THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal M.P.No.2050 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2009 Date: 16-12-2009 Criminal Appeal M.P.No.2050 of 2009: Between The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Petitioner/Appellant and Kurme @ Neeradi Pedda Linganna … Respondent/Accused Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2009 Between The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Appellant and Kurme @ Neeradi Pedda Linganna … Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal M.P.No.2050 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused. 2. Criminal Appeal M.P.No.2050 of 2009:- Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the delay of 404 days in presenting the appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 05-3-2008 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, in Sessions Case No.205 of 2006. 4. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that one Gundolla @ Kurme Chinnaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and the accused are residents of the same village; that the deceased loved the sister of accused and when the accused asked him to marry her, the same was refused and ever since the accused developed enmity towards him; that on 15-02-2006 in the afternoon, both the accused and the deceased went the wine shop of P.W.4 in the village, purchased some liquor and drank fully by sitting under a lime tree near the shop and in the evening, the accused hit the deceased on his head with a big stone causing severe bleeding injuries; that P.W.4 informed the incident to P.W.5, MPTC of the village, who, in turn, informed the mother of the deceased; that further, P.W.5 went to the place of incident and he accompanied by P.W.6 and others were shifting the deceased in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, on the way the deceased died; that then P.W.1 who went to Nandipet Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint; that post-mortem examination over the body of deceased was conducted by P.W.12; that the other formalities were also complied with and that a charge-sheet was filed. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed under Section 302 of IPC and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and also M.Os.1 to 16. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 7. The trial Court having gone into the evidence on record recorded the finding that the accused cannot be held to be responsible for the death of deceased and accordingly acquitted him. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the trial Court was right in recording the finding of acquittal against the accused ? 10. Point:- Apart from the other evidence on record, the entire case rests upon the evidence of P.W.4 and the medical evidence. The evidence of the other witnesses is not very relevant, hence we are not going much deep into the matter. 11. P.W.4 is cited as the sole eyewitness to the incident. According to him, on the date of incident the accused came to his wine shop and purchased half bottle of cheap liquor and was consuming that liquor by sitting near his shop and at 2 p.m., on that day the deceased came to his shop and purchased half bottle of cheap liquor and he went near the accused and sat by his side and was consuming the liquor and at about 5 p.m., the accused came and purchased two half bottles of cheap liquor and both the accused and the deceased together drank the liquor and at about 5.30 p.m., the accused again came and purchased half bottle of cheap liquor and both the accused and the deceased sat near a lime tree near his house and at the fag end of the day, the accused lifted a big boulder and threw it at the head of the deceased because of which, the deceased died. 12. It is to be seen that the boulder because of the hitting became into six pieces. It is a wonder as to how a big boulder can turn out to be six pieces when it came into contact with the head of a person like the deceased, who was a normal built person. Similarly, the accused also was a normal built person and apart from that, both the accused and the deceased were fully drunk. As per the evidence of P.W.4, even an ordinary person cannot lift the boulder with ease. When that is the case, it is rather indiscernible as to how the accused could lift such a big boulder and hit at the head of the deceased making the same into six pieces. 13. Further, P.W.12, the doctor, who conducted post- mortem examination over the body of deceased, deposed that he did not find any alcoholic odour from the dead body. Therefore, the theory of P.W.4 that both the deceased and the accused sat together and had liquor for quite a long time is proved to be false. 14. Therefore, by the very improbable theory of the prosecution that the accused had lifted a big boulder, which, in fact, cannot be lifted by an ordinary person that too, in drunken condition itself is not trustworthy and further, the evidence of P.W.4 was falsified by the medical evidence. Therefore, P.W.4 by any stretch of imagination cannot be treated as an eyewitness to the occurrence. 15. The other witnesses were all just consequential and their evidence does not throw any light on the occurrence of the offence, particularly at the hands of the accused. 16. We have read the judgment of the trial Court and we do not find any illegality or irrationality in appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. 17. For the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment under appeal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 16th December, 2009. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal M.P.No.2050 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 16th December, 2009.