The High Court · 2025

Chinthala Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Age 47 years, Occ. Tea Stall Alavla Kondaiah, S/o. Muthaiah, Age 47 years, Occ. Caste Work Devarapalli Sura Reddy, S/o. Setharami Reddy, Age 42 years, Occ. Private Bus Driver Devarapalli Praveen Reddy, Sio. Koti Reddy, Age 35 years, Occ. Building Contractor Devarapalli Jithender Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Age 42 yeats, Occ. Agriculture (Surpanch) Redimalla Bhadra Reddy, Sio. Venkata Reddy, Age 32 years, Occ. Agriculture Mafta Koti Reddy, Sio. Krishna Reddy, Age 36 years, Occ. Agriculture Devarapalli Narpnder Reddy, Slo. Venkata Reddy, Age 36.years, Occ. Agriculture Rekham Atchaiah, S/o. Veera lt/alaiah, Age 49 years, Occ. Autodriver 12 13 Lingaborna VenKateshwerlu, S/o. Venkata Naryana, Age 44 years, Occ. Agricultu re Koti Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Appaiah, 47 years, Occ- Agriculture All are R/o. Pandhillapalli (V), Chinthakani Mandal of Khammanr District ...Complainant / Respondent Counsel for the Appellant SriGLNarasimhaRao Counsdl for the Respondent No 1 Sri Arun Kumar Dodla Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No 2to 13: Sri C Sharan Reddy The Court delivered the following Judgment : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR CRTMINAL APPEAL No.1298 OF 2017 fiDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) This appeal is filed by appellant / de facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18.O7.2017, passed in S.C.No.3O7 of 2Ol4 on the file of Family Court-cum-Vl Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam, acquitting . the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 12 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short lPC).

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. PWl lodged a complaint/Ex.Pl alleging that he found accused Nos.1 to 12 attacking Sreenivasa Rao/deceased and beating him with iron rods on the chest and with sticks. P.Wl then shouted for help and finding that the deceased died, all the accused fled. 108 ambulance was called and deceased was taken to the Sparsha Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, he died on the same day at about 1 1:OO p.m. 2 KS,J&JAK,-I Crl.A llo 1298 of20l7

4. The Police investigated the case ancl hled charge sheet against all the accused for the offences punishable 'I under Secl-ions 143, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Ch.arges were framed for the s4id offences.

5. Learnt:d Sessions Judge examined witnesses and found that the prosecution failed to prove theLt the death of the deceas,:rl was homicidal. Learned Sessions Judge gave reasoning rr:garding the death of the deceased vihich is extracted be [ow: 'llven as per the medica.l evidence adctuced tty the prosecution, PW12 Cardiologist categorically deposed that he gave treatment to Alavala Sreeniva:;a Rao orr 28.07.2013. The patient himself came to ttre hospital accompanied by one yadagiri and cornplaine C of severr' chest pain. The patient was consciousness al,:l cohere;rr.. He categorically deposed that no externi;il injr:rles were found. PW12 deposed that he apptierl cardio pulmonaqr resuccessiction to revive the heat-t beat of the patient. He also explained to give DC currerrt shocks t: revive the heart beatings and in order to appl,r' CPR trt:a.tment, some times the eterna_l force is using b,y pushing the 4 to 5 inches depth upto the rib cage. The:r there is a possibility of rib fracture and injury c,f contusion. This part of evidence with regard to externzLl injurles is supported by the post mortem exa_rninatior.r report. PW13 categorically deposed that at the tirne o t post rrrortem examination, pW13 found 1r 1 cn.L contusion over the left Stt' rib and undisplaced fracturr.: of left 5(h rib. Then, it is clear that the said injunes, caused due to applicafion of CpR treatment. Admittedly, it is an ante-mortem injury. Even as per the frnaj. report, the cau se of death is due to myocarditis inflation o{- miocardir.rm of the middle layer of the heart, whictr include:; the chest pain, abnormal heart beats. Thus, 3 KS.J&JAKJ Crl A No.1298 of20l7 the fina.l report given is death of the deceased is due to miocarlitis heart disease, but rfot due to injuries. Hence, the medical evidence is very clear about the cause of death and the occular evidence of PWs-l to 3 that the injured was attacked with sticks, iron rods and cartpegs. If at all 12 persons attacked on Alavala Sreeenivasa Rao, definitely tiere are visible injuries on the body of the injured. Except two injuries, there are no other external injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of conducting post mortem examination by the Doctor and even according to PW12, at the time of admission no external injuries were found on Alavala Sreenivasa Rao."

