Purumalla Karunakar Reddy ... vs Gottemukkala Rajashekar Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 6295 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.943 of 2011


JUDGMENT:

The victim in this case filed this appeal aggrieved by the

judgment, dated 19.04.2011, passed by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2010, acquitting

both the accused, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, for the

offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the case presented by the prosecution

before the trial Court, is as under:

PW-2, Mr.Karunakar Reddy who is the appellant herein,

is the son of the de facto complainant. P.W.2 is one of the

partners in Krushi Chit Fund Company, along with other

partners i.e., Dharmender Raju, Jagan Mohan Reddy, Narayan

Rao and accused No.1. In the year 2004, due to differences

among them, PW-2 withdrew from the firm. PW-2 was insisting

accused No.1 and other partners to refund the amount invested

by him and a case was also lodged by him with Registration and

Stamps Department against his partners. As such, accused

No.1 bore grudge against PW-2 and with a view to kill PW-2, he

along with accused No.2, Narsaiah goud and others armed with

knives, hockey sticks and sticks attacked PW-2 on 21-3-2009 at 2 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

about 8-30 a.m. while he was coming out from Pallavi Nursing

Home, Mukarampura, Karimnagar. Due to the said assault, he

sustained injuries on his head, shoulder and stomach, he was

shifted to Surya Nursing Home by the defacto complainant.

Based on the complaint, Ex.P.1 report was lodged by P.W.1, the

father of P.W.2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town

Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 101 of 2019 for the

offence under Sections 148, 307 r/w. 149 IPC and took up

investigation. During the course of investigation, S.I. of Police

recorded the statement of defacto-complainant, injured and

others, filed requisition before the Tahsildar, Karimnagar for

recording dying declaration of the injured/PW-2 and examined

the injured at Surya Nursing Home, examined six eyewitnesses,

seized bloodstained knife and two pieces of stump from the

scene of offence in the presence of mediators, arrested both the

accused on 27-05-2009 while they were proceeding on Honda

Activa. After recording the confession of accused No.1, seized

Honda Activa, examined and recorded the statements of seven

more witnesses. On the instructions of the Superintendent of

Police, Inspector of Police took over the investigation, filed

requisition for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.3, 7 to

10 and accordingly, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurabad recorded the statements of the above witnesses 3 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the

investigating officer filed charge sheet against both the accused

for the offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC while deleting the

names of other accused. Necessary charge under Section 307

r/w. 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to both the

accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution

conducted trial by examining as many as 18 witnesses and

marking Exs.P.1 to P.15 apart from M.Os. 1 and 2. On behalf of

the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, was of the view that the prosecution

failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 307 r/w. 34 IPC and accordingly,

acquitted them of the offence, through the impugned judgment.

Being aggrieved by the same, the victim filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has

contended that there is ample evidence to prove the offence with

which the accused are charged, but the trial Court has

acquitted both the accused without analysing the available

evidences in proper perspective. It is contended that the trial 4 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

Court has not given any valid and convincing reasons for not

accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are de facto

complainant and injured. Their evidence leads to only one

conclusion and inference that both the accused have committed

the offence with which they are charged.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2,

accused, referring to the limitations on the powers of this Court

while entertaining an appeal against acquittal, has contended

that the Court is to interfere only when there are compelling and

substantial reasons for doing so. The trial Court has minutely

considered the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and

also took into consideration the defence raised by the accused

and then acquitted the respondents, accused which does not

suffer from any infirmity as such the appeal lacks merits and is

liable to be dismissed.

7. The point for consideration in this case is, whether the

acquittal order passed by the trial Court is sustainable or not?

8. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court and the

Apex Court that, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an

appeal against the order of acquittal is very limited. Once the

trial Court acquitted the accused, the presumption of innocence

is strengthened. The Apex Court in Sampath Babso Kale v.

                                 5                               MGP,J
                                                  Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

State of Maharashtra(2019) 4 SCC 739 and in Chandrappa v.

State of Karnataka(2007) 4 SCC 415 considered this point.

