The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherlq. Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddg v. State of Andhrd. Pradesh

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.15: SRI ARUN KUMAR DOD[.A, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J.ANIL KUMAR t CRIMINAL APPEAL No.143O OF 2Ol7 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) l. This appeal is frled by the appellant/PWl, aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2016, in S.C.No.359 of 2014, passed by the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 14 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, and 149 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the eippellant and Mr. Dodia Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent- State.

3. The de-facto complainalt is PW1 in the Court below. He is the brother of the deceased (Krishna). According to PW1, he wcnt to another village leaving the deceased in the house alone. The deceased had misunderstandings with some of the villagers, and there were criminal cases pending against the deceased and others. On 18.02.2014 at 07'.3O P.M., there was an altercation between one Yusuf/PW6 and one Sathyalu, Nagesh, Venkata Swamy, and Chinna devanna. One day, PW6 came to the house of the deceased and requested the 2 deceased to scribe a complaint against the for_ r persons, i.e., some of the accused. When the deceased ,vas \\rriting a complaint at O9: 1 5 p. M. , the accused came ,here with the rntention t o attack the deceased with knivc s atrd caused severe injuries on the vital parts of the body o1 the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death at his hou.;e.

4. According to pW1, he was informed by accused No.6 about the deceased receiving injuries and lying in a pool of blood. Immcdiately, pW 1 r,ent to his house : nd found the dead body. The next day morning, he went tc Veepagandla Police Station and loclged Ex.p1/complaint.

5. The investigating Officer went to the scerre, conducted the scene ol offence panchanama, and therea [ter, sent the body for post-mortem examination. post_mortenL examination was conducted by pWlS, who opined that the jeath was on account of multiple grievous injuries rece ved by the deceased.

6. Further, t1.e case of the prosecution is tha t some of the accused went to pW9 and confessed before h m that they have committed the murder of the deceased. I 3

7. The Police concluded the investigation, and filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with section 149 of IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 14.

8. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the.accused on the following grounds: 1 . PW 1 is not an eye-witness to the incident and his evidence is hearsay. He lodged the complaint on the basis of the information given by PW6, however, PW6 turned hostile to the prosecution case.

2. The other eye-u,itnesses, PWs.3, 4, and 7, also did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

3. Other than the evidence of the eye-witness account, the prosecution relied only on the evidence of PW9, who alleged that the accused made an extra-judicial confession. However, it is admitted that PW9 belongs to the Congress party, whereas all the accused belong to the TRS party. In view of the political differences, the extra-judicial confession made to PW9 cannot be believed. 4

4. Further, the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and unless it is corrobo;.ated by other er.idence, the same cannot be reiied upcn.

9. Tlre Hon'blc Supreme Court in Kata @) Chand.rakolla u. State through Inspector o;f policet, held tl at the extra_ judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant would ,.ubmit that all the witnesses have turned hostile, and the fact remains that there were political differences. Accusecl Nos. I to l.r were found standing in front of the house of t\e deceased, according to the hostile witnesses, pWs.6 and 7. To the extent of hnding the accused in front of the house and , fl-re context of the political differences, it can be inferred tl-at rt was the accused who assaulted the deceased and causecl his death.

11. The said argument cannot be accepted. The version of prosecution is that pWs.3, 4, and_ T were the eyc_witnesses to the incident, and PW6 was staying along with th,: deceased in his house q,hen the alleged attack took place. )Ws.6 and 7 only stated that they found accused Nos. 1 to 14 near the house of the deceased. The said evidence canlrot form the ' 2016(2) ALD (crr) 663 (sc) 5 basis to assume that it was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased in the absence of any other corroboratin g evidence.

12. Further, the evidence of PW9 is of no avail to the prosecution since he belongs to the opposite political party. The interested evidence of PW9 cannot be looked into without independent corroboration. There is no corroboration from any part regarding the alleged assault by the accused on the deceased.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherlq. Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddg v. State of Andhrd. Pradesh2, held as follows: " 15. lt is now $,ell 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 evidencc 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 artd 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 fortihed by the f-rndings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to beneflt of a,ny doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demealour of the '? lzooo; rr scc +<+ 6 r titnesses. The crux of the matter, holvt, ser, is whether the High Court is able to givc clcar reasons to dispei the doubt raised, and rc,l )ct the rcasons given by the trial court."

11. In cases of acquittal, the interferenc-e b\ the appellate Court can only be in compelling circum stances. The Honble Supreme Court in Babu a. State of Keralas, held. as follows:

12. In State of Rajasthan v. Naresh @) Ra- Naresh [(2009) 9 SCC 368], the Court again r ranrir.rcd the earlicr judgments of this Court ancl laid c own that an 'ordcr of acquittal should not be lightlv r-rtcrfcred with cvcn if the court believcs that thcrc is some evidence pointing out thc finger torvards the : ccused.,

13. In State of Uttar pradesh v. Banne alias Baijnath & Cr s. l(2009) 4 SCC 2711, this Court gar. : cJrta.in illustrative circumstances in which the Corrrt u.ould be justified in interfering with a judgmenr ol tcquittal by the High Court. The circumstances inclLrd,.s: i) 'l'he High Court's decision is basr:d o:r totallv erroncous view of law bv ignoring thc ser ed legal positron; ii) The High Court's conclusions are cor rtrat-v to evidenco and documents on record: iii) 'l'l-rc entire approach of the High {)ourt in dealing wrth the ewidence was patently i cga leading lo glavc miscarriage ofju stice; iv) The High Court's judgment is m mifestly unjust a:rd unreasonable based on erroneous law ani facts on the record of the case; r,) 'lhis Court must a_lways give proper u.c ght ar-rd consideration to the findings of the High Cour .; vi) This Court would be extremely relu )tant in interfering with a case when both the Sessior s Court 3 ca.A.lto. rolTos, dated 11.08.2010 I 7 and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal.

15. There are no grounds to interfere with the weil- reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 16 Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. SD/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, U 1 . The lX Additional District and Sessions Judge' Wanap ; +*"o a;;;'ine-Fuuric Prosecutor' state or relangana 3 6;"'Cc 6 sri D. Purnachandra Reddy' Advocate [oP 4. Two CD CoPies Plp/gh Y( at HYderabadIOUT] UCI SECTION OFFICER arthy. (with records) , High Court Buildings HIGH COURT DATED:20102t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1430 of 2O1t DISMISSING THE CRL.A. +,,Pw\ k- o; \ q d ,, *ut' 2ffi I I 0