Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Of Ap., Rep. Pp., vs K.Suryanarayana, Ranashtalam Vm 2 ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010421252015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3486]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 706/2015
Between:
STATE OF AP., REP. PP., REPT. BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.
...APELLANT
AND
1. KARIMAJJI SURYANARAYANA S/O. LATE TATA, R/O.
RANASHTALAM, AGED 56 YEARS, RANASTHALAM VILLAGE
AND MANDAL.
2. KARIMAJJI JAGANNADHAM, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED
31 YEARS, R/O. RANASHTALAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL.
3. KARIMAJJI APPALASURI S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGED 37
YEARS,
...RESPODENT(S):
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P RAJKUMAR
2
Crl.A.No.706 of 2015
The Court made the following
JUDGMENT :
- (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Questioning the judgment of acquittal dated 20.10.2011 passed
by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in S.C.No.61 of
2010, the State through the learned Public Prosecutor has filed the
present appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C.
2. The respondents No.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 were tried by the
learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam under two charges.
The 1st Charge was under Section 304 read with 34 Indian Penal Code
(for short 'IPC') for causing death of one Gorle Thovudu (herein after
referred to, as 'the deceased') and the 2nd charge was under Section
324 read with 34 of IPC for causing injuries to P.W.1.
3. Substance of charge is that on 15.02.2009 at about 2.00 p.m., all
the three accused caused the death of deceased at Bapana Cheruvu
@ Gampalla Garbhan, Ranasthalam Mandal and in the same process,
they caused injuries to P.W.1, thereby, committed offences punishable
under Sections 304 and 324 read with 34 of IPC.
4. After completion of trial, learned I Additional Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam, acquitted all the three respondents/accused vide judgment
dated 20.10.2011, which is impugned in the present criminal appeal.
5. Case of prosecution is as follows:-
All the accused and the material prosecution witnesses are
residents of Ranasthalam village and Mandal and they are eking out
their livelihood by doing agriculture. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the sons of
deceased. The deceased was having an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of
agriculture land near Bapana Cheruvu in Ranasthalam village. The
deceased and his sons raised maize crop in the said land and they
placed thorny fencing around their land to prevent the cattle. On
15.02.2009 at about 2.00 p.m., P.W.1 and the deceased went to the
land to divert water. They found the accused removing thorny fencing
and placed it in the land and also found cutting away of bund. P.W.1
and the deceased questioned the accused and A.1 slapped on the right
cheek of P.W.1. When the deceased interfered, A.1 beat him with
reverse side of spade on right side of his head. A.2 also beat the
deceased with reverse side of spade at the same place. A.3 beat the
deceased with a stone on his head. The deceased fell down and lost
consciousness. P.Ws.3 to 5 and L.W.7 came to the scene of offence
and they carried the deceased in their hands and placed under a tree.
P.Ws. 3 to 5 and L.W.7 also said to have witnessed the incident. At
that time, they were attending agricultural works at a distance of 20 feet
from the scene of offence. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the village and
made a phone call to 108 ambulance. In the meanwhile, P.Ws.3 to 5
and L.W.7 brought the deceased to the village in an auto-rickshaw. In
the meanwhile, 108 ambulance came and the deceased was shifted to
the hospital. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a
report. On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.13 Sub-Inspector of
Police received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in
Crime No.20 of 2009 under Section 323 and 324 read with 34 of IPC.
Copy of FIR is marked as Ex.P11. He sent the copies of FIRs to all the
concerned. He sent P.W.1 to hospital for medical examination.
P.W.12 who is doctor in RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam examined P.W.1
and issued Ex.P10 wound certificate. He found a lacerated injury on
the left hand thumb to P.W.1 measuring ½ cm X 1 mm X 1 mm. He
also examined the deceased and found a lacerated injury over the
centre of the skull.
6. P.W.13 went to the scene of offence at about 4.30 P.M. and
prepared an observation report-Ex.P6. He also prepared rough sketch-
Ex.P12 at the scene of offence. He also recorded statements of
P.Ws.3 to 6 and others at the scene of offence. He also seized 14
bangle pieces (M.O.7) at scene of offence. He visited the hospital and
he could not record the statement of injured as he was in unconscious
state. He seized blood stained clothes M.Os.4 to 6 of the injured under
a panchanama (Ex.P7).
7. While undergoing treatment, the injured succumbed to injuries on
the early morning of 16.02.2009. P.W.2 another son of deceased went
to the police station and gave Ex.P2 report stating that his father died
while undergoing treatment at KGH, Visakahpatnam. Basing on Ex.P2,
P.W.13 altered the FIR to Section 302 and 324 read with 34 IPC. He
filed alteration memo Ex.P13. Having received the information from
P.W.13, the Inspector of police-P.W.14 went to the police station and
recorded statement of P.W.2. Then, he visited the scene of offence
and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 6 and others once again.
