APHC010350142008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 682/2008 Between: The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...APPELLANT A N D Gottipati Ramaiah Rambabu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI The Court made the following: SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 2 J U D G M E N T This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 12.10.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.112 of 2001 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Assistant Sessions Judge’) whereby the respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 (A1 to A3 and A5) were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 304A, 120B, 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for brevity ‘the ES Act, 1908’). During the pendency of the case for committal to the Court of Session, A4 died and the case against him was abated. 2. The sum and substance of the charges against A1 to A5 is that, on 22.11.1994 A1, being the Managing Director of Gottipati Brothers Boiled Rice and Agro Products Private Limited, Jonnathalli (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Company’), knowingly provided the premises for supply of explosive substance materials, conspired with A2 to A5, and they formed themselves into members of unlawful assembly, aided A2 to A5 to manufacture the country made bombs in the said premises and unlawfully and maliciously caused an explosion and or used or intended to use the explosive SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 3 material against the rival group of Karanam Balaram Krishna Murthy and caused death of one Nayudu Sreenivasa Rao @ Sreenu @ Video Sreenu, Kondepati Anjaiah and Marella Sivaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘D1, D2 and D3’, respectively) by doing a negligent act not amounting to homicide and tried to disappear the offence and took away the injured clandestinely to Chilakaluripet of Venkateswara Nursing Home, with an intention of screening themselves as an accused and thereby A1 to A5 committed the offences punishable under Sections 201, 304A, 120B and 143 IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the ES Act, 1908. 3. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Karanam Bala Ramakrishna Murthy (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the ‘A’ Group’) and Gottipati Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the ‘B’ Group’) were having political rivalries against each other and they both maintained two groups in almost every village of Martur Assembly Constituency; that the staunch followers of the ‘B’ Group, viz. Venkata Subbaiah, J.Ranganayakulu and Ranga Rao were allegedly murdered by the ‘A’ Group; that subsequently, one Gottipati Kishore, son of Gottipati Hanumantha Rao and his friends were also eliminated by the ‘A’ Group; that with the murder of son of Gottipati Hanumantha Rao, the political rivalry between the ‘A’ and SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 4 ‘B’ Groups turned into feverish pitch, each made all efforts to liquidate the other. (b) It became a practice to these two groups to acquire bombs and to supply them whenever there is any issue to fight with each other; that there were riots with bomb hurling between both groups occurred earlier at Kunduru, Santhamaguluru, Yaddanapudi and Yanamadala villages of Martur Constituency; that both the groups are manufacturing and stock-piled the bombs. (c) That the Assembly Elections were proposed to be held in the month of November, 1994 and Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy towards Congress Party and Gottipati Hanumantha Rao from TDP anticipated to compete in those elections against each other. (d) That Gottipati Brothers Boiled Rice Agro Products Private Limited, was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 22.06.1983 at Jonnathali village, beside NH-5 road at a distance of 2 kms away from Martur Police Station. (e) That as on the date of the offence i.e. on 22.11.1994, A1 was the Managing Director of the said Company and one Gottipati Seshagiri Rao (Died) and A2 are the Directors, besides SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 5 other shareholders, including Gottipati Hanumantha Rao; that on 22.01.1994, A4, D1 to D3 were manufacturing round shaped country made bombs in the premises of the Company under the supervision of A2, A3 and A5, who are the staunch followers of Gottipati Hanumantha Rao; that on 22.11.1994 at about 10.00 a.m. A5 as rider of the motorcycle and L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao as a pillion-rider, went to Nagalakshmi Wines, Martur, owned by P.W2, where L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao purchased two liquor bottles from P.W2 and drove the motorcycle to the Company; that P.W5 witnessed A5 and L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao; that after reaching the Company, L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao gave the liquor bottles to the accused and he witnessed A2 to A4 and D1 to D3 besides one Dr.Gottipati Seshagiri Rao in the premises of the Company; that subsequently, A5 dropped L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao at the office of the contesting candidate at Martur. (f) D1 held a glass, containing liquor with one hand and a bomb with another hand, rose up showing them as to how to hurl a bomb against one Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy and while doing so, his foot came into contact with the doorstep and he fell down, as a result