The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D Purnachandra Reddy The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HOilOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CRIMINAL APPEAL Ito.9O9 Or 2017 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) State flled the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302, 307 r 1w.34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor ald Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents I to 3.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 is father of A2 and A3 is the husband of A2. The deceased by name Bejjanki Mahadev (herein after referred to as the deceased) was the younger brother of A 1 . All of them are residing in the same locality in adjacent houses. There rvas some vacant site in front of the house of the deceased regarding which some disputes were prevailing between tfieir families. In the night of 26.07.2014, the deceased abused A1 to A3 in frlthy language in an intoxicated condition, whereby A1 to ,{3 planned and decided to kill the deceased. Thus, on the next day morning, at about 6.OO a.m., rvhen the deceased came out of his ) 2 house, A1 axed on his head whereby ttre deceased fell dorvn and then A.3 beat the deceased with a stick on his head, stomac:h, legs and back ard then r\2 pelted a logwood on the head of the dr:r:eased due to which, the d:eceased sustained severe injurie s ald rlied on the spot. It is also stated that when A1 to 43 were killing the deceased, Smt.Bejjanki Radha (PW. 1) wife of the deceased, tried tc rescue her husband, but A1 hacked on her left hand with the axe and caused an injury and trecause of fea-r she ran from there, though ali the accused chase<l her, she escaped. It was witnessed by Sri Dunnapothula llellaiah (pW.4), Dunnaporhula yellavva (LW.6) and Dunnapothula Ivlondaiah (pw.s).

4. On report given by pW. 1 , the w.ife of the deceaserl . at about 7.30 A.M., the Sub Inspector of police, Chigurumamidi F,.S. (pW.f0) registered the sztme in Cr.No. tl}/2014 for the oflences p,unishable under Sections Ii07, 302 r.w,34 of IpC and issued Express FIR and then investigatic,n was taken up by the Circle lnspectc,r of police (PW. 11) who visiLted the scene of offence. photographs c,f the dead body were taken. The scene of offence panchanama a;rd Inquest proceedings over the dead body were conducted in the presence of one Geekuri Rawinder (LW. 13) and Mohd.sarwar pasha (pw.g). 3 Dr.E.Ramadevi (PW. 12) conducted postmortem examination on the requisition of the Police and she opined that the death of the deceased was due to massive hemorrhagic shock which resulted from multiple fractures.

5. The Inspector of Police, in the course of investigation, arrested Al to A3 on28.07.2Ol4 at about 11.00 A.M., at Chigurumamidi Bus Stand arld on interrogation, they confessed to the commission of the offence. A1 showed the axe, which was hidden in the Church of Chigurumamidi Village. A2 showed a blood stained stick used by him near Yellamma Temple of the same village which was seized. In the presence of Mamidishetti Raj aiah (LW. 15) and Gudem Rajaiah (PW.9) both axe and stick were recovered. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by deleting the names of Kommu Pruthvi and Kommu Neha, who are the son ald daughter of A2 and A3 against whom PW. 1 gave report, on the ground that their involvement was not established.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1to L2 and got marked Exs.P. I to P14 apart from M.Os. I to 8 and closed its evidence. Exs.Dl and D2 are marked for the defence, which are portions of statements said to have been made by PW.4 and PW.5 to 4 the police und,:r Section 161 Cr.P.C., when they u.ere under cross- examination.

