IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.613 of 2009 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Lavudu Somanna Dora and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No.336 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, dated 16-01- 2002, by which accused 1 to 13 and 15 to 17 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 325, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). (The case against the 14th accused, who died, was recorded as abated). 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Rural police station ﬁled the charge sheet in crime No.130 of 1997 against 17 accused alleging that in K.C. Mallavaram, there were two factions headed respectively by Annamreddi Venkata Ramana, Sarpanch, and Annamreddi Tatayya Naidu. The accused and the injured belong to the respective factions and on 07-10-1997 at about 8 P.M. when Devatha Nageswara Rao, a fair price shop dealer, was selling sugar to a private kirana shop owner secretly, Surla Bodiyya, Surla Satyanarayana and others belonging to the group of Annamreddi Tatayya Naidu caught hold of him and the sugar was entrusted to the Village Administrative Oﬃcer. On the next day at about 6.30 A.M., members of the Sarpanch’s group attacked Surla Gangunaidu and Sominaidu near Ramalayam and injured them. When Surla Satyanarayana and 11 others were returning after sending the injured to the hospital, at about 10.30 A.M. all the accused armed with sticks and stones attacked them near cinema hall of the Sarpanch. All the 12 persons were injured and when they went to Tuni Rural police station, the statement of Surla Satyanarayana was registered as crime No.130 of 1997. The 14th accused, who sustained injuries, died, in respect of which crime No.129 of 1997 was registered and hence, the charge. 3. On the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni taking cognizance of the oﬀences and recording abatement of the case against the 14th accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused when they entered appearance. The case was committed to the Court of Session in P.R.C. No.9 of 1998 and the Court of Session made it over to III Additional Sessions Court, Kakinada. The case was transferred to the trial Court by the orders of the High Court and to the charges under Sections 147, 148, 325, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC framed against them earlier, accused 1 to 13 and 15 to 17 pleaded not guilty. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and D.1 to D.7 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they produced no further defence evidence, except a copy of charge sheet filed in crime No.129 of 1997. 4. The trial Court rendered its judgment ﬁrstly noting that crime No.129 of 1997 was registered against 22 persons, among whom the 1st accused later died and in which case the present accused 1 and 12 were witnesses. The trial Court noted the two incidents to have taken place at diﬀerent places and observed P.Ws.1 to 11, who are injured, to be the relations and henchmen of Annamreddi Tatayya Naidu. The trial Court noted that the scene of oﬀence was shown to be the open place in front of the house of Surla Rambabu to the East of the house of Narayana Murthy at a distance of 50 to 60 yards from the road. The trial Court found that P.W.16, the Investigating Oﬃcer, stated the scene to be at the house of Narayana Murthy, while the prosecution case is about the same being on the road to the West of a cinema hall. The trial Court also noted that P.W.1, the complainant, was one of the accused in S.C. No.193 of 1998 and does not even know what was mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. P.Ws.2 to 11 are also accused in S.C. No.193 of 1998 and none of the injured gave any report to the Village Administrative Oﬃcer residing near the scene. Independent persons were stated to have accompanied the injured, but they were not examined. The only independent witness examined was P.W.12 who turned hostile and he claimed to be not knowing P.Ws.1 to 10. The presence of some of the people who are residing at China Boddupalli was also referred to and from the evidence of medical oﬃcer about the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 11, it was also extracted that accused 1, 6, 9, 15 and 16 were also examined by P.W.13 for their injuries with some injuries being grievous. The trial Court observed that all the witnesses are close relatives of the faction leader Tatayya Naidu opposed to the group of the Sarpanch and admittedly, some of the accused sustained injuries on the same day at the same time, which is the subject of S.C. 193 of 1998. While no incriminating material was available at the scene of oﬀence, the trial Court also noted about the delay in lodging the ﬁrst information report with the police and the ﬁrst information report reaching the Magistrate. The evidence of the interested witnesses, uncorroborated by independent witnesses in spite of their availability was not acted upon and coming to the speciﬁc charges, the trial Court found that none of the witnesses alleged any intention on the part of any accused to kill any of the victims and the medical evidence also does not disclose any injury suﬀered by anybody to be suﬃcient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The oﬀence under Section 307 of IPC was, hence, considered not proved and due to non- recovery of any sticks or stones allegedly used by the unlawful assembly, the oﬀences under Sections 148 and 325 of IPC were also considered not proved. In the absence of proof of any common object between the 17 accused, even the oﬀence under Section 147 of IPC was doubted and if the accused were found to be the aggressors, they have no right to exercise any right of private defence. The trial Court found that the sequence of events showed that the accused were not the aggressors and consequently, the trial Court gave beneﬁt of doubt to the accused and acquitted them, while recording abatement of the case against the 14th accused. