IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1279 of 2007 Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment in SC No.27 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry, dated 08.02.2005. Between: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. ...Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. Dadi Suribabu, S/o Tatabbai, Kapu, D.No.3-52, Nidigatla. 2. Dadi Tatayya, S/o Lakshmayya, Kapu, D.No.3-53, Nidigatla. 3. Dadi Srinu, S/o Tatayya, Kapu, Nidigatla. 4. Dadi Bangaram, S/o Suryachakram, 5. Dadi Srinu, S/o Krishnamurthy, Kapu, Nidigatla. 6. Dadi Peda Achanna @ Pedda, S/o Lakshmayya, Kapu, Nidigatla. 7. Badireddi Jayalakshmi, W/o Venkatrao, Kapu, Nidigatla. 8. Dadi Gangaratnam, W/o Peda Achanna @ Pedda, D.No.3-51, Nidigatla. 9. Dadi Suryavathi, W/o Tatayya, Kapu, D.No.3-53, Nidigatla. ...Respondents/Accused Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P Rajesh Babu The Court made the following: : Public Prosecutor APHC010357642007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3327] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.1279 OF 2007 Between: The State of AP, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor Dadi Suribabu and others Counsel for the Appellant; 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: 1.PRAJESH BABU The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 08.02.2005 passed in SC No.27 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC). East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder respondents 1 to 9 herein/A1 to A9 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342 and 149 read with 34 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPODENTS 2 SRK J CrlANo.1279 of 2007 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) A2 and A9 are the parents of A1, A3 is the brother of At, A6 is the younger brother of A2, A8 is the wife of A6 and A4, A5 and A7 are close relatives of A1 and A2. Marriage between the de facto complainant (PW.1) and A1 prior to the incident and they blessed with Their son is complainant and her daughter filed was performed about 15 years a son and a daughter. During the year 1999, the de facto no more. a maintenance case in M.C.No.45 of 1999 against At in the Civil Court at Rajahmundry, , wherein A1 was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.400/- and Rs.300/- to the de facto complainant and her daughter respectively. As A1 did not pay the said maintenance amount, Therefore, A1 and his grudge against the de facto complainant and wanted to kill her in order to get rid of her arrest warrant was issued against him. family members A2 to A9 bore permanently. While so, on 18.09.2002, at about 11.00 complainant went to the house of A1 to collect the ii) pm, the de facto maintenance amount and as A1 was not available in the house, she took rest in the living room. In the midnight, all the accused with a common object to kill the de facto complainant formed themselves into an 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 unlawfully assembly armed with knives and A1 hacked the de facto complainant five times with knife on her head and caused severe bleeding injuries. A3 and A4 hacked the de facto complainant on her neck and face, A5 stabbed the de facto complainant with a knife on her chest and left shoulder, A6 stabbed the de facto complainant on the rear side of right hand fingers. A7 to A9 instigated A1 to A6 to kill the de facto complainant. Under the impression that the complainant died the accused came out of the room, closed both the doors and locked from outside and went away. In the early hours, the de facto complainant recovered and made a hole to the wall and came out of the room and informed the incident to PW.5 and others. On receipt of telephonic information from PW.5, PW.8 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Korukonda Police Station, sent the de facto complainant to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for treatment. On 19.09.2002, PW.8 visited the hospital and recorded the iii) statement of the de facto complainant under Ex.P1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.79 of 2002 of Korukonda Police Station, under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, and issued FIR EX.P16. PW.7 - the Deputy Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 Rajahmundry, who examined the de facto complainant, issued wound certificate Ex.P14 opining that except injury Nos.2 and 6, which are grievous in nature, all other injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, PW.9 filed charge sheet. 3. Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate Rajahmundry, took cognizance of the of First Class case against A1 to A9 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342 and 149 read with 34 IPC and registered the case in PRC No.32 of 2003. 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.32 of 2003 to the Court of Sessions Division, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The said case numbered as SC No.27 of 2004 and thereafter the was same was made over to the Court of the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari disposal according to law. Rajahmundry, for 4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 307, 342, 149 read with 34 IPC against A1 to A9 were framed 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 besides case properties MOs.1 to 5. 4. 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. 6. 7. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined except marking Ex.DI and Ex.CI. 8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A1 to A9 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342 and 149 read with 34 I PC, accordingly, acquitted them of the said charges, vide impugned judgment dated 08.02.2005 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by clarifying the material contradictions. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of2007 ' learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. On 26.03.2025, this Court directed to issue bailable warrants against respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein/A1 to A9. 10. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/state, produced a copy of letter dated 15.04.2025 addressed by the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari district, Rajamahendravaram to him, wherein it is stated that bailable warrants issued against respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 9 herein/AI, A3 to A9 were executed, whereas respondent No.2 herein namely Dadi Tatayya, S/o Lakshmayya died 18.01.2025. on On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused filed a memo dated 16.04.2025 along with copies of certain documents and death certificate of respondent No.2/A2 dated 26.01.2025 issued by the Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare, District Hospital, 11. 