of which, the bomb, held by D1, fell down and exploded, resulting in explosion of remaining bombs in the room SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 6 causing a big sound of bomb blast; that D1 to D3 and D4 sustained injuries due to the said bomb blast; that L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao, who sat with A3 and A5 on the platform within the premises, heard the sound of bomb blast, rushed to the room and found the deceased and A4 lying unconsciously with injuries; that D2 ran out of the company with injuries; that L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao disconnected the power supply; that L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao and A5 went to 132 KM substation at Martur and got the feeder of Jonnathali shut down through P.W12; that L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao witnessed A3 shifting all the injured and keeping them in a Fiat car, but L.W2/Pentela Rama Rao refused to follow him; that if someone questions about the incident, A3, was said to have insisted D2, D3 and A4 and others to state that the followers of Balaram hurled bombs against them; that A3 kept the dead body of D1 in the dikky of the Fiat car; that A3 drove the car saying that he was taking the injured to Chilakaluripet for treatment and A5 remained in the company and got removed nearby 400 bombs to the rear side of the company and hide the same in the bushes; that P.W6, Doctor, refused to render treatment stating that it was a medico legal case. (g) That D2, D3 and A4 were taken to the Government Hospital, Chilakaluripet, where P.W19, Medical Officer, Government SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 7 Hospital, Chilakaluripet treated the injured and sent them to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for X-ray and expert treatment; that while undergoing treatment, D1 and D2 died; that P.W7-V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur recorded the Dying Declarations of D3 and A4. (h) P.W1, Inspector of Police, Inkollu, visited the scene of offence, got prepared Ex.P1-Occurrence Report on 22.11.1994, basing on the strength of the same, P.W20-Head Constable of Martur PS got registered a case in Crime No.128 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the ES Act, 1908 and Section 120B of IPC. (i) Subsequently, as per the Orders of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.28655 of 1995 and 28622 of 1995, dated 15.04.1996, P.W27-DIG of Police, CID took up investigation, seized the material objects from the scene of offence on 23.11.1994; that P.W19 issued Wound Certificate of A4 opining that he sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P30 is the Wound Certificate of A4. L.W27-Dr.P.Koteswara Rao, Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of D1 to D3; that P.W16, L.W20-Dr. B.Hari Haranadh, Scientific Assistance and L.W21- Dr.P.Narasimha Rao, Scientific Assistant, Office of the Director, SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 8 FSL, Hyderabad inspected the scene and got prepared rough sketches of the scene of offence. Exs.P23 and P24 are the rough sketches, analyzed the material objects and seized them; that the District Collector issued sanction proceedings against A1 to A5 under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. After completion of investigation, P.W27 filed Charge Sheet against the accused. 4. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 120B, 304A, 201 IPC and Sections 6 of the ES Act, 1908 against A1 and Sections 143, 120B, 304A and 201 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ES Act, 1908 against A2 to A5. During the pendency of the case for committal, A4 died and case against him was abated. The case was numbered as PRC No.46 of 2000 and on 22.03.2001, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Prakasam Division and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.112 of 2001 and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law. 5. A1 to A3 and A5 were examined under Section 239 CrPC after furnishing copies of the case documents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges under Section 6 of the SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 9 ES Act, 1908 against A1; Sections 3 and 5 of the ES Act, 1908 and Section 121 IPC against A2, A3 and A6; Sections 304A, 120B and 143 IPC against A1 to A3 and A5 were framed, and when the charges were read over and explained to them, in Telugu, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 27 and got marked Exs.P1 to P43, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 25. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the A1 to A3 and A5 were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and led no defence evidence. 7. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections under 304A, 120B, 201, 143 IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the ES Act, 1908 and acquitted them of the said charges in terms of Sections 248 (1) CrPC. Challenging the same, the State preferred present Criminal Appeal. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 10 8. