IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARA WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARChRgV^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1318 OF 2017 Criminal Appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C against the judgment made in SC.No.383/13 dated 8.8.17 on the file of the Court of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. Between: Vadia Lakshmi Dev, W/o. Late V.Rama Chari R/o. Chinnakandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District. ...APELLANT AND Peddi Reddy Konda Reddy, S/o. Narasimha Reddy, R/o. CHinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.(AI) Ambati Kondupalli Krishna Reddy @ Kittu, S/o. Veera Reddy, R/o. CHinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.(A3) Kasana Konda Reddy @ Chinna Konda Reddy @ Konda, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, R/o. CHinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.(A4) Yeggoni Yesanna, S/o. Devasahayam, R/o. CHinna Kandukuru Village, Allagadda Mandal, Kurnool District.(A5) Guddeti Ram Manohar Reddy @ Manohar Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Owner of Highway Dhaba, NH 44, Chagalamarri Village and Mandal, Kurnool District (A6) Byreddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Venkateswara Reddy, R/o. Jambuladinne Village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Kurnool District.(A7) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. .«/ rw v'f" ■ Nr- -j The State of A.P., Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad Accused 1,3 to 7/Respondents. Counsel for the AppellantiSRI. P VENGALA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.7; THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.3; SRI P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT F' APHC010859592017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3528] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1318/2017 Between: Vadia Lakshmi Dev ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) peddi Reddy Konda Reddy And 6 Others and Others counsel for the Appellant: 1.PVENGALA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.P NAGENDRA REDDY The Court made the following: fiinGMENT: (PerHon’bleSmt. Justice V. Sujatha) Questioning judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, in S.C.No.383/2013, dated 08.08.2017, complainant (P.W.1) fiied the present appeai. A1 and A3 to A7 the dofdcto were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges. 2 KSR,J&VS,J I, Crla_1318_2017 The first charge was under Section 148 IPC against A1 and A3 to A7, The second charge A1 and A3 to A7. was under Section 302 read with 149 IPC against 2- Substance of the charge the accused formed sickles, with Ramachari (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to AJ-8989, dashed the D2 were travelling - Chinnakandukuru road their death, thereby committed with 149 IPC. is that on 22.03.2012 at about 06.30 assembly, armed with sticks, away with the lives of p m., all into an unlawful axes and a common object to do one Vadia as D1) and Vadia Shankarachari referred to as D2), boarded a Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-16- motor cycle bearing No.AP-21 -R-4298 on which D1 and near S.V. A/c Warehouse Godowns and attacked them with offence under Sections 148 situated on Allagadda deadly weapons causing and 302 IPC read (a) After completion of acquitted the appeal. Case trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge present criminal even before framing of the accused by the judgment impugned in the against A2 is abated as he died Charges. 3. Case of the prosecution, prosecution witnesses in brief is as follows: as emanated from the evidence of the 3 ■#r KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1318_2017 A1 to A5 are residents of Chinna Kandukuru Village. A6 is a resident of Chagalamarri Village and A7 is a resident of R. Jammuldinne village. Both the deceased were also residents of Chinna Kandukuru village and they are brothers. There is a political rivalry between A1 and D1. D1 was affiliated to Congress party whereas, A1 was affiliated to YSR Congress party in Chinna Kandukuru village. It has become an eyesore for A1, as D1 became of A6 with P.W.7. (i) popular leader. D1 performed marriage between A6 and his wife (P.W.7). In the said a more Subsequently, disputes arose dispute, D1 supported P.W.7. Hence, A6 bore grudge against D1. As such, all the accused decided to eliminate D1. While so, on the morning of 22.03.2012, D1 and D2 attended a meeting at market yard, Allagadda, as D1 is one of the directors of the market committee. On the same day, in the evening, D1 and D2 were returning to their village from Allagadda. P.W.1, who is the wife of D1, along with her brother (L.W.2) was also returning to their village after purchasing provisions for Ugadi festival. At about 06.30 p.m., when the two wheeler on which both the deceased were travelling reached S.V. A/c Warehouse Godowns, all the (ii) accused came in a Bolero jeep from behind and dashed against their to which both the deceased fell down. Immediately, all the and hacked both the deceased and her brother, who were following both the motorbike due accused got down from the jeep indiscriminately. P.W.1 ksr,j&vs,j ^ Crla_1318_2017 deceased, saw the attack, and all the accused fled D1 died Allagadda, where he Police station and received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 Immediately, they rushed to the scene of offence away from the scene by leaving the Bolero vehicle, and her brother shifted D2 on the spot and P.W.1 to hospital at was declared dead. Immediately, P.w.1 P.W.14 - Head Constable went to the gave a report to the Police. and registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2012 issued copies of FIRs - Inspector of Police. S.l. of Police, to read with 149 IPC. He i to all the concerned. FIR is marked having received the i as Ex.P.13. P.W.17 information, instructed P.W.15 - secure mediators for inquest of