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 Rajahmundry, showing that respondent No.2/A2 died on 18.01.2025. Since respondent No.2/A2 died during the pendency of the present Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Appeal against respondent N0.2/A2 is dismissed as abated and this Court is proceeding to dispose of the Criminal Appeal in respect of respondent Nos.1 12. and 3 to 9 herein/AI and A3 to A9 on merits. 13. Heard. Perused the record. 14. 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 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 8 SRK, J CrlANo.1279 of 2007 any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been il 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. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab\ wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) 15. “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 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 ^ AIR 1962 SC 439 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 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.” 16. Case of the prosecution is that on the fateful day, A1 to A6 hacked PW.1 with a knife on different parts of her body indiscriminately, while she was sleeping in the house of A1, and that A7 to A9 instigated A1 to A6 to kill PW.1. P.W.1 is wife, and P.W.2 is son, of A.1. Admittedly, PW.1 and A1 were living separately in different houses and PWs.1 and 2 obtained award of maintenance against A1. record, PW.1 is the sole witness to the alleged incident, and the other witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, are not the direct/eye witnesses to the incident. PW.1 stated in her evidence that she was living separately from A1 for the last five years along with PW.2. PWs.1 and 2 also filed a maintenance case against A1 and in the said case. Court ordered A1 to provide monthly maintenance of Rs.700/- to PWs.1 and 2. As per the admission of PW.1, A1 has not preferred any appeal against the said order of maintenance and he is As per the evidence available on postponing the payment of maintenance on the pretext that he tsLz.—:: 10 SRK, J CrlANo.1279 of 2007 wanted to settle the matter. From the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that there were ill-feelings between PW.1 and A1 for the last five years. Further, there is no direct evidence to prove that all the accused attacked PW.1 while she was sleeping in the house of A1. As such the evidence of PW.1 is to be scrutinized carefully along with the oral and documentary evidence available on record. PW.5, who is the Ex-President of Nidigatia village, stated in her evidence that PW.1 was living separately from A.1 along with 17. her daughter due to some disputes, and on the date of the incident, PW.1 was residing in Palacharla. Whereas, PW.1 stated that she is resident of Nidigatia village and presently residing at Palacherla. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW.1 in which village she is residing. PW.2 deposed that some persons came from Nidigatia village and informed that her mother was admitted in the hospital. From this part of evidence, it is clear that PWs.1 and 2 are not residing at Nidigatia village on the alleged date of incident. If really PWs.1 and 2 resided at Nidigatia village, there is no necessity to PW.2 to say that some persons of Nidigatia village came and informed about admission of her mother in the 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 hospital. So, there is any amount of ambiguity whether, as on the date of the incident in question, PWs.1 and 2 were residing at Nidigatia village. 18. As per the recitals of Ex.PI-statement of P.W.1, A1, A3 and A4 assaulted PW.1 with knives and no specific overt acts attributed against A2, A5 and A6. PW.1 stated before police that remaining persons also beat her, but she has not stated with which weapon(s) A2, A5 and A6 beat her. Further, as per Ex.P1, it appears that A1, A3 and A4 used different knives, whereas it is the oral evidence of PW.1 that all the accused used only one knife i.e.MO.1. There is no whisper in Ex.PI as to what is the nature of instigation given by A7 to A9 to other accused. are 19. Coming to evidence, PW.1 stated that she went to the house of A1 and observed that the house doors were closed under lock and key. In such a case, she has not stated in her evidence as to how she entered into the house of A1, while it was under lock and key. As per the evidence of PW.1, she bolted the door from inside with a wooden plate, and at about 11.00 pm all the accused tried to remove the wooden plate in order to open the door with the help of knife, but she failed to narrate the said 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 fact to the police at the time of version of PW.1 that accused tried to with knife and then they forcibly entered into the be an afterthought. recording Ex.P1. Hence, the remove the wooden plate room, appears to 20. Further more, PW.1 stated in her evidence that she iost her conscious after receipt of injuries and feii down, the situation, the evidence of PW.1 that the the house by closing the doors When such is accused went outside presuming that she died, is unacceptable. The other dramatic version given by PW.1 that she broke open the window which was made with bricks and wooden plank, which is unbelievable. She admitted about her stoutness, as such there is no scope to her to come out the hole of the wall. Further, the aiieged incident took piace in the viliage surrounded by so many residential houses. As such, there was no necessity to go to the house of PW.5 to inform the incident who is not the President of the village on the date of the incident. 21. On receipt of requisition Ex.CI from the Doctor, the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of PW.1, wherein she stated that all the accused opened the doors and A1 hacked curved knife on her head, back and on fingers. The women folk her with 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 observed the incident by standing in the verandah. The other men caught hold of tuft and dragged her, trot on her neck and stomach, due to which blood came through nose and mouth. PW.1 gave different statements from the date of incident till the date of giving evidence. At one voice, PW.1 stated that the house where the alleged incident took place belongs to her and the other version is that the scene of offence is house of A1. PW.1 stated that she is residing at Nidigatia village, whereas RW.5 stated that PW.1 is residing at Palacharla on the relevant date of offence. PW.2, who is the daughter of PW.1, categorically stated that some persons from Nidigatia village came and informed about the admitting of PW.1 in the hospital. So, there is no clarity about the place of offence. In the circumstances and in view of admitted ill-feelings between the parties, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be placed in the category of wholly reliable and it is not safe to rely on the sole testimony of PW.1. As such, her sole testimony cannot be relied upon with regard to the incident as prosecution has not examined the circumstantial witnesses, even though they are cited as list of witnesses. 