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the State through the learned public prosecutor preferred the present appeal contending that the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 could not have been disregarded, more so in view of the corroboration provided by medical evidence and there was no shifting of the scene of oﬀence as opined by the trial Court. Mere interestedness of the witnesses cannot lead to the evidence being thrown out and there was no delay in giving the ﬁrst information report with any delay being properly explained by the prosecution. The conclusion that the accused were not the aggressors was incorrect and hence, the acquittal is requested to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor and Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents/accused. 7. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel produced a copy of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2002, dated 27-04-2005 ﬁled by the accused convicted in S.C. No.193 of 1998. In the said criminal appeal, the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court were conﬁrmed by this Court and the judgment in the criminal appeal has admittedly become final. 8. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of accused 1 to 13 and 15 to 17 is liable to be reversed on any strong and convincing reasons ? 9. Point: The judgment in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2002 by this Court showed that the speciﬁc defence of the accused therein was about their being attacked by the other group leading to the present case. The learned Judge speciﬁcally referred to the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court in this case and on the evidence placed before the Court in the other case, concluded that though some of the accused therein also received injuries, there was no question of the prosecution failing to explain the injuries found on the accused due to the positive evidence analysed in detail. In the said judgment, the conclusion of the learned Judge was that accused 8 and 9 cannot escape their liability for causing fatal injuries on the head of the deceased and the other convicted accused cannot escape their liability for causing grievous hurt. It may be noted that the accused convicted therein include P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and 8 lending credence to the conclusion of the trial Court in this case that the prosecution party herein were the aggressors and the group of the accused including the deceased were the aggrieved. 10. As noted by the trial Court, P.W.12 was the only independent witness examined by the prosecution and in view of his running a coﬀee hotel near the cinema hall, he may be a natural witness to any incident. But he claimed ignorance as to how any of the witnesses or the accused received any injuries and he claimed to be unconnected with any group in the village. The hostility of such neutral person may speak volumes of the credibility of the prosecution story loaded with various contradictions and discrepancies between P.Ws.1 to 11, the allegedly injured witnesses. The investigation by P.W.16 admittedly revealed about at least eight of the accused receiving injuries during the incident, out of whom the 14th accused died and P.W.16 positively stated that P.Ws.1 to 11 are accused in S.C. No.193 of 1998 as admitted by the said witnesses also and it is signiﬁcant that while the 14 th accused in this case received such injuries as to lead to his death, none of the injured witnesses herein received any injuries, which in the ordinary and natural course would have been suﬃcient to cause death or likely to cause death. The evidence of the medical oﬃcer as P.W.13 is also not about any injury received by any of the injured being of such a serious magnitude and the injuries on the persons of accused 1, 6, 8, 9, 15 and 16 received at about the same time were the subject of Exs.D.2 to D.7 certiﬁcates issued by P.W.13 on examination of the said persons and the comparison of the injuries sustained by both sides may not lead to any probability of the accused party being the aggressors. 11. Admittedly, there were two factions in the village with the accused and the witnesses belonging to the respective factions and the very sequence of events that led to this case and S.C. No.193 of 1998 may show such strained relationship between the two groups as to make looking for independent corroboration for the claims of partisan witnesses a matter of prudence and reasonableness. While it is not necessary to replicate the various contradictions between P.Ws.1 to 11 about the scene, time and manner of oﬀence, the elaborate reasoning adopted by the trial Court is based on sound logic and does not appear susceptible to any second view. 12. The hostility of the only independent witness, the comparative gravity of the injuries sustained by the accused party than the prosecution party, the conclusion of guilt of the accused in S.C. No.193 of 1998 conﬁrmed in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2002, the absence of seizure of the alleged weapons of oﬀence and the other circumstances stated in detail by the trial Court justify the extension of beneﬁt of reasonable doubt to the accused, not calling for any interference in the appeal. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-11-2011 Svv