THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.306 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant 2. Appellant herein is the State and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are A-1 to A-3, respectively, in Sessions Case No.156 of 2007 3. Aggrieved by the judgment, dated 25.11.2008, passed by the Special Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in Sessions Case No.156 of 2007, acquitting the respondents herein, A-1 to A-3 respectively, of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC”) and Section 3 (2) (v) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the State has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased is husband of P.W-5; that there was enmity between the deceased and A-2 in connection with Panchayath elections held in the years 1995 to 2001; that the deceased won as Gram Sarpanch representing one political group, defeating A-2, who belongs to opposite political group. The other details regarding the motive part are not very relevant. However, suffice to put on record that there was allegedly enmity between the groups of the deceased and A-2. While so, and owing to such strong differences, the accused thought to take revenge on the group belonging to the deceased and in that process, A-2 sought the assistance of A-1 and A-3 to do away with the life of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that in furtherance of their common object, when all the accused saw the deceased getting down from R.T.C. bus at Veldurthy bus-stand, they had a talk with the deceased for about 10 minutes, and at that point of time, P.Ws.7 and 8 allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused; that later, all the accused took the deceased to a wine shop by name Prakash Wine Shop and consumed liquor; that after such consumption, the accused appears to have had a quarrel with the deceased about the Panchayath elections; that P.Ws.11 and 12, who were the Manager and the supplier of the wine shop, respectively, had also enquired about the reason of their quarrel; that subsequently, at about 10 pm., at Nandyal-Nandikotkur cross road, all the accused and the deceased got into the bus proceeding to Nandikotkur, at that point of time, P.W-16 saw the deceased and the accused getting down from the bus at Pesaravai turning; that at about 10.30 pm all the accused took the deceased to K.C.Canal and there, the deceased was fisted on the ribs due to which he died on the spot and his dead body was thrown into the K.C.Canal waters and the accused escaped; that subsequently, upon information, the law was set into motion, investigation was taken up and after completing the other statutory formalities, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused. 5. When the charges under Section 302 IPC alternatively under Section 3 (2)(v) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 201 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15, besides M.Os.1 to 4, on its behalf. On behalf of defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The trial Court, having appreciated the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. The main thrust of the prosecution case is upon the theory of “last seen together” inasmuch as there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. But, unfortunately, the prosecution had relied on the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, who either saw the deceased in the company of the accused consuming liquor at a wine shop namely Prakash wine shop or the deceased getting into an RTC bus proceeding towards Nandikotkur along with the accused or the deceased and the accused getting down from the bus at Pesaravai turning. But, as could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court, all the above said witnesses turned hostile. 9. The theory of “last seen together” though is a substantive piece of evidence, in normal course, the same should be corroborated by other facts and circumstances. But, in the instant case, the crucial witnesses i.e., P.Ws.7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, who were supposed to support the case of the prosecution about the theory of “last seen together”, have turned hostile, the question of taking into consideration any other corroborative piece of evidence does not arise. In other words, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution had been demolished by the declaration of the above said witnesses as hostile and consequently, the case of the prosecution cannot stand on its own legs nor on others. 10. For the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the Criminal Appeal and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 04th February 2010 DR