22. PW.5 is circumstantial witness to prove that PW.1 informed her about the incident, but she clearly stated that she did not see V A 14 SRK, J CrlANo.1279 of 2007 PW.1 and she came to know that PW.1 visited her 1 >2 years back. So, her evidence i house about is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution. Further, the to have recorded the confessional Panchayat Secretary, who is said statement of A1 leading to recovery of M0.1 from his hand bag, was no, examined due ,o his death and PW.6, who acted as a mediator to the scene of observation report and prosecution case and he recovery of M0.1, did not support the was treated as hostile by the (cited as LWs.9 and with bleeding injuries and prosecution. The circumstantial witnesses 10) to speak about witnessing PW.1 informing the same to PW.5 were not examined, and in the non-examination is fatal to the circumstances of the case, their prosecution case. 23. As per the mediators report, A1 alone head and neck and other parts of the But, there is other accused in hacked PW.1 with their knives, stated that A1 to A6 hacked her hacked PW.1 on her body indiscriminately with no whisper with regard to participation of M0.1. commission of offence. As per Ex.AI, A1 to A6 Whereas, in her evidence PW.1 with same knife. So, the evidence of PW.1 is self contradictory to the statement given 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 under Ex.A1. The confession leading to recovery of weapon is quite admissible, but the confession with regard to the In this case, the commission of offence is not admissible. mediator report is not proved, as PW.6 did not support the confession alleged to have been made by A1. In general circumstances, if any small incident takes place in a village like Nidigatia, there would be huge gathering at the scene of offence. but in this case PW.1 went to Korukonda road with bleeding injuries in the morning and at that time so many villagers are moving on the road, but in this case it was not happened. 24. As per Ex.P14 wound certificate, there is no doubt about sustaining of injuries by PW.1, but there is no connecting evidence to prove that the accused are responsible for causing injuries to PW.1. PW.1 stated that A1 hacked five times with knife on her head, but as per Ex.P14 wound certificate, only four head injuries are noticed by the Doctor PW.7. Further, A3 and A4 caused two injuries each by hacking with same knife. Admittedly, PW.1 sustained four injuries on her neck. A5 hacked PW.1 on her chest and left shoulder with same knife. A6 hacked on her left dorsum. As per the gravity of injury Nos.2 and 6, there is no 16 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1279 of 2007 possibility to PW.1 to come out of the house by making hole to and it can be inferred that the wall with the help of wooden plank PW.1 might have concealed some real facts. 25. Admittedly, at the time of PW.fs visit to the house, where the alleged incident took place, the house doors were bolted with lock and nobody was available in the house till 11.00 night on 19.09.2002. So, there i* pm i.e.in the IS no scope to the accused to plan to the accused about her to kill PW.1 as PW.1 has not informed Visit to the house of A1 on the date of alleged incident it. There is no evidence let in by the prosecution that all the accused are living in the house where the or prior to alleged incident took place. 26. The other version of PW.1 is that she went to the house of A1 for collection of absence of A1 in his house at 5.00 arrears of maintenance. If she noticed the pm, she would have waited for up to 11.00 pm and sleep in are having disputes and living man cannot accept the version of PW.1 for collection of arrears of even though they were living separately an hour or so, but she cannot wait the said house as PW.1 and A1 separately. A prudent that she came to the house of A1 maintenance from him. 17 SRK, J CrlANo.1279 of 2007 for the last five years and arrest warrant is pending against A1 i maintenance proceedings. in 27. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW.1 to convict the accused of the alleged charges many contradictions in her version with regard to place of offence and other facts. as there are so 28. Even otherwise a perusal of the memo dated 16.04.2025 filed by the learned counsel for the respondents/accused , and the documents annexed thereto show that during the pendency of the present Criminal Appeal, A1 and the de facto complainant settled their dispute and they had also taken divorce by mutual vide orders of the consent. Additional Senior CividI Judge, Rajamahendravaram in OP No.146 of 2017, dated 09.07.2018. Apart from that, respondent No.l/AI also gifted vacant site of 222.22 sq. yards situated at Nidigatia village in favour of the de facto complainant under a gift settlement deed bearing document No.3017 of 2017, dated 11.08.2017. Further, the daughter of A1 and the de facto complainant also executed a bond stating that A1 settled all the properties to her at the time of her marriage. 18 SRK, J CrI.A. No. 1279 of 2007 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 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. 29. 30. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 08.02.2005 passed in SC No.27 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), East Godavari, Rajahmundry. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. •I . Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), at Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, (with records if any) 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri P Rajesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. (to dispatch the trial court records) TK 5. Three CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:16/04/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1279of2007 'r 0 <1 SEP 2025 )S isQuffent Sectigax* Co DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL