APHC010164482017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 411/2017 Between: Jampala Kotilingam, Prakasam D The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and three others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. K ARUNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R AVULA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1323/2017 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 411/2017 Jampala Kotilingam, Prakasam District, ...APPELLANT AND ndhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1323/2017 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...APPELLANT AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3528] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT(S) ...APPELLANT 2 Veginati Venkata Subbaiah, Prakasam District & two others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy) As both these appeals arising out of the same Sessions Case, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2. Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed in S.C.No.401 of 2014 by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur, the de facto complainant – PW.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.411 of 2017, whereas the State filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.1323 of 2017. The respondents / A.1 to A.3 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Substance of the charge is that on 27.08.2012 at about 07.00 A.M., A.1 to A.3 quarrelled with one Jampala Yelamanda PW.7 at Tea Bunk situated at East Venkata Puram Village and one Pedda Venkataiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) tried to pacify the quarrel between A.1 to A.3 and PW.7 and in the said process, A.1 took a pestle and attacked the deceased on his head who fell unconscious and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to 3 the injuries in G.G.H. Hospital, Guntur, thereby A.1 to A.3 committed the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. After an elaborate trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused by judgment dated 27.06.2016. 4. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as under: (a) All the three accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of East Venkata Puram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. The deceased also was resident of the same village. PWs 1 & 7 are none other than sons of the deceased. There were ill-feelings between the accused and deceased and also property disputes between them. On 25.08.2012, there was a Circus in the village. During night time, somebody removed electricity fuses and A.2 suspected PW.7 in that regard. With regard to the said issue, A.2 and PW.7 fought with each other and case and counter case were registered against both parties. Subsequently, at the intervention of elders, the matter was compromised. (b) While so, on 27.08.2012 at about 07.00 A.M., PW.7 went to the Tea Stall of PW.10. At that juncture, A.1 to A.3 came there and quarreled with PW.7. The deceased who was standing nearby the Tea Stall and hearing the galata, went there and tried to pacify the matter. Suddenly, A.1 took a pestle and gave one blow on his head and the deceased fell down. Thereafter, all the relatives of the accused about 10 in number beat the deceased with hands and legs indiscriminately. Thereafter, it was informed to PW.1 over phone. Immediately, PW.1 along with his wife PW.6 came to the scene and the 4 accused also beat them. On hearing cries of PW.6, other villagers came to the scene of offence and the accused ran away. Immediately, PW.1 and others shifted the injured to the Community Health Centre, Darsi in a Tractor. After giving first aid, the injured was referred to G.G.H., Guntur. At about 04.15 P.M. on the same day, the injured succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. (c) After receipt of intimation Ex.P6 from the Hospital, PW.19 Head Constable, Darsi Police Station visited the hospital and found the injured in unconscious state. He recorded statement of PW.1 under Ex.P1. He also recorded statement of PW.18 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Darsi. PW.19 returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.122/2012 under Sections 143, 147 and 307 r/w 149 IPC and submitted copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned. F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P8. PW.20 Sub- Inspector of Police, Darsi Police Station received F.I.R. from PW.19 and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence at about 13.30 hours and prepared an observation report Ex.P9 in the presence of PW.15 and another. He also prepared rough sketch Ex.P10 at the scene of offence. He recorded statements of PWs 6 to 10. He remained in the village to control law and order situation. At about 04.30 P.M. on the same day, he received intimation about the death of the deceased. On the basis of the said intimation, he altered section of law to Section 302 IPC. Altered memo is marked as Ex.P12. On 28.08.2012, PW.21 Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He visited the G.G.H., Guntur and held inquest over the dead 5 body in the presence of PW.16 and another. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P13. During the course of inquest, he recorded statements of PWs 1 to 5. He sent the dead body for Postmortem examination. (d) PW.17 Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, conducted Autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to head injury. He issued Postmortem Certificate Ex.P5. (e) PW.21 visited the scene of offence and recorded statements of PWs 6 to 11 and others. He posted the police picket in the village to prevent untoward incident. On 04.09.2012, on credible information, PW.21 arrested A.1 to A.3 at Venkata Chalam Palli Cross road in the presence of PW.15 and another. On the confession made by A1, M.O.1 pestle was recovered from his house situated at East Venkata Puram village. He seized M.O.1 under a cover of Panchanama Ex.P15. A.1 to A.3 were remanded to judicial custody. He sent M.O.1 to R.F.S.L, Guntur for analysis under Ex.P16. On 10.09.2012, he again visited East Venkata Puram Village and recorded statements of PWs 12 to 14. After receiving the Postmortem certificate Ex.P5 and after completion of investigation, PW.21 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 21, marked exhibits P1 to P16 and exhibited M.O.1. 6 6. Disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 27.06.2016, which is impugned in the present Criminal Appeals. 7. Heard Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, Smt. K.Aruna, learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and Sri V.R.Avula, learned Senior Counsel for A.1 to A.3. 8. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 9. PW.7 in his evidence stated as under: “On 25.08.2012 while the circus was going on in the evening some unknown persons removed the current fuses with regard to that A.2 came and questioned me about the removal of fuses and I stated that I don’t know anything about the removal of fuses and he quarreled with me. By that time my deceased father came there and pacified the matter.” PW.1 who is son of the deceased has stated in the same lines that there was a dispute while the circus was going on. Further, in the evidence it is stated that along with A.1 to A.3, Manikonda Rambabu, Manikonda Rama Krishna, Muthineeti Venkateswarlu, Muthineeti Subbulu, Govindamma, Subba Rattamma, Pedda Sheshaiah also participated in the attack. Even in Ex.P1 also, their names have been referred as assailants who attacked the deceased. But, according to the medical evidence, only one injury on the head of the deceased was found which is attributed to A.1 by M.O.1 weapon. The police also after completing the investigation deleted the names of the above persons stating that they have not participated in the said attack. If 7 really about 10 persons attacked the deceased, some more injuries ought to have been found on the body of the deceased. As such, the prosecution party went to the extent of trying to implicate about 11 persons in the said incident. Coming to the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses, in Ex.P1 there was no reference to the previous incident that took place with regard to the removing of electrical fuses while the circus was going on. In Ex.P1, it is stated that as there were disputes earlier with regard to the sharing of water at the agricultural fields, incident took place. But, during the course of trial, the prosecution introduced another story that is circus incident as motive for the accused to attack the deceased. According to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, on 27.08.2012, PW.7 went to the Tea Stall of PW.10 and was taking Tea. At that juncture, A.1 to A.3 came there and quarreled with PW.7. Immediately, the deceased who was also nearby the Tea Stall came and tried to pacify the quarrel. It is also stated in the evidence during the course of trial that at that juncture A.1 dealt one blow on the head of the deceased with a pestle. But in Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that on 27.08.2012 at about 07.15 A.M. the deceased went to the Tea Stall of PW.10 and was taking Tea. At that juncture, all the accused came there and quarreled with the deceased and during the course of quarrel, A.1 dealt one blow on the head of the deceased with a pestle. In the inquest report Ex.P13 also, the same version has been recorded as in Ex.P1. Of course, PW.1 was also shown as witness in the Inquest report. As such, there is lot of variation between the evidence recorded during the course of trial and statements recorded during the course 8 of investigation. The prosecution completely changed their version during the course of trial. They introduced a new motive during the course of trial. Further, the earliest version was that A.1 to A.3 went and quarreled with the deceased while he was taking Tea at the hotel of PW.10. When we come to the evidence, the prosecution version is that A.1 to A.3 quarreled with PW.7 while he was taking tea at the Tea Stall of PW.10 and when the deceased tried to pacify the situation, A.1 dealt one blow on the head of the deceased with a pestle. As such, there is lot of variation during the course of trial. Of course, PW.10 who is the owner of the Tea Stall did not support the prosecution. As such and in view of the above inconsistency, the trial Court disbelieved the version of the prosecution and gave benefit of doubt to the accused. 10. Having analyzed the entire evidence carefully, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and the same do not warrant any interference. 11. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed, confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur, in S.C.No.401 of 2014 vide judgment dated 27.06.2016. 9 As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J _____________ V.SUJATHA, J Date: 07.04.2025 MVA