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of . . the appellants would submit that the case was manipulated by the Police and during the investigation, the case was wrongly projected. In fact all the accused were involved in assaulting the deceased and beating him to death.

7. The evidence of PWs.I2 and 13 is crucial. PW12 is the doctor who worked as cardiologist in Sparsha Hospital, where the deceased was taken on 28.07.2OI3. According to him, he found that the patient/deceased was conscious and coherent and did not have any external injuries. Since the deceased informed that he was having severe chest pain, he was immediately shifted to ICU and ECG was taken. Then deceased was sent for bio markers. PW12 then diagnosed that the deceased suffered accute anterio lateral l l 4 1(s,J&]AK.J Crl.A.i.lo 1298 of20l7 myocardial infarction with a positive bio rnarker. PW12 then startr:ct treatment ald within no time, the deceased coilapsed and went into respiratory failu.re. Deceased developed ventricular tachcardia, pulmonary ederna and immediately they have done CPR. However, the deceased did not res;pond to the treatment and died. Ex.Pl{) is the intimation grven by Sparsha Hospital to Police.

8. After death of the deceased, postmorte rn was conducted by PW13. PW13 found the lbilowing , two l nJ urle s " . Contusion 1* I Cm over the left lou.er chest over the 5th rib 2 Undisplaced fracture left sth rib."

9. PWl2 explained that the injuries found on the deceased ur€'re on account of ttre CPR done. Both the witnesses FWs.12 and 13 were not declared .hostiler to the prosecution r:ase. The prosecution admitted that thr.: death of the deceeLsed was natural, caused by complications, and further stated that no external injuries were foun,:l. This rules out tht: possibility of the prosecution's version that accused Nos. 1 to 12 beat and assaulted the det::eased, leading to hj.s death. 5 KS,J&JAK,J CrLA No 1298 of20l7

10. In cases of acquitta-I, the interference by the appellate Court can only be in compelling circumstances. The Honble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagarajo Reddg a. State of Andhra Prad.eshr held as follows: "15. It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based ald state the reasons as to why it finds the conclusions leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by the frndings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benelit of ary doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by the tria-l court [See Strcr Singh us. State of U.P. A AIR 1967 SC 1412; Dargahs us. State of U.P. D AIR 1973 SC 2695; Rouinder Singh us. Stote of Haryana C AIR 1975 SC 856; ard Labh Singh us. Stote of Punjab D AIR 1976 SC 831." I lzoooy tt scc +tl 6 .S,J&JAK,J Crl A.t.o.1298 of20l7 1 1 . In ca:st:s of acquittal, the interference b1' the a ppellate Court can only be in compelling circum.stanc,3s. The i Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu a. State oJ Keralaz held as follorvs:

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @ Rarr Naresh l(2OO9l 9 SCC 3681, the Court agarn exa::-'ined the earlier judgments of this Court arrd lard rlown that an "order of acquittal should not be lrghtly interfered with even if the cou rt beli:rzes that there is some evidence poirrting or.tt the finger towards the accused."

13. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne alia,s Baijnath & Ors. [(2009) 4 SCC 2711, this Court gave certain illustrative circumstalces in which rhe Court would be justified in interfering with a judglment of acquittal by the High Court. Ttre circumstances includes: i) The High Court's decision is based o n totatly erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; r.i) The High Court's concluSions are contral'y to erridence and documents on record; Jii) The entire approach of the High Court in clealing with the evidence was patentljr illegal Ieading to grave miscarriage of justice; ivt The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjuLst and unreasonable based on erroneous lar,v and f:rcts on the record of the case; v) This Court must always give proper weigh.t ald <:onsideration to the findings of the Hig.l Courl; 2 c .n.ro.to+/og,,Jated 11.oe.2o1o 7 KS,.'&JAIq] Crl.ANo 1296 of20l? vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case wherf both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.

12. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the reasoning given by learned Sessions Judge.

13. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR E UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-Vl Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam (with records, if any)"'

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri G L Narasimha Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 4 One CC to Sri C Sharan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VA/gh l '--'--:-, HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No-1298 of 2017 ]B lHE ,;14 ,at ($ [ it 4 !,,.r: ?tl;?S a Spar. L a DISMISSING THE CRLA b flK