APHC010765672018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3578] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2856 of 2018 Between: 1. GUNUSETTI JANAKAMMA @ MEERA, W/O DEVADASU @ DHARMADU, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOUR, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...APELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ICHAPURAM P.S., SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. VALAPALA SYAMALA RAO, S/O DANDASI, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. 3. VALAPALA NIRANJAN, S/O DANDASI, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. 4. VALAPALA THUMBANADHAM, S/O DANDASI, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. 5. VALAPALA GOPAL, S/O DANDASI, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. 6. VALAPALA DANDASI, S/O LATE BANKAYYA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O PAITHARI VILLAGE, ICHAPURAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPODENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant: 2 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K MANIK PRABHU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, in S.C.No.40 of 2015 dated 14.08.2018, the defacto complainant-P.W.1 preferred the present appeal. 2. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein/A1 to A5 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:- The first charge was under Section 302 IPC against A1 to A5, the second charge was under Section 147 IPC against A1 to A5, the third charge was under Section 148 read with 149 IPC against A1 to A5 and the fourth charge was under Section 114 IPC against A5. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 20.02.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and A1 to A4, on the instigation of A5, attacked one Gunisetti Devadas @ Dharmadu (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟), due to previous disputes and caused severe injuries with deadly weapons at Koligam Village within the limits of Ichapuram Rural Police Station, causing his death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 r/w 149 and 114 IPC. 4. After completion of trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent Nos.2 to 6/A1 to A5. Aggrieved thereby, the defacto complainant-P.W.1 filed the present appeal. 5. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:- 4 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 (i) The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Paithari Village, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District. The deceased was also resident of the same village. The deceased had earlier married one Dhillamma, who developed adulterous relationship with A5 and subsequently committed suicide. After the death of Dhillamma, the deceased married P.W.1. In that regard, there were disputes between the deceased on one side and the accused on the other side. On one occasion, the decreased attacked A5 with a weapon and caused injury to his head. A panchayat was held in that regard and elders imposed a penalty of Rs.30,000/- on the deceased towards medical expenses of A5. Since then, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. Due to fear and apprehending danger to his life, the deceased migrated to Goa. (ii) While so, prior to the date of incident, the deceased returned to his village to attend the betrothal function of his cousin. On the morning of 20.02.2013, the deceased went to Bahuda River, took bath and was returning home. Having noticed the same, the accused, who were waiting for an opportunity, concealed themselves underneath the culvert over Dasgai water channel near Koligam village and when the deceased arrived near the culvert at about 10.30 a.m., A1 to A4 attacked the deceased with deadly weapons on the instigation of A5. The deceased tried to escape by running away through the land of one Narsinga Behara of Bodabada Village. At that time, A1 to A4 attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused severe injuries. At that juncture, the accused noticed P.W.5 proceeding through the road on a bicycle and fled from the scene under the impression that the deceased died. Two unknown persons also arrived near the deceased. Then, P.W.5, with the help of those two unknown persons, shifted the 5 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 deceased to a nearby banyan tree and provided him water. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital in 108 ambulance. Having received the information, P.W.1 and others also went to the scene of offence and accompanied the deceased to the hospital. (iii) At about 1.30 p.m. on 20.02.2013, P.W.16 – Sub Inspector of Police, Ichapuram Rural Police Station, received intimation from the Community Health Centre, Ichapuram. Having received the said intimation, P.W.16 went to the said Community Health Centre and found the deceased in conscious state. He recorded the statement of the deceased, which is marked as Ex.P16. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to MKCG Hospital, Berhampur. Thereafter, P.W.16 returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2013 under Sections 307, 147 and 148 read with 149 I.P.C. He issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. The said F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P17. On the same day at about 2.30 p.m., P.W.16 went to MKCG Hospital and seized the bloodstained clothes of the deceased – M.Os.1 and 2 under a panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the hospital. On the same day at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.16 went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P12 in the presence of mediators. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, marked as Ex.P18. He also seized the bloodstained earth and controlled earth at the scene of offence. He also seized M.O.3-iron pipe at the scene of offence under a panchanama. (iv) While so, on 21.02.2013 at about 2.00 p.m., A1 to A5 approached P.W.6 and confessed about the commission of offence. P.W.6 produced A1 to A5 before P.W.16. Of course, P.W.6 did not 6 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 support the prosecution case and he was declared as hostile. P.W.16 recorded the confession statement of A1 to A5 in the presence of mediators and signed the same, which is marked as Ex.P21. Thereafter, he arrested A1 to A5, who were remanded to judicial custody. (v) While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 23.02.2013. Thereafter, P.W.1 approached P.W.16 and gave a report - Ex.P1. On the basis of the said report, P.W.16 altered the Section of law from 307 IPC to 302 IPC. Altered F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P24. He issued copies of altered F.I.R. to all the concerned. (vi) Further investigation was taken over by Mr. Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police (L.W.24). L.W.24, having taken up investigation, visited the hospital and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. As L.W.24 was no more, he could not be examined. (vii) P.W.18- Doctor, MKCG Hospital, Berhampur, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He found as many as twelve injuries over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to “shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries and their complications”. He issued Post-Mortem Report - Ex.P31. (viii) After securing all the documents and after completion of investigation, L.W.24 filed charge sheet. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to P31 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of defence, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. 7. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them. 7 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 8. As there is no legal evidence to connect the accused with the commission of alleged offences, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, who are respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein. 9. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the appellant/defacto complainant, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State, and Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6/A1 to A5. 10. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 11. As seen from the material on record, absolutely there are no eye- witnesses to the alleged incident. P.W.1-wife of the deceased admittedly is not an eye-witness. The prosecution projected P.W.5 as an eye-witness to the incident. But, P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and he was declared as hostile. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, the only material available for the prosecution is the so-called dying declaration - Ex.P16 recorded by P.W.16 - S.I. of Police, Ichapuram Rural Police Station. P.W.16, in his evidence, has stated that at about 1.30 p.m. on 20.02.2013, he received intimation from the Community Health Centre, Ichapuram, and thereafter, he proceeded to the said Community Health Centre and recorded Ex.P16-statement of the deceased. P.W.16 further stated that he has obtained certification from the attending doctor on Ex.P16 regarding the mental fitness and consciousness of the deceased at the time of recording the statement. Though P.W.16 has obtained certification from the doctor, the prosecution did not choose to examine the said doctor to prove the endorsement made on Ex.P16. Further, though the incident took place on 20.02.2013, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the morning of 23.02.2013. Though the 8 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 deceased was alive for a period of three days, P.W.16 did not choose to get his statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate who were available at the same station. No explanation is forthcoming for not recording the statement of the deceased either by the Judicial Magistrate or by the Executive Magistrate. 12. Thus, except the uncorroborated statement – Ex.P16 recorded by P.W.16, there is no other ocular evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences. Further, the prosecution went to the extent of implicating all male family members of A5. Though as many as 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, none of them witnessed the alleged incident. As already pointed out, P.W.5, who was shown as an eye-witness to the incident, did not support the prosecution case. 13. Having analyzed the entire evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the only material available on record is the uncorroborated statement - Ex.P16 recorded by P.W.16 – S.I. of Police. As such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly did not place any reliance on Ex.P16. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be perverse or unreasonable, and there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded in favour of the accused. 14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 6/A1 to A5 vide judgment dated 14.08.2018 in Sessions Case No.40 of 2015 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 9 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Dt. 16.06.2026 IBL 10 KSR,J & CGR,J Crl.A.No.2856 of 2018 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Criminal Appeal No.2856 of 2018 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy) Date: 16.06.2026 IBL