HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.1763 of 2009 And
Criminal R.C. No.794 of 2008
Between:
Crl.Appeal No.1763 of 2009
The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
And Anchula Narasimha Rao and others Appellant/Petitioner Respondents/Accused
Crl.R.C. No.794 of 2008
Namala Koteswara Rao And Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Anchula Narasimha Rao and others Respondents/Accused.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL
Criminal Appeal No.1763 of 2009 And
Criminal R.C. No.794 of 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble GC, J)
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Public Prosecutor and the Criminal R.C. No.794 of 2008 is filed by one Namala Koteswara Rao, defacto complainant, against the judgment dated 25.02.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.289 of 2005 by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur. Since the above said two cases are filed against the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2) Brief case of the prosecution is that on 15.01.2004 at about 5 pm., one Namala Koteswara Rao, P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, lodged a complaint with Rajupalem Police Station alleging that there are two faction groups headed by Anchula Radha Krishnamurthy, A-21, to whom accused are supporters and another group is headed by Thota Mohanarao and from 1995, there were frequent quarrels between these two groups and number of criminal cases were registered.
3) Further, it is alleged that on 15.01.2004 at about 11 am., one Nukala Venkateswarlu @ Chinnabbai, A-2, came in drunken condition and abused near the house of Kadiyam Ramana, P.W.-4, who objected and questioned why he is abusing without any purpose. Then A-2 picked up quarrel with P.W.4 and in the meanwhile, elders came and pacified the matter and sent them away. Thereafter, A-2, being offended came at 12 noon with A-1 and A-3 to A-26, armed with deadly weapons like axes, knives and country-made bombs, raided on the house of P.W.4 and caused damage to the household articles and injuries to the inmates. Further, A-6 to A-8 beat Kadiyam Chilakamma, P.W.5, mother of P.W.4. When Bandela Koteswara Rao, P.W.8, tried to prevent Anchula Pothuraju, A-5, beat him with a stick and caused injury to the right index finger, which was witnessed by Kadiyam Sreelaxmi, P.W.7, wife of P.W.4 and Thota Venkaiah, P.W.9.
4) Thereafter, having not satisfied, accused proceeded to the house of Bandela Koteswara Rao, P.W.8, and Galabha Narayana; A-7, hurled country- made bombs at the house of P.W.8, and caused damage to the house wall. Then Anchula Narasimharao, A-1, Anchula Ramarao, A-4, Anchula Srinivasarao, A-8, Anchula Venkateswarlu @ Swamy, A-9, Thaviti Venkataramaiah, A-10, Thaviti Kondalu, A-11, Dabburi Subbarao, A-12, axed on the door of P.W.8 and caused damage to the pail, which was witnessed by Bandela narasamma, P.W.10, Thota Busi, P.W.11. It is further alleged that the accused continued their raid and went to the house of Vepuri Narayana Swamy, P.W.12, and caused damage to his house, which was witnessed by Vepuri Subbulu, P.W.13, wife of P.W.12.
5) It is further alleged that at that time Namala Narsaiah, deceased, was going to the fields and when he reached the road, A-1 to A-3 and A-5 and A-6 attacked the deceased with sticks indiscriminately and the decesased sustained multiple bleeding injuries on the vital organs and collapsed on the road itself near the house of P.W.8. When P.W.8 tried to prevent the attack, A-7 hurled a bomb on the house of P.W.8 and caused damage to the house. It is further stated that A-4, A-8 and A-9 under the leadership of A-1, A-10 and A-11 trespassed into the house of P.W.8 and broke open the doors with the axes damaged pail in front of his house.
6 ) Further, P.W.1, P.W.2 and Namala Nageswararao, L.W.3 (subsequently died) went to the deceased and in the meanwhile, A-1, A-4, A- 5, Anchula Srinivasarao, A-18 and Anchula Seshagirirao A-19 beat P.W.2 and L.W.3 with sticks and caused bleeding injuries and thereafter the entire mob proceeded towards the house of Vepuri Swamy Sankar, P.W.14, and A- 6, A-8, A-10, Anchula Vasu, A-13, A-19, Anchula Srinivasarao, A-20, and Anchula Venkaiah, A-17 attacked the house of P.W.14 and caused damage, while so A-3, A-10, A-19, A-21, Nukala Srinivasarao, A-25 and A-26 raided the house of P.W.15 and caused damage to his household articles, which was witnessed by P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, Vepuri Narayanamma, L.W.16, P.W.15, Kadiyam Ramana, L.W.18 and Kadiyam Venkata Narasamma, L.W.19. A-3 hurled country made bomb on the house of P.W.14 and again A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-10, A-11 and A-13 raided the house of Basivela Venkateswarlu, P.W.17 and caused damage and at that time, the bomb hurled by A-3 exploded and splinter hit on Palakaluri Narayana @ Thota Narayana, P.W.26, who sustained injuries, which was witnessed by Basivela Venkateswarlu, L.W.22, Basivela Adinarayana, L.W.27, Perumalla Sampurnamma, P.W.21, Anchula Nambarumallu, P.W.22, Balabha Srinivasarao, P.W.23, Thota Sambasivarao, L.W.31 and Vepuri Narayanarao, P.W.24. Then the deceased was taken to Piduguralla for treatment and as the doctor advised him to take Sattenapalli, he was taken to Sattenapalli where the doctor declared him dead and the complaint was given by P.W.1.