7. Having considered the evidence of witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellants on the foliowing grounds. i) ,4.3 frnding tLLe deceased alive and abusing him as son of a bitch, that he did not die and by uttering lou die' A3 kic:l:ing on his testicles is an omission. Further hitting deceased head v,ith boulders and killing him is also an omission. Participation of son and daughter of A2 and A3 was ruled out by the police during; the course of investigation. ii) PW. 1 deposed before the Court below that A3 inflicted injury on the head of her deceased husband by using an axe and on hnding the deceased still a1ive, ,,A2 and her daughter beat her husband with sticks. She further deposed that 42 beat her husband with a piece of wooden log and caused fractures and then her husband diecl on the spot. The same is repeated by PW.2, the daughter of l)W. 1, which was found to be. incorrect during investigation. iii) PW.4 deposed that A I to A3 together killed the deceased with axes and sticks. He further deposed that after hitting the deceased 5 with an axe and. when the deceased fell down, he was beaten with sticks until he died. PW.4 stated to the police that A1 hit with a><e on the head of the deceased alld when the deceased had fallen down, A1 hacked on his head. The versions are contradictory' i9 PW.s, another alleged eye witness, deposed that after A1 brought the deceased, he was beaten by all the three accused with axe ald sticks and thus killed the deceased. He did not give specifrc overt acts of each of the accused ald the weapon each of the accused was carrying and using in the alleged attack made against the deceased' The evidence of PW.S is contrary to evidence of PWs'3 and 4' v) PW.6 deposed that A1 to A3 killed the deceased by using axe ' stick and wooden 1og. PW.6 did not specify the overt acts and what weapon was used bY each accused. vi) As seen from the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation Officer as to the scene of offence, the houses of PWs'4 to 6 are not at all seen hear at the place of occurrence of the offence' vii) No reason whatsoever is stated by the prosecution for not examining the persons who were residing adjacent to the scene of 6 offcncc and thc inhabitants of thc houses situated in [ront of the houses of the accused and the deceased. viii) The offence is said to be taken place at about 6.0O A.M. on 27.O7.2014. The report is said to be given at Z.3O A.M. t,o the police which police stirtion is in the same v rage. pw. 1r/Inspe.1-or of porice who conducted investigation in this case stated in the cross_ examination that the time noted by the Magistrate ap,pears to be 8.3O p.m. Further the trial Judge held that complaint must have been received d.rring night hours at his residence arr rl the court stamp with datc 28.02.2014 is seen which would be of ttLe next day morning. There is no reason whatsoever given by the prosecution for the said delay o1' 12 lz hours in complaint reaching the Magistrate. ix) Though it is the case of prosecution that pw. 1 u.as attempted to be killed by the accused, in Ex.p1/report, it is not stateii as to w.ho hacked her hancl i.r.ith axe. x) PWs.1 and 12 further deposed that they were char;ed by the accused with a view to kill them, but tiley did not depose as to in what manner and hou. they were chased and towards whrlt direction and to what dislrnce so to know tJ'.e real intention on the part of the 7 accused, whether they wanted to kill amounting to attempt to murder PW. 1 so to bring home the guilt under Sec.307 of IPC' In Ravi Sharma v. State (Governmeat of NCT of Delhif and 8. another', the Honble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when ev'idence on record has been analysed' The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal' g. In Ghuteg Lal tt- *ate of tlttar Pro'desh' the Hon'lcle Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law ald the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows: "7O. In tle light of the aboue, the High Court ond other oppellote Courts should follout the uell-setlled pinciples crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to ouet-rule or othenuise disturb the tiol aurt's acquittal:

1. The appellote @urt n-aA only ouemie- or othenttise disturb the t iot aui| ofiriuot if it has "Jery iubstantial arul mmpelling reasons" for doing so. I (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 120081 t0 Supreme Court Cases 450 lanu; u)rong: A numher of instanc.es anlse in uhiah thrz oppel.tote a-tt::rt utould. hnue "uery substarLtidi artd. compelling reason s" ia discar,i the tial court's decjsion. "Very substantial and. compelling reasons,, enst uthen: i) The triot tnurt's conclusion usith regard. to the facts ts patpablA ii) The biat court's d.ecision was based on an errorleoitt; uieu) of iii) The fiol courT's iudgment is ltkelA to result in ograue ntscarriage iu) The, entire approorh of the trial court in dealing uith the euidence u) The trial court,s judgmenl uLas .manifestly urtjust and ui) The ;.nal court hrzs ignored the euid.ence or misread the material riying ignored material doanments lihr .,:l::: h1s - . dectarotrons ral)or1 ofthe ballistic expert, etc. was paterutl,q illegal; unreasonablt'; of ytstice"; - ", uii)This list is intended to be iltistratiue, tat exlnusttue. .2. The ctppellate (uurt - must alwags giue proper utetght ond consideratiott o the jindings of the tial <nui. 3. If lu-,o rea^sonable uiews con be reached* one tha.;. lectds to acqtittal, tLut otlrcr to conuiction _the High Cowts/ appellate c<tttrls must rule in fauour of the accused.', 10' The learn.d Pubric prosecutor wourd submit that I,w. 1 is both eye-witness ancl injured person in ttre attack by the ros;pondents/ accused. No reasons are given as to why the version gil.en by pW. 1 and PW.2 are rrot accepted. Only on tl.e basis of pW. 1,r; evidence- acquittal has to be reversed.

11. Learned Oounsel appearing for the respondents/accused supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as reasonable and probable. 9

12. The learned Sessions Judge found that the version given at ttre time of complaint was incorrect and two of the accused named in the FIR were found to be not complicit in the alleged offence '

13. There is arry amount of variation in between the versions of the eye-witnesses PW. 1, 2 and others. The said variations have apparently crept in on account of their interestedness and as found by the learned Sessions Judge, their version is doubtful' More so' in the background of the unexplained delay of 12 Y' lnor::.s in sending FIR to Court.

14. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the Judgment of the Ccurt below.

15. Accordingly, Crirninal Appeal is dismissed //TRUE COPY// sd/- r. sf,rNrvAs / DEPUTY REqISTRAR / \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. (with records, if any) 2. f wo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri D Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate {OPUCI 4 Two CD Copies Vtugh HIGH COURT DATED:09 t0112025 ) JUDGMENT CRLA.No.909 of 2017 5{ATE ,aE :) r:) $25 u] \\hR l. :. ( kO rsP aI o .? t DISMISSING THE CRLA \& R.l^{