Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors vs State Of A.P Rep.By Public Prosecutor

2. Prosecution case during trial is essentially as follows:I A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-19 are brothers and A-19 is the Chairman of the Agricultural Market Yard, Pulivendula. The other accused are followers of A-19 and supporters of Telugu Desam Party. The deceased Y.S. Raja Reddy was an Ex-Sarpanch of Pulivendula. PW-1 is the Driver, PW-2 is the Private Body Guard., PWs. 3 and 4 are Carpenters, PWs.5 and 6 are residents of Gondipalli Village of Vemula Mandall and PWs.7 and 8 are residents of Vemula village. In January, 1996, deceased and his followers attacked A-19 and caused grievous injuries to him. Since then A-19 and his associates had decided to do away with the deceased.

On 23-05-1998 the deceased along with PWs.1 to 4 went to his Estate situated at Gandi village in a car. When he was returning to Pulivendula and when the car reached Vemula village, they found stagnation of water on the 2 road near MDO Office. PW-1 slowed down the car to cross the water. At that moment A-1 to A-13, A-16, and A-17 surrounded the car. When A-1 exhorted, the other accused uttered "Kill Raja Reddy" and A-2 hurled a bomb on the deceased and the front glass of the car was broken. A-3 to A- 13, A-16 and A-17 also hurled bombs on the car. The bomb hurled by A-3 hit the head of the deceased and exploded causing blasting of his skull resulting in his instantaneous death. The bombs hurled by the other accused hit the deceased and PWs. 1 to 4. They suffered splinter injuries all over the body and the car was also badly damaged. Due to explosion of bombs, A-5 sustained splinter injuries and fell down unconscious. A-5 was shifted to the house of his uncle by the other accused and PWs 1 to 4 were shifted to Pulivendula hospital for treatment. PW-25, the Head Constable of Pulivendula Police Station, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW-1 at 4.00 PM and forwarded the same to Vemula Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered at 5.45 PM and copies of FIR were sent to all concerned. PW-30, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 9.00 PM to 12.00 midnight and got conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Immediately after inquest PW-32 took up further investigation and arrested the accused 3 on various dates. On surrender of A-15, a judicial confession was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') by PW-17, the then III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah, and the case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and after getting the report and obtaining sanction from the Collector, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 120-B 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 435, 435/149 IPC and Section 3, 5, and 6 of Explosive Act. All the accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. An appeal was preferred by State which as noted above was partially allowed.

4. There were four injured eye witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4. A complaint was given by PW-1 the driver, wherein the names of A-1 to A-13, A-14 and A-19 were mentioned. The same was recorded by PW-25 in the presence of PW-22 the doctor in the Government Hospital. Exh.P-4 is the inquest report which was witnessed by PWs 2 to 4. PW-1 was the driver of the deceased working for nearly four years and PW-2 was the Personal Assistant of the deceased. PWs 3 and 4 were carpenters working near the place of occurrence. The eye witnesses apart from PWs 1 to 4 were PWs 5 and 6 of Gondipalli village and PWs 7 and 8 of Vemula village. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the view taken by the trial Court was a possible view and the High Court should not have interfered with the finding. There was considerable delay in lodging the FIR. The accused belong to different villages and it could not be possible for all of them to assemble at one place with common intention and to attack as they did not have any common motive or prior conspiracy. The so called eye witnesses belong to different villages and their version would not be truthful and reliable. The investigation in the case was tainted and there were several lapses in the process of conducting the investigation. PWs 1 to 4 were members of the deceased's group and, therefore, their evidence could not have been 5 believed. The doctor helped the prosecution as he did not conduct the post mortem examination or the internal examination of the dead body. The dead body was shifted and the injured witnesses also unauthorisedly went out from the scene of offence and there was no reason given.

8. It may be stated that more or less similar provisions were found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Code") which came up for consideration before various High Courts, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as also before this Court. Since in the present appeal, we have been called upon to decide the ambit and scope of the power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal, we have confined ourselves to one aspect only i.e. an appeal against an order of acquittal.

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

41. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be suffering from infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal fails and is dismissed.