D2. Accordingly, P.w.15 held i body of D2 in the presence of P.Ws.11 inquest over the dead and 12. Inquest report pertaining to D2 03.2012, P.W.17 held inquest over the dead m., in the presence of P.Ws.11 was marked as Ex.P.14. On 23 body of D1 between 06.00 and 12. Inquest report a.m. and 08.30 a. pertaining to D1 completion of inquest, both the dead was marked as Ex.P.17. After bodies were sent to Government hospital for postmortem examination. P.W.16 College conducted autopsy death was due to intracranial Assistant Professor, Kurnool over the dead body ofDI. He Medical opined the cause of bleeding resulting from head injury. He issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.15) conducted autopsy over the dead body of D2 pertaining to D1. On the ■ He opined the same day, he cause of death I 5 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1318 2017 due to shock due to hemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries. He was issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.16) pertaining to D2. P.W.17 visited the scene of offence and prepared an observation report which is marked as Ex.P.18. He also prepared rough sketch (Ex.P.19) at the scene of offence. He also seized the motorcycle and Bolero Jeep at the of offence. On 24.03.2012, he recorded statements of P.Ws.2, 3, 6, 8 and others. On 28.03.2012, he arrested all the accused. On the confession made by the accused, he seized M.0.2 — sticks, M.0.4 - axes and two sickles under a panchanama vide Ex.P.21. The accused were remanded to judicial custody. He forwarded the material objects to RFSL. Ex.P.20 is the report of RFSL. After receiving all the documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. (iii) scene 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17, marked exhibits PI to P22 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and exhibits B.1 to B.5 were marked. When the examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating material appearing against them. accused were 5. Disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted all the accused, against which the present appeal was preferred by P.W.1. 6 KSR,J & VS,J ^ Crla_1318_2017 6. Heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence to 3, who were present at the scene of offence of P.Ws.1 was not properly appreciated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as the trial was commenced nearly after 5 years from the date of commission of the offence, there are certain minor discrepancies and omissions their examination. Further, reliance on the part of P.Ws.1 to 3 during was placed on a judgment in Dandamuri Krishna and others Vs. State of/l.P.,'wherein this Court held that minor discrepancies or omissions bound to accrue even in a case of truthful witness contradictions and omissions when thrived nature, would not affect the main fabric of prosecution case. He further argued that when the occurrence is such occurrence is immaterial and irrelevant. When there is a conflict between medical evidence and direct evidence, the latter prevails evidence is just an opinion, which the trial such, requested to allow the appeal. proved through direct eye witnesses, the motive behind over the former as the medical court ought to have appreciated. As 8. On the other hand, Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned accused opposes the appeal contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to their presence at the doubtful and would not inspire confidence of the Court. counsel for the scene of offence and witnessing the incident is The learned Additional 2013(2)ALD(Crl.)92 7 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1318 2017 Sessions Judge, after conglomeration and perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly determined that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the incident. The prosecution has also failed to explain as to why there is delay in giving report to the police and in forwarding the FIR to the concerned Court. With regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they were present at the scene of offence, learned counsel states that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in their evidence and the same cannot be relied on to come to a conclusion that they have actually witnessed the incident, as such, the trial Court has rightly rejected to place reliance on the same. Besides aii the inconsistencies P.Ws.10 to 13, who are the alleged panchayathdhars for arrest, seizure and observation, did not support the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. In the absence of their individual examination, the arrest and seizure cannot be believed to be truthful. Observing thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused for the alleged offences, under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. The case 9. of the prosecution is that on 22.03.2012, both the deceased were returning home after attending a meeting at Allagadda and when they reached S.V. Warehouse Godowns which is situated on Allagadda - Chinnakandukur road. 8 KSR,J & VSJ Cria 1318 2017 A1 to A7, by forming into an unlawful assembly armed with sticks, axes and sickles, dashed the motorcycle on which both the deceased were travelling. with a Bolero jeep and when the deceased fell down, attacked them with hunting sickles and knives resulting in the death of the deceased. During the course of trial, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who alleged to have witnessed the entire incident. Allegedly, there seems to be two different motives for the accused to attack the deceased. The first motive is that the accused, feeling envious of the growth of D1 in the village and as D1 supported one Sahadeva Reddy for being elected in Sarpanch elections, has attacked D1. But, it was admitted by P.W.1 that there is no documentary evidence to show that D1 supported the said Sahadeva Reddy in Sarpanch Elections which took place 10 years prior to the incident. P.W.1 and P.W.2, during the course of investigation have stated that there are political misunderstandings between A1 and D1 but not faction disputes. The same was also stated by P.W.3 before the Police. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show that there are faction disputes between A1 and D1 that lead to the murder of the deceased, we cannot believe that mere misunderstandings could be the motive for the accused to commit the grave offence of murder of the deceased. 10. The other motive which allegedly lead to the murder of the deceased is that D1 has performed marriage of A6 with P.W.7; when marital disputes KSR,J & VS,J Crla_1318_2017 arose between the couple, D1 supported P.W.7, thus, A6 bore grudge against D1, but, the said motive was flatly denied by P.W.7. Of course P.W.7 did not support the prosecution and she was declared as hostile. Hence, it cannot be believed that A6 bore grudge against D1 and had committed the deceased, with the help of other accused. The prosecution has failed the motive for the attack. murder of the to prove 11. P.W.1, vide Ex.P.1 submitted a complaint to the Police on receipt of which a case was registered in Cr.No.28 of 2012 (Ex.P.13) against the accused. It can be seen that on 22.03.2012, Police received complaint at about 10.30 p.m., and from Ex.P.13 - FIR it can also be seen that the was received by the Magistrate at 01.30 a.m. When P.W.1 has stated that the incident took place at 06.30 p.m., she failed to answer as to why it took 4 hours to submit a complaint before the Police. Further, the prosecution has failed to answer as to why the FIR, which was registered at 10.30 p.m. received by the Magistrate with a delay i.e. at 01.30 a.m., when the distance between the Court and the Police station is only one kilometer. Delay in lodging FIR results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. Due to delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage or spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured same was version or exaggerated story. In the instant case, admittedly the report was received by the Magistrate with certain delay, by which it can be inferred that the FIR was lodged after 10 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1318 2017 due deliberations and confabulations. The said point was rightly taken into consideration by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 12. P.Ws.1 to 3 are the crucial witnesses in the present case. The offence occurred at 06.30 p.m., on the fateful day. On the same day, P.W.1 said to have purchased provisions at Allagadda. When P.W.1 was purchasing provisions at Allagadda till 10.30 p.m., it is highly doubtful that she witnessed the incident at 06.30 p.m., at the scene of offence. Further, P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that the provisions which were purchased at Allagaddda and the bike on which she along with her brother had travelled were present at the scene of offence. But, as per Ex.P.17 - inquest report of D1, we do not find the presence of provisions and the bike at the scene of offence on the date of offence. In the absence of same, it cannot be believed that P.W.1 had witnessed the offence. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that he started at Allagadda in an auto at 04.00 p.m., on the date of offence and reached Chinnakandukur at 06.00 p.m., the distance between the places is about 2 kilometers which, in general can be covered within 10 minutes. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that on the date of incident, while he was returning to Chinnakandukur after finishing his work, on bicycle, both the deceased crossed him on bike after which a jeep crossed the bike of the deceased and another bike on which P.W.1 and another were riding crossed the bike of the deceased. He initially deposed that the bike of the deceased hit the jeep but. 11 KSR,J & VS,J Cria 1318 2017 however had further deposed that the jeep hit the bike of the deceased, which statements are contradicting to each other. When the evidence of P.W.3 is that the jeep was ahead of his bicycle, in such a situation, it cannot be believed that he was able to witness the incident. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to their presence at the scene of offence at the time of commission of offence is not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence of this Court. P.Ws.12 and 13 who are the seizure panchayathdhars of M.0.3 / and P.Ws.11, 12, who are the inquest panchayathdhars, turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. When there is no independent evidence from the panchayathdhars in whose presence the accused were arrested and the material objects were seized, the evidence of / the prosecution cannot be believed. Having analyzed the above evidence carefully, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after analyzing the entire evidence available and after conglomeration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has unambiguously pointed out the failure on the part of the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no grounds to interfere with the acquittal of the accused recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present case. 13. 12 KSR,J & VS,J Crla_1318_2017 In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the acquittal recorded by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in S.C.No.383 of 2013, dated 08.08.2017. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/-V. SATYANARAYANA deputy registrar I //TRUE COPY// section'^^icer To, 1. The III Addl.District & Sessions if any) 2. OneCCto SRI. P VENGALA REDDY Advocate [OPUCJ 3. One CC to SRI. P. NAGENDRA REDDY 4. One CC to the section officer 5. Two CCs to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Pradesh [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (with records Advocate [OPUC] Criminal Section. High Court of Andhra nm HIGH COURT DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER CRLA.No.1318 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL