Telangana High Court
The State Of Ap., Rep By Its P.P vs Avangal Narsing Rao on 1 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE J. ANIL KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.704 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Surender) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.01.2013 in S.C.No.281 of 2012 on the file of Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant-State and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent/accused.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused has hit the deceased, who is the husband of PW1, on his head and ran over him with his bike four times, resulting in his death. PW1, who is the wife of deceased has lodged complaint on 28.09.2011 stating that on the previous day, when she called her husband at around 10.00 p.m., he shouted "Bachavo Bachavo" (help help) and switched off his phone. Thereafter, while she was searching 2 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 for the deceased, his dead body was found near the Toddy Depot and blood was oozing out of his head. Initially, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, then to M.J. Hospital and thereafter to Government Hospital, Nizamabad and while shifting to Hyderabad, he died on the way.
4. On the basis of said complaint, a crime was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, on 02.11.2011, while the Police were searching for the accused, accused himself surrendered before the Court concerned and he was sent to prison. Thereafter, the police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.
5. In support of prosecution case, PWs.1 to 14 were examined. PW1 is the de facto complainant, PWs.3, 5, 7 and 12 are the eye witnesses to the incident. During the course of trial, PW3 stated that he woke up in the night at around 11.00 p.m. and saw that the accused has hit the deceased on the back side of his head with a stick or rod, due to which, the deceased fell down and the accused ran over the body of the deceased four times and went away. Thereafter, the relatives of deceased took him to hospital. PW4 stated that on 3 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 27.09.2011, he closed his shop at around 09:30 p.m. and at that time, both the deceased and accused were quarrelling in front of his shop. PW5 stated that he witnessed the quarrel and later he found that the deceased died on account of injuries inflicted by the accused. Having seen the fight, PW5 ran away. PW12 stated that on 27.09.2011, when he was consuming toddy at around 08:30 p.m., the deceased was also consuming liquor. At that time, the accused went there and both the deceased and accused quarreled with each other and the accused hit him on his face.
6. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence of the prosecution found that:
i. The evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 12 was totally inconsistent and improbable.
ii. If at all the incident had happened, their conduct was not normal, since having witnessed the quarrel, all of them went away.
iii. Though no exact time is stated by PWs.5 and 12 in their evidence, it can be inferred that the quarrel took place at around 08.30 p.m. However, PW3 having witnessed the incident 4 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 went home, after attending natural calls, which conducts is unnatural.
iv. PW8 who is the Doctor found incised wound and sutured laceration on the forehead and the said injuries were not consistent with the allegation of running over the deceased with two wheeler.
v. The deceased was a rowdy sheeter and it was suspected by witnesses that accused and others might have killed the deceased.
vi. Though there is incised wound, there is no explanation as to how such incised wound was received, when there is no use of sharp weapons or instruments according to prosecution case.
vii. If the accused had ran over the deceased with a motor bike, there is every possibility of causing fracture of bones or tyre marks on the body. However, no such fractures or tyre marks were found.
5 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015
7. On the basis of above findings, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution failed to prove the manner in which the death of deceased had taken place. The injuries cannot be received on account of being run over by two wheeler or being hit with a stick, since incised wound which can be caused by a sharp object was found. Due to the contradictions and inconsistencies going to the root of the case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellant-State would submit that from the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 12, it is clear that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused and both of them were quarrelling. Thereafter, the deceased was found dead on the next day, which itself clearly indicates that it was the accused who has in fact caused the injuries resulting in the death of deceased.
9. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent/accused would submit that the entire case of the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. Though prosecution witnesses have alleged that the incident of beating happened at around 9.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., the 6 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 complaint was lodged on the next day at around 09:30 a.m. Further, PWs.5 and 12 were examined by the Police, after two months of the incident. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that according to witnesses, deceased was taken to four hospitals. However, not a single record from any of the hospitals was collected during the course of investigation. If at all the deceased was taken for the purpose of treatment to any of the hospitals, there would have been some document with the hospital authorities. However, neither the Police had examined any person from any of the hospitals nor collected any documents to suggest that the deceased was taken to those hospitals. Further, learned Senior Counsel argued that in the cases of acquittal, unless there are any glaring inconsistencies in the findings of the Court below, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the orders of the acquittal.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of A.P. 1 held that unless findings of the Court below are perverse and are not based on record, the question of interfering in the appeal does not arise. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 1
(2006) 11 SCC 444 7 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 "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 and 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 findings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any 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 trial court. (See Sher Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1967 SC 1412); Dargahi v. State of U.P. (AIR 1973 SC 2695); Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1975 SC 856) and Labh Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1976 SC 83)"
11. The reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge regarding improbability of PWs.3, 5 and 12 witnessing the alleged incident and their subsequent conduct on the date of the incident cannot be found fault with. Further, the complaint was lodged with an inordinate delay of 12 hours. The conduct of the witnesses who are alleged to have 8 KS, J & JAK, J Crl.A.No.704 of 2015 witnessed the incident is also highly suspicious. PW5 and 12 were examined two months after the incident. Having witnessed the deceased being hit by the accused and ran over by a two wheeler, all the witnesses went home after witnessing the incident. Further, as rightly found by the learned Sessions Judge, the injuries received by the deceased are not in consonance with the eye witness account of beating with stick or running over by a two wheeler.
12. In view of the above, there are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge which are both reasonable and based on record.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J ___________________ J. ANIL KUMAR, J Date: 01.08.2024 KRR/PLP