the villagers on the date of occurrence. For appreciation of the said contention, we peruse the evidence adduced by the said witnesses. P.W.1 deposed that upon the dictation of Krishna Reddy, Ramaiah drafted a complaint in the house of Krishna Reddy and further stated that police examined him on the next day morning at 9.00 a.m. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not try to give water to the deceased nor bandage the oozing wounds and did not try to lift the deceased. He did not touch the deceased because he suspected that bloodstains would be present to his clothes. P.W.2, who accompanied the deceased, categorically admitted that he stated to the police about the murder for the first time on the next day morning and till then he did not inform the same to anybody. P.W.3, who also accompanied the deceased, admitted in the cross-examination that only on the next day morning at 7.00 a.m. he informed the occurrence to the police and that he did not inform about the murder to anybody except the police on the next day morning. P.W.4 also deposed that he informed the police about the incident on the next day morning at 6.30 a.m. 8. The learned counsel for respondents-accused further contended that the person who lodged the complaint-Ex.P.1 was not examined since he died, but the person-Ramaiah who scribed the complaint- Ex.P.1 upon the dictation given by Krishna Reddy, was not examined by the police and was not even cited as witness to the occurrence. Further, it is submitted that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, they witnessed the occurrence hiding themselves near a wall at the place of occurrence, but the rough sketch prepared by the investigating officer does not disclose the availability of any such wall at the place of occurrence and on the other hand, P.W.13-investigating officer himself admitted in the cross-examination that no such wall was prevailing in the place of occurrence when he visited the place of occurrence. Considering the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 4, this Court is of the view that the conduct of these witnesses that after witnessing the gruesome murder, they did not try to inform the same either to the villages or to the police or they did not try to rescue the injured person and did not try to admit him in the hospital would clearly establish the fact that they are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence but they were planted by the prosecution to substantiate its case. Further it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that all the 15 accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with sickles and axes. But the doctor-P.W.11 in the cross-examination stated that no stab injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Thus the medical evidence is also not supported with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who have not acted in the natural human conduct, cannot be believed and placing reliance on their evidence it is not safe to convict the accused that too for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which is punishable with capital punishment. Hence this Court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed in its attempt to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. It is well settled proposition of law that in an appeal against acquittal, unless there is any apparent error or perversity, there is no need to interfere with the acquittal order when the learned trial judge, from the possibility of two views, has taken the view, which is in favour of the accused. Further in the absence of any substantial and compelling reasons pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, we cannot come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Court below. We see no merit in the appeal. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J OCTOBER 06, 2010 Tsr.