APHC010182622008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.345 OF 2008 Between: The State of AP, Rep. by its PP. ...APPELLANT AND Annapureddi Nagulu and three others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: 1. N SRIHARI The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 07.10.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.582 of 2004 by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder respondents 1 to 3 herein/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and respondent No.4/A4 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 34 and 324 read with 34 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows. i) That on 30.04.2004, at about 01.15 PM, while the de facto complainant (PW.1) was proceeding to his house, situated at Ramireddy Thota, 1st line from Sirisha Roya tent house, Kakani road, Guntur, and when he reached Poleramma temple, situated at 2nd line, Ramireddy thota, Guntur, A1 to A3, armed with deadly weapons, attacked PW.1 on the instigation of A4. A1 was armed with an axe, A2 was armed with a hunting sickle and A3 was armed with a coconut cutting knife. A1 hacked with the axe on the head of PW.1, A2 hacked on the right index finger of PW.1 with hunting sickle and A3 hacked on the left shoulder of PW.1 reversing the coconut cutting knife and inflicted bleeding injuries. PWs.2 to 5 witnessed the incident and all the accused ran away from the scene of offence with the weapons. ii) LW.7 (Vandra Esubabu) and PW.8 took PW.1 to the Government General Hospital, Guntur. PW.9 recorded the statement of PW.1 under Ex.P1, on intimation from Government General Hospital, Guntur out post Police Station, on 30.04.2004, 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 at about 02.30 pm, and basing on the same, registered a case in Crime No.115 of 2004 of Kothapet Law and Order Police Station, Guntur, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and dispatched the original FIR Ex.P7 along with the statement of PW.1 and hospital intimation to the Court and copies of FIR to all concerned. iii) PW.10 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapet Law and Order Police Station, Guntur, took up investigation and examined PWs.1 to 5 and others. He visited the scene of offence in the presence of PW.6 and another and prepared observation report and rough sketch of the scene of offence. He arrested A1 to A3 on 07.05.2004 and seized the weapons from the house of A1 under cover of a mediatornama. A4 was absconding from the date of offence. He examined PW.6 on 10.05.2004 and recorded his statement and sent the material objects to RFSL for analysis and report. PW.7, who treated PW.1, issued wound certificate Ex.P6 and opined that the injuries of PW.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, PW.10 filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 read with 34 IPC. 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 3. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.17 of 2004 on the file of the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, and as the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.17 of 2004 to the Court of Session, Guntur. The said case was numbered as SC No.582 of 2004 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, for disposal according to law. 4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 307 and 324 IPC were framed against A1 to A3 and charges under Sections 307 read with 34 IPC and 324 read with 34 IPC were framed against A4, contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs.1 to 9. 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 7. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined, except marking Ex.D1. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2005 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the accused beat the de facto complainant and caused bleeding injuries and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in discarding the evidence of 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused without any valid reasons. 10. On the other hand, Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4, submitted that two injuries received by the de facto complainant are simple in nature and the Doctor, who was examined as PW.7, has categorically stated that the injuries received by the de facto complainant appear to be self inflicted injuries. He further emphasized that the medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular evidence, since according to him, if really A1 to A3 beat the de facto complainant, in the manner suggested, the de facto complainant might have received more than two injuries. 11. Heard. Perused the record. 12. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 13. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it is held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 14. The prosecution alleged that on 30.04.2004, at about 01.15 PM, while the de facto complainant (PW.1) was proceeding to his house, A1 to A3, at the instigation of A4, armed with deadly weapons, are alleged to have attacked PW.1 and caused injuries to him. PWs.2 to 5 are said to have witnessed the same. PW.9 recorded the statement of PW.1 at about 02.30 PM on the same day. According to the doctor – PW.7, PW.1 received two injuries i.e. (1) an incised wound of 20 x 1 cm over the middle of the scalp and (2) 2 x 1 cms bleeding laceration muscle deep present on right index finger. It was further observed by PW.7 that PW.1 had not attended to X-ray Department, CT brain normal and there was 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 no bony injury. PW.7 opined that the injuries are simple in nature and injury No.1 is possible with a sharp object and injury No.2 is caused by a blunt object. He issued wound certificate Ex.P6. 15. It is pertinent to mention here that when the evidence discloses that all the accused are alleged to have beat PW.1 with axe and sickle, it has to be presumed that sharp edge of axe and sickle would have been used, but on the contrary, the evidence discloses that PW.1 received bleeding injuries over the middle of the scalp and on right index finger. It is not the case of the prosecution that when a sharp edge has been used, PW.1 ought to have received a cut injury or a deep injury. That is not the case herein. Apart from the same, when all the accused are alleged to have attacked PW.1, PW.1 might have received more injuries. But, according to the doctor (PW.7), PW.1 received only two injuries. PW.7 further opined that injury No.2 cannot be caused by a knife or by a hunting sickle and if a person falls on a pointed stone, there is a possibility of receiving injury No.2 and injury No.1 could be caused with pen knife or blade. He further stated that injury Nos.1 and 2 could be caused by self infliction by PW.1. Admittedly, there were differences between the accused and 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 prosecution party. In view of the said disputes, there is a chance of foisting a false case against the accused. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discrepancies in the prosecution case, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the aforesaid charges and acquitted them from the same and this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Dated:20.03.2025. Nsr 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.345 of 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2008 Dated:20.03.2025 Nsr