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State/appellant contended that it is known to everyone in Martur Constituency that there was political rivalry between Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy and Gottipati Hanumantha Rao and both of the groups lost their followers during the attacks made by two groups and the Gottipati Hanumantha Rao also lost his son in the attack made by the group of Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy and in order to take revenge of the same and on the pretext of ensuing Assembly Elections in the month of November, 1994, the accused with the assistance of D1 to D3 were manufacturing country made bombs in the Company belonged to Gottipati Brothers and such offence was substantiated with the evidence spoken to by P.Ws.1, 22, 25 and 26. Though, some of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 22, 25 and 26 proves the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, which is duly supported by the dying declarations of the deceased Nos.1 to 3, but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not consider these aspects in right perspective and erred in acquitting the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 of the offences with which they were charged. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and convict and sentence the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 11 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 contended that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 22, 25 and 26 muchless the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and their evidence does not connect the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 with the offences alleged; that in view of apprehension in the hands of Gottipati group, the group of Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy attacked the Company and hurled bombs and to cover the offence, they dumped some material objects in the Company premises; that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything incriminating against the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 22, 25 and 26 was at the instance of the respondents rival group; that there is neither eyewitnesses nor direct witness to depose about the offence committed by the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5; that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge considered these aspects in right perspective and rightly acquitted the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Appeal. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 12 10. Now the point for consideration is- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 120B, 143 and 201 IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 beyond reasonable doubt or not, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court? 11. 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 there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption 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 SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 13 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. 12. 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: (paragraph No.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 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.” 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 14 13. The allegations against the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 are that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to manufacture country made bombs in the Company belonged to Gottipati Brothers and to hurl them against the group of Karanam Balaramakrishna Murthy, and in that process, the explosion occurred on account of mishandling of explosive materials, which led to death of D1 to D3. 14. In order to prove the accusations, though the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18 turned hostile to the case of prosecution case and the evidence of remaining witnesses are P.Ws.1, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19 to 27 needs to be appreciated as to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 15. P.W1, who worked as Inspector of Police, Inkollu Circle at the relevant point of time, deposed that on 22.11.1994 at about 8.00 p.m. while he was in Inkollu PS, he received information from Martur PS that a bomb explosion had taken place at about 7.30 p.m., in the Company and that he reached the place of offence at about 9.00 p.m. In the cross-examination of P.W1, he conceded that subsequent to receipt of information about the incident and prior to his visit to the place of offence, he went to SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 15 Martur PS and verified the records and found that there was no report from anyone with regard to the incident and there was no GD entry made in the register. His evidence further discloses that he was examined by CBCID in the year 1997 i.e. four years after the date of the incident. He deposed in his cross-examination that the incident took place at 5.30 p.m. but not at 7.30 p.m. 16. Coming to the evidence of P.W25, DSP of Police, Chirala at the relevant point of time, deposed in his chief- examination at about 6.00 p.m. he received phone message from the Superintendent of Police, Ongole stating that there was a blast took place in the Company and he was directed to visit the scene of offence. Accordingly, he visited the scene of offence around 8.30 p.m. and by that time, P.W1 and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ongole were already present at the scene of offence and there was no power supply at that time. 17. A perusal of evidence of P.W1 coupled with the evidence of P.W25, their evidence lacks corroborations. As per the evidence of P.W1, he received information about bomb blast at about 8.00 p.m. and reached the place of offence at about 9.00 p.m. Whereas, the evidence of P.W25 is otherwise. He received information about the blast at 6.00 p.m., and he