IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 422 OF 2011 (CRL. APPEAL (SR) No. 20224 OF 2010) Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND 1. Jonnarapu Venkateswara Reddy 2. Nagineni Sridhar 3. Kollipara Kiran Kumar .....Respondents The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused. The State preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.6.2009 in Sessions Case No. 275 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, acquitting the respondents/ accused 1 to 3, for the offences under Sec.120-B, 302 read with Sec.34 IPC in Cr. No. 126 of 2007 of Vinukonda Police Station. The brief facts of the case are that PW-1, wife of the deceased was carrying on masala cart business at Ranganayaka Swamy Temple, then they shifted to Fancy Centre and from there to Garuda Wines. As the business was flourishing, he maintained another pushcart at Kotcherla Hotel. The deceased and respondent No.3 belong to the same community and resided in the same street. There were quarrels between the deceased and respondent No.3. It is stated that the deceased abused respondent No.3 and in retaliation, respondent No.3 questioned the deceased and the deceased beat the respondent No.3 and kicked him. He also sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 had lodged complaint to the police, who warned the deceased. The respondent No.3, being not satisfied with what the police had done, was waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against the deceased and he contacted the respondent No.1 and hatched a plan to do away with the deceased and in pursuance of their plan, Respondent No.1 went to the house of the deceased and called him on the pretext of compromising the dispute between him and the respondent No.3, to which the deceased did not agree. On 16.6.2007 when the deceased was going to his house with his pushcart at about 10.30 p.m. through Stupam Centre, the respondent No.1 followed the deceased on his motor cycle and having found the respondent No.2, took him also on the motor cycle and when the deceased was passing by the site of TSR Anjeneyulu, the respondent No.1 called the deceased and when the deceased did not respond, he removed the hunting sickle and hacked the deceased on his neck. Though the deceased tried to escape the attack, the blow fell on the backside of his neck resulting in bleeding injury on the neck and the deceased fell down on the road. The respondents 1 and 2 fled away from the scene. The wife of the deceased on receipt of information went to the place of offence and found her husband dead, lying in a pool of blood. On her report a case in Cr. No. 126 of 2007 was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence in the presence of witnesses under a cover of panchanama and examined PWs 1 to 4, recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body for post mortem examination and the doctor, PW-5 after conducting post mortem over the dead body, has opined that the deceased died due to chop wound and hemorrhage. During the course of investigation, PW-8 arrested respondents 1 and 2 on 21.6.2007 at the house of the first respondent and the respondent No.3 was arrested on the same day at his house and they were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents 1 to 3. To bring home guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-9 (sic Exs. P1 to P-9). The defence of the respondents was one of total denial. Material objects 1 to 9 were also marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, the respondents were examined under Sec.313 Cr. P.C. and they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW-1. She deposed about the disputes amongst her husband and the respondent No.3 and the attack made on her husband on 16.6.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. when he was returning home, which resulted in his death. She further deposed that one person came to her and informed that her husband was murdered in front the house of one TSR Anjaneyulu. She lodged report, Ex.P-1. She was examined by the police. Admittedly, PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and she did not state anything inculpating the respondents. PW-2 a resident of Vinukonda, deposed that he neither knows the deceased nor the respondents. He did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Nothing incriminating could be elicited from his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW-3 is the elder brother of the deceased. On the date of incident, he went to the place of offence, which is opposite to the house of TSR Anjaneyulu, and found the dead body of his younger brother in a pool of blood with hacking injury on his neck. He is also not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He did not state anything incriminating the respondents as to who caused the fatal injury. PW-4 is mother of the deceased. She is also not an eyewitness. She stated that the respondent No.3 is a friend of his deceased son. She did not speak as to whether there were any disputes between her deceased son and the respondent No.3. PW-5 is the doctor, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. He found external injury on the neck of the deceased. According to him, chop wound and hemorrhage is the cause of death of the deceased, as mentioned in Ex.P-3, post mortem report. PW-6 is the Scientific Officer in Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur at the relevant time. He opined that the blood found on item No.1 is that of human origin. There is nothing on record to connect the blood found on item No.1 with that of the blood of the deceased, in the absence of detection of blood group. PW-7 is the V.R.O., in whose presence the police observed scene of offence and conducted inquest over the dead body and seized material objects in the presence of other witnesses. PW-8 is the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and after completion of the same, filed charge sheet. It is not in dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death due to hacking injury on the neck. But absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the said fatal injury was inflicted by the respondents. None of the prosecution witnesses have attributed any overt acts to any of the respondents. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, the respondents cannot be found guilty for the charges leveled against them. Absolutely it is a case of no evidence. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and the court below has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused. We do not find any merit in the appeal. The Criminal Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah _____________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar January 19, 2011 MAS