Later, he visited KGH Visakhapatnam and conducted inquest over the
dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators P.W.11 and
others. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P5. At the inquest, he
recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 8. On 17.02.2009 he arrested
all the three accused in their house. As per the confession made by
accused, he seized two spades from A.1 and A.2 from the cattle shed.
They were marked as M.Os.1 and 2. They were seized under the
cover of mediatornama Ex.P6 and P7. He sent the dead body of
deceased for conducting post-mortem examination. The doctor, who
conducted post-mortem, was not examined by the prosecution and
post-mortem report-Ex.P14 was marked through P.W.15 another
Investigating Officer subject to objection. He sent the material objects
to RFSL. RFSL report is marked as Ex.P15. After completion of
investigation P.W.15 filed the charge sheet.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15
and marked Exs.P1 to P16 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 7. On behalf of
defence Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. When the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating
evidence appearing against them.
9. Having disbelieved the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
learned I Additional Sessions Judger, Srikakulam acquitted all the three
accused as aforesaid.
10. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Sri P.Raj
Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 / accused Nos.1 to
3.
11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record.
12. P.W.1 stated in his evidence that on 15.02.2009 at about 2.00
p.m., when he and the deceased went to the land to divert water in
their land, they found the accused removing the thorny fencing and
placed it in their land and removed the bund. When they questioned,
A.1 slapped him on his right cheek. He also deposed that he was
beaten by all accused indiscriminately. As per the wound certificate
issued by P.W.12, P.W.1 received a lacerated injury over the left hand
thumb measuring ½ cm X 1mm X 1mm red in colour which is a simple
injury. There is a discrepancy with regard to injuries received by P.W.1
and the evidence of P.W.12 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1.
13. As per the evidence of P.W.1, A.1 and A.2 beat the deceased
with reverse side of spade on the right side of the head of deceased
and A.3 beat the deceased with stone on his head, whereas in Ex.P1
report given by P.W.1, it disclose that A.1 to A.3 and another accused
Narayana (who was not shown as accused in the charge sheet) beat
him and the deceased with a spade and A.3 beat his father with hands.
P.W.13-the Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence stating that
as per his investigation, no one stated to him that A.1 and A.2 beat the
deceased with reverse side of spade and A.3 beat with stone on the
head of the deceased. Thus, the evidence spoken by P.W.1 is
contrary to his version before the Investigating Officer-P.W.13.
14. As per the case of prosecution the deceased was shifted to
RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam at first instance. But, there is no evidence
on record to show that the hospital Authorities at RIMS Hospital sent
any hospital intimation to the out-post police who is available in RIMS
Hospital. There is no evidence from the prosecution that the deceased
was examined by the medical officer at RIMS Hospital. The
Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to record statement of the
medical officer who examined the deceased and did not produce any
document to show that the deceased was treated by the medical officer
at RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam. P.W.12 in his cross-examination
deposed that he examined the deceased on 15.02.2009 and found
lacerated injury over the centre of the skull of 3" X ½" X ½" X ¼" margin
irregular and bleeding present and he referred the deceased to MS
ward. He also deposed stating that there was no bleeding from ears
and nose. Ex.D3 attested copy of accident register of the deceased is
marked through P.W.12.
15. Regarding scene of offence, there is no corroborative evidence
from the prosecution witnesses. P.W.3 who is one of the eye witness
to the incident deposed that the incident took place at the bund portion
of land of deceased. Whereas P.W.4 another eye witness deposed
that the incident took place at Kallam, which is by the side of the land
of Rayapureddy Satyam, P.W.5 deposed that the incident took place
where the thorny bushes were cut and P.W.6 deposed that the incident
took place in between the field bund of P.W.1 and the tank bund.
P.W.7 deposed that the incident took place at Bapana Cheruvu
whereas P.W10 deposed that the incident took place at the chapta in
the middle of the tank. P.W.11-the Village Revenue Officer, who acted
as mediator for scene observation, deposed that the scene of offence
is six meters away from the tank. P.W.14-Inspector of police deposed
that the scene of offence is thrashing floor and there is no tree present
near the scene of offence. As per rough sketch of scene of offence,
the incident took place in the middle of the land of accused only, but
not at tank bund or middle of the tank or chapta or at the boundary
bund of deceased or in the land of deceased. Therefore, the evidence
adduced by the prosecution suffers from number of inconsistencies
and contradictions.
16. On perusal of the entire material on record, there are lot of
discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to
the injuries received by P.W.1 and the deceased and there is no
corroborative evidence which weakens the case of prosecution.
17. In that view of the matter and on the above analyses, this Court
is of the opinion that the judgment dated 20.10.2011 passed by the
learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in S.C.No.61 of 2010
is unambiguous and warrants no interference by this Court. Hence, the
Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
_____________________________
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Dt. 09.09.2024
SAB / TSNR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2015
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Date: 09.09.2024
SAB / TSNR