visited the scene of SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 16 offence at about 8.30 p.m. and by that time P.W1 and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ongole were already present at the scene of offence. If really P.W25 visited the scene of offence at about 8.30 p.m., it would not be possible or believable that by that time P.W1 and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Ongole were present at the scene of offence, for the reason that, as per the evidence of P.W1, he visited the scene of offence at 9.00 p.m. 18. Another crucial aspect that was elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 25 is that, when P.W1 visits the scene of offence at about 9.00 p.m. there was no power supply and he inspected the scene of offence with the help of a petromax light brought by one of the Police Constables from Martur PS. Whereas, P.W25, who visited the scene of offence at about 8.30 p.m. he too deposed that there was no power supply at the scene of offence by the time he visits the scene of offence. But, it is the specific evidence of P.W24, Lineman, working in Electricity Department at Martur that, at the time of occurrence of incident, on 22.11.1994 he made Ex.P37-entry in the log book i.e. Ex.P36, being maintained by him, stating that power supply was discontinued by 18.05 hours, 18.07 hours, 18.09 hours, 18.12 hours and 19.30 hours and after 19.30 hours, the power supply was continued. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 17 19. In the cross-examination of P.W1, he deposed that the bomb explosion took place at 5.30 p.m. but not at 7.30 p.m. as deposed by him in his chief-examination. It is highly suspicion on the part of prosecution version that as to how P.W1 came to a conclusion that the bomb explosion took place at about 5.30 p.m. Indeed, it is not the case of prosecution that the police of Martur PS made GD entry soon after receipt of information about the incident. Indeed, there was no GD entry made in the register maintained by the Martus PS. Though, P.W1, during his cross-examination, corrected his own statement made during chief-examination, that the bomb explosion took place at about 5.30 p.m. but not at 7.30 p.m., as per his evidence, he received information about bomb explosion from Martur PS at about 8.00 p.m. but not prior to 5.30 p.m. It appears that though there was no report or GD entry in the register, the investigation commenced, which is not believable on the part of prosecution story. 20. A perusal of recitals in Ex.P1-Report goes to show that he clearly mentioned in the report that at about 8.00 p.m. he received information about bomb explosion in the company and visited the scene of offence at about 9.00 p.m. and by that time there was no supply of electricity in the Company. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 18 21. A perusal of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, Dying Declarations of D3 and D2, respectively, recorded by P.W7, learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, goes to show that at about 6.30 p.m. when they went to the Mill to talk with the Doctor, who is younger brother of Gottipati Hanumantha Rao, 10 to 15 strangers hurled bombs and due to that they sustained injuries. 22. Though, L.W2-Pentela Rama Rao cited as prosecution witness, the prosecution failed to examine him. As per the prosecution version, L.W2-Pentela Rama Rao sat as pillion-rider on the motorcycle driven by A5, to bring liquor bottles from the shop of P.W2. Though, P.W2 was examined by the prosecution, he turned hostile to the prosecution case. 23. Though the evidence of P.W16, Scientific Team, is to the effect that he along with his team conducted survey of surroundings of the guest house interiors and videographed the same and collected material evidence, the same were not filed into the Court. The evidence led by the prosecution does not point the finger against the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 that they have manufactured the country made bombs by conspiring together to wreck vengeance against their rival i.e. Balaramakrishna Murthy and in the process of stock piling the bombs for supply to the SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 19 followers of Gottipati Hanumantha Rao to use them during ensuing elections in the month of November, 1994 and there is no iota of evidence not even direct evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that due to the negligence it amounted to causing death of D1 to D3 and they were removed from the scene with a view to screen the evidence. 24. In view of the foregoing discussion, except the evidence of P.Ws.1, 22, 25 and 26, all the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution and there is nothing on record to connect the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 with the offences charged. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 304A, 120B, 143 of IPC and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the ES Act, 1908, beyond reasonable doubt, and the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 are entitled to acquittal. The trial Court considered all these aspects in right perspective and acquitted the respondents/A1 to A3 and A5 of the charges leveled against them. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of merits. SRK, J Crl.A.No.682 of 2008 20 25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 12.10.2004, passed in Sessions Case No.112 of 2001 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 24th April, 2025. DNB