7) The said complaint was registered as Crime No.1 of 2004. The C. I. of Police investigated into the case, conducted inquest, made observation of scene of offences and sent the dead body to post-mortem, and the injured to the hospital. On 23.01.2004, A-7 was arrested in the presence of mediators by name Rayapati Veeraiah, P.W.30 and Nune Yacob, P.W.38, and through A-7 other accused were also apprehended, who made confession, leading to seizure of country made bombs and also the sticks used in the commissions of the offence and they were seized and after obtaining sanction orders from the District Magistrate, the C.I. of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused.
8) The charge sheet was numbered as PRC.5/05 and after accused appeared, documents were supplied. As the case under Section 302 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court, which was numbered as S.C.289/05.
9) When the accused appeared before the trial Court, charges under Section 148 against all the accused, under Section 302 IPC against A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-6, and charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC against other accused, charge under Section 327 IPC against all accused, charge under Section 427 and 452 IPC for seven counts, charge under Section 324 IPC read with 149 for causing injury to Namala Venkaiah and another charge under Section 324 IPC on the same lines for causing injury to Namala Nageswararao, charge under Section 324 IPC against A- 5, A-16, A-17 for causing injury to Kadiyam Chilakamma, P.W.5, and charge under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against all the accused, charge under Section 325 IPC against A-15 to A-17 for causing grievous injury to Kadiyam Chilakamma, P.W.5, charge against rest of the accused for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 IPC, charge under Section 324 IPC against A-5 for causing injury to Thota China Venkateswarlu, charge under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against rest of the accused, charge under Section 3 Explosive and Substance Act against Galabha Narayana, A-7, under two counts and under Section 3 read with 149 of IPC against rest of the accused for the said two counts and charge under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act against A-7 for two counts and charge under Section 5 read with 149 of IPC against rest of the accused were framed and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10) Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 and also marked M.Os.1 to 8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not let in any evidence, however, they filed certified copies of FIR in Crime No.2/2004, wherein one Vepuri Sambasiva Rao said to have given another complaint on the next day i.e. 16.01.2004 to the effect that incident like the present took place at about 11.15 am., near his residence and depositions, charge sheet and another FIR in Crime No.4/2004 given by Thaviti Chennamma wife of Thaviti Venkataramaiah, A-10 on 18.01.2004, with regard to incident said to have taken place on 15.01.2004 at about 11 am., alleging that the people belonging to Thota Mohana Rao group came and attacked them with deadly weapons including bombs. In addition to this, during the course of cross examination of witnesses P.Ws.4, 6, and 15, the contradictions, in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
11) Based on the above allegations, the trial Court framed the following points for its determination:
“1) Whether the incident between A-1 and P.W.4 took place in the first instance?
2) Whether subsequently at 12 noon of the accused came armed with deadly weapons and attacked different persons and caused injuries and death on the deceased with regard to the respective charges?”
12) After hearing both sides, the Court below came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not free from any doubt, and the very genesis of the incident, the manner, and the circumstances in which the incident took place cannot connect to the manner in which the incident took place, as per the version of the prosecution, and thus the accused would be entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal. Assailing the said acquittal of the accused, present cases have been filed.
13) The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 consistently stated that A-1 had attacked on the deceased with knife, which resulted in the death of the deceased. She also submitted that the medical evidence corroborates with the statements of the P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6.
She submitted that P.Ws.9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 23 have stated that when the deceased was going to the fields, A-1 attacked with knife on the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, though it is a faction issue, several specific overt acts are attributed. Therefore, the Court below erred in acquitting the accused, particularly A-1 for the offences levelled against him.
14) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 cannot be said to be consistent, and it is not corroborated with the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.26. He also submitted that the statement of the P.Ws.9, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20 are similar to each other and therefore, the said statements of the witnesses cannot be relied upon. In that view of the matter, the Court below had rightly considered the evidence on record and held that the charges levelled against the accused are not proved. He further submitted that viewing from any angle, the charges levelled against the accused are not proved and therefore, the Court below had rightly acquitted the accused.
Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by the Court below.
15) The learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that the Court below had erred in not considering the evidence on record properly. Therefore, the Court below committed a serious error in acquitting the accused.
16) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity? And whether the Court below has committed any error in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against them.
17) The main case of the prosecution is that at about 11 am., A-2 came near the house of P.W.4 in drunken condition and was abusing the people belonging to other group of the faction. With the involvement of the elders, A-2 went away from the place and again at about 12 noon he came back with all the accused armed with deadly weapons like axes, bombs etc., and attacked the house of P.W.4 and thereafter, attacked on the deceased with knife, which resulted in the death of the deceased and also made the attack.
18) In view of the said alleged attack, the Police registered a case and levelled the charges under the relevant Sections for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
19) Admittedly, it is a faction case. As could be seen from the judgment rendered by the Court below, it has considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses, including the evidence of the Doctor, and found that there is no corroboration in between them. As could be seen from the statements of the witnesses, which are in stereotype to the effect that A-1 had caused injury with knife on the deceased. Though the statements of the witnesses are consistent but they are in stereotype and the said statements are not corroborated with the doctor’s evidence and further, no overt act has been proved beyond the reasonable doubt.
20) Though the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that insofar as A-1 is concerned, there is specific and consistent evidence to the effect that A-1 attacked the deceased with a knife and caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, A-1 is liable for punishment under the charges levelled against him.
It is pertinent to note here that the evidence of the Doctor ultimately shows that the injury is a blunt injury, which is not possible with a knife. Apart from that the evidence of the Doctor is not corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses.
21) In view of the above all, we are of the view that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment as it is not being suffered from any legal infirmity and therefore, Criminal appeal and R.C. are liable to be dismissed.
22) In the result, both the Criminal appeal and the Criminal R.C., are dismissed. The material objects shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Date: 02.06.2014
LSK