THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1434 of 2008
26-09-2014
BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.
…..Appellant AND Kolusu Venkataramaiah and Another …..Respondent/accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1434 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 29.06.2007 passed in S.C.No.236 of 2005 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 307 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.1 and A.2 are grand sons of victim woman, P.W.1.
P.W.2 is the son-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.1. It is alleged that A.1 and A.2 on 11-08-2004 at 1.00 a.m. midnight went to thatched hut of the victim woman and tried to commit murder by placing a towel and rope around the neck and squeezed the neck forcibly with an intention to knock away the landed property. When P.W.1, victim woman, gave huge cries, P.Ws.4 and 5 along with others came to the spot. Then A.1 and A.2 escaped by leaving one pair of chappals and towel in the scene of offence and informed the same to P.Ws.2 and 3, who are son-in-law and daughter of the P.W.1. P.W.2 along with P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged a complaint against the accused. A case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused but marked Ex.D.1 to D.3.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, observed as under.
Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that as per Ex.P.12 F.I.R., the Prosecution has shown 5 persons as an accused. But the charge sheet was filed against the accused (A.1 and A.2) only and that this case was foisted against the accused at the instance of P.W.2 only due to civil disputes and further argued that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, A.1 was / Accused(A.1) put a wire around her neck and while Accused(A.2) caught hold both hands and legs, but the report given by P.W.2 did not disclose the same facts in Ex.P.10 and further argued that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, A.1 tried to squeeze the neck of P.W.1 with the help of wire, whereas P.Ws.1 to 3 stated before the police, A.1 tried to squeeze the neck of P.W.1 with a towel which was marked as Ex.D.1 to D.3 and that MOs.1 and 2 are planted for the purpose of this case. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11 is not useful and cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the accused lastly argued that while P.W.1 was sleeping inside her thatched house, her neck was went inside of the Nulakamancham. When she was trying to come out due to fiction of Nulakamancham, she has received injuries on her neck and that taking advantage of that injury, this case was foisted against the accused and that as per Ex.P.15 wound Certificate, there were no injuries around neck of P.W.1. If really, the incident was happened and the accused put a rope around the neck of P.W.1 and pull it certainly, there would be caused a contusion or injury around the neck of P.W.1 and the same was admitted by the medical officer P.W.10. Therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.
As per the evidence of P.W.9, in his cross-examination, it is clear that at first instance, photographs were taken at the hut of P.W.1 by P.W.7 as but the said photographs not visible and there was no permission from the hospital authorities to take photographs of P.W.1 by P.W.7. On the other hand, the said photographs Ex.P.1 to P.4 did not file along with the charge sheet, but it was filed during the course of trial. It is also admitted by P.W.9 in his cross-examination that P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state before him that A.1 pressed the neck of P.W.1 and Accused (A.2) caught hold her legs and hands without moving. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is doubtful with regard to the alleged incident took place on the day of incident and the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 11 is also inconsistent with regarding to the examination of P.W.1 in the Hospital. As per the evidence of P.W.9, he examined P.W.1 on 14-08-2004 and handed over investigation to P.W.11. Whereas, as per the evidence of P.W.11, he received report of P.W.1 and the investigation done by P.W.9 on 13-08-2004 and he examined P.W.1 on 14-08-2004 at Government Hospital, Vijayawada is far from the truth and the Prosecution failed to explain when P.W.9 examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement and later when on which date, P.W.11 took up further investigation and examined P.W.1. It is also admitted by P.W.11 Investigating Officer that P.W.1 stated before him that a towel was put around her neck and tried to kill, but he did not seize the said towel. Therefore, once again, it is made clear from the evidence of P.W.11 that a towel was used for the commission of offence but not wire like M.O.1 and the same was not seized. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inconsistent with regarding to the instrument said to have been used by the accused for commission of offence. In these circumstances, the arguments made by the counsel for the accused is reasonable and convincing and that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused/respondent.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the facts and law in proper perspective, and therefore, there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 26.09.2014 pln