HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.592 of 2007 Between: State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor. …. Appellant and Tandu Muthilingam and others …. Respondents This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.592 of 2007 JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) State through Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning the Judgment in Sessions Case No.142 of 2000, dated 12.07.2005, on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, I Fast Track Court, Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby the appellants/accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The substance of the charge against the accused is that on 27.06.2002 at about 05:30 A.M. when the deceased Sirasawada Yadagiri along with his family went to the house of Kancheda Prabhakar Reddy for the Panchayat, A1 and A4 chased and beat him with axes and sticks and caused his death and thereby committed an offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated as under:- On 27.06.2002 at 09:30 AM, P.W.1 brother of Siraswada Yadagiri (hereinafter referred to as, “the deceased”) eloped one Janakamma-P.W.8, D/o.Thandu Muthilingam-A1, due to which on 27.06.2002 at about 05:30 AM, P.W.1 along with the deceased, his wife-P.W.2, his sisters-P.Ws.3 and 4 went to the house of P.W.5 for Panchayat. Meanwhile A1 to A4 armed with deadly weapons came into the house of P.W.5 and attacked the deceased on his head, neck and hands, due to which he collapsed on the spot. Thereby, they raised hue and cry and on hearing their shouts, P.W.1 rushed there shifted the deceased who was struggling for life to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. On seeing P.W.1, the accused persons escaped from the scene. Thereafter on the same day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 gave a report under Ex.P1 to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thipparthy Police Station, who in turn registered a case in crime No.70 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, P.W.13 investigated the case and filed charge sheet. 4. In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. The incriminating circumstance in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put to the accused when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charges. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken out through the entire evidence and argued that P.Ws.2,3, 4, 6 and 7 are eye witnesses to the incident and are rustic people. Small discrepancies in their evidence should not be taken into consideration to acquit the accused. The medical evidence also supports the evidence of the eyewitnesses about the attack made by A1 to A4. Hence, the learned sessions Judge ought to have convicted the appellants/accused. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence of all the eye witnesses and the learned trial judge has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. 8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:- Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T :- 9. P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, set the criminal law into motion by filing Ex.P1, wherein he stated that the deceased went to village elders for narrating and also in connection with Panchayat regarding eloping of Janakamma, D/o.Muthilingam and went to the house of P.W.3 at 05:30 AM on 27.06.2002. P.Ws.2 and 4 also accompanied him. By that time A1 to A4 who were present there attacked the deceased with sickle, axe, sticks and beat him indiscriminately on head, neck and hands. When the deceased fell down and when the relatives raised hue and cry, he went there and took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.1, in his evidence deposed that two years back his deceased brother eloped one Janakamma-P.W.8, the daughter of A1, due to which A1 bore grudge against his brother. To settle the said matter they wanted to hold a Panchayat. On 27.06.2002 at about 05:00 or 05:15 AM, himself, his sisters, his younger brother, P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.5 at Marrigudem. P.Ws.2 to 4 and his brother went ahead of him and woke up L.W.5. While they were talking with L.W.5, A1 to A4 came there. A1 hacked the deceased with an axe on the right side of the head, again he hacked the deceased below his right eye. Then the deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries, near the threshold of the backdoor of the house of L.W.5. Thereafter, A1 also hacked twice with axe on the back of the deceased. A3 hacked the deceased with tappers knife on his left ear and below his left thigh. Thereafter again A3 beat the deceased with stick on his head, on his back, on his left hand due to which his left hand was fractured. A4 beat the deceased with stick on his back, on both sides of his ribs and on his knees. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 that he also went to the house of P.W.5 along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and his brother. 10. P.W.2, wife of the deceased deposed that herself, P.Ws.3, 4 and the deceased went to the house of L.W.5 for settlement of the dispute with regard to her husband eloping the daughter of A1. By that time they found A3 ad A4 were already there. When he woke up P.W.5 told him that he will settle the dispute after 10 days. Meanwhile A1 came there armed with an axe, and hacked the deceased on his head. When her husband tried to escape from the scene, A2 who was also armed with axe hacked him with the said axe on his head. Then the deceased fell on the ground near the threshold. Again A2 hacked her husband with axe on his head, on his left side of the forehead. A3 beat her husband with tappers knife on the right side face. A4 beat his husband with stick on his left hand, on his legs and on his chest. When they raised hues and cries P.W.1 came there. She stated in the cross-examination that ten months prior to his death, her husband deserted her. Police suspected her for the death of her husband and apprehended P.W.1 for moving with Naxalites. P.W.1 was beaten by the police for his planning to murder P.W.5. While she was at the house Modala Saidulu informed them about the death of her husband. By the time they went near the house of P.W.5, they found her husband with injuries struggling for life. P.Ws.3 and 4 also stated that P.Ws.1, 2, themselves and the deceased went to the house of P.W.5 at 05:00 AM. Meanwhile, the accused persons came there and A1 was armed with an axe and hacked the deceased. But in the cross-examination P.W.3 stated that on her coming to know about the death of the deceased she went to Marrigudem. P.W.5 also deposed in similar lines to that of P.W.3 about her witnessing the incident and accompanying the deceased along with P.Ws.2 and 3. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 will not support about their accompanying the deceased and admitted in the cross- examination that on coming to know of the death of the deceased they visited the scene of offence, which falsifies the case of the prosecution about their witnessing the incident. Added to the same, P.W.7 stated that he also witnessed the incident and P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and the deceased came to the house of P.W.5. Then A1 and A2 also came there. A2 beat the deceased with axe 5 or 6 times on his head. A1 beat the deceased with stick on his back. Therefore, his evidence is quiet contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 where they have stated that A2 hacked the deceased with axe first. P.W.6, who was also projected as eyewitness, deposed that when he went near to the house of P.W.5 he found the deceased lying near the rear side door of the house of P.W.5 with injury, which fact has not been corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 in the cross-examination. 12. The crucial evidence to the case of the prosecution is P.W.5, who is an eye witness to the incident deposed in his evidence that while he was sleeping in his house, his farm servant came to him, took the key of the rear side door of his house and within 2 or 3 minutes he came back and informed that a person is lying with bleeding injuries near the rear side door of the house. Then he went there and observed the person lying with a torch light and found that he is the deceased. Then he sent a message to P.W.1 through Pentaiah and again sent a message to P.W.1 through Kotha Lingaiah, since nobody came near the scene of offence he again sent message through Mogurala Saidulu. Then P.Ws.1, 3 and 10 persons came and shifted the deceased into the tractor and took them to the Government Hospital. P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. 13. From the above evidence, it is clear that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence and that the accused hacked the deceased. Further, the evidence of the eyewitnesses is not corroborative. All the eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the lower court after taking into consideration the oral evidence disbelieved the case of the prosecution and in the absence of any evidence we are not persuaded to take a different view than that of the view taken by the lower court. Hence, the judgment of the lower court needs no interference. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J _____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 2ND November, 2011. LMV HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.592 of 2007 (Judgment of the Bench delivered by Sri AGR, J) 01-11-2011 LMV