9. Bearing the above principle in mind, this matter has to be

considered. The trial Court after appreciating the entire oral

and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that

both the accused are not guilty of the offences. At para No. 11,

page No. 13, while recording the order of acquittal, the trial

Court has observed as under:-

"11. ...The incident having taken place at 8.30 am, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged at 11.30 am. There was delay of 2 hours in lodging the complaint. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay in lodging the complaint, Ex.P15 First Information Report shows that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P15 was received by the learned Magistrate on 23.3.09 at 10.30 am, through PC.1780 as per the endorsement made thereon. PW.17 admits the same in his cross examination. PW.17 however has stated that he dispatched Ex.P15 First Information Report to the Court through police Constable on 21.3.09. No explanation is forth coming with regard to the delay of two days for Ex.P15 First Information Report reaching the learned Magistrate. The inference that follows is that Ex.P15 First Information Report was not dispatched on 21.3.09. Admittedly there are disputes between PW.2 and A1 pertaining to Krushi Chit Funds and Finance. PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence in fact have stated that in view of the said disputes and insistence of PW.2 for settlement of accounts, A1 and A2 bore grudge against PW.2 and attacked him with a view to kill him. Unexplained delay in lodging the 6 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

complaint and delay in sending the Ex.P15 First Information Report to the Magistrate is fatal to the case of prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court in 2008(1) ALT (Crl.) 270 (DB) A.P. in case of Perela Veeraiah v. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad has held that the delay in lodging the complaint is capable of being taken advantage of, to present a version in such a manner, as to provide the missing links, or to implicate the persons, who are not involved in the commission of offence. The delay in the instant case is therefore fatal to the case of prosecution.

In as much as no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution with regard to the delay in lodging the complaint, the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 attacked PW.2 with a view to kill him has to be disbelieved. The prosecution has also not explained the delay in sending the Ex.P15 First Information Report to the Magistrate.......... The delay in lodging the complainant and also the delay in dispatching the First Information Report to the Magistrate is therefore, fatal to the case of prosecution.

In view of the forgoing discussion coupled with the inconsistency in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the improvement made by them over her previous statement coupled with the evidence of PW.5 to 15 that all the injuries caused with sharp object and the nature of the injuries 1 to 17 being simple and though injuries 18 to 21 are grievous but there was no threat of life through the said injuries, reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court with regard to the participation of the A1 and A2 in the offence. A1 and A2 are therefore, entitled for benefit of doubt, A1 and A2 are therefore found not guilty of the offence punishable u/S.307 r/w. 34 IPC."

                                   7                                MGP,J
                                                     Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

10. Furthermore, the trial Court while considering the

evidence on record, observed as follows:

"Except stating that Jagan Mohan Raju, Narayana Rao and Narsaiah pushed him, PW.2 did not state anything with regard to their overt acts. PW.18 stated that PW.2 stated before PW.17 that A1 and A2, Jagan Mohan Raju, Narayana Rao and Narsaiah Goud attacked him causing bleeding injuries. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is therefore, not clear as to which of the injuries out of the injuries found on the person of PW.2 was caused by which assailant. In view of the presence of Jagan Mohan Raju, Narayan Rao and Narsaiah goud and their participation in the attack, it is also doubtful the injuries found on the person of PW.2 are caused due to overt acts of A1 and A.2"

11. Furthermore, P.W.3, who was examined as eyewitness to

the incident, has categorically stated in his evidence that he

cannot identify the assailants as well as the victim, as he

suddenly came out from the bathroom. The other alleged

eyewitnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 13, did not support the case of the

prosecution. As observed by the trial Court, the evidence of

P.W.1 regarding the overt acts of both the accused of their

stabbing P.W.2 is inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.2 apart

from contrary to Ex.P.1 contents. The evidence of P.W.14,

panch witness to the recovery panchanama and confession

made by the accused and the evidence of P.W.16, who was

examined regarding settlement of accounts, was not much 8 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

helpful to the case of the prosecution in bringing home the guilt

of the accused, more particularly, the evidence of main

witnesses suffers from inconsistencies and omissions.

12. When doubt arises in the mind of the court and when

clouds of doubt arise, in criminal justice delivery system, that

benefit of doubt shall accrue on the accused alone. Accordingly,

benefit of doubt has been accrued in this case on the part of the

accused and Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment by

assigning sound reasons relating to failure of the prosecution to

establish the guilt against the accused to secure conviction. At

a cursory glance of the grounds urged in this appeal preferred

by the victim and even re-appreciating the evidence on the part

of the prosecution, that too vital evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, no

worthwhile evidence has been elicited by the prosecution.

Consequently, as regards the cardinal principles of the criminal

justice delivery system and so also, to prove the facts, it is the

domain vested with the Trial Court and the Trial Court has

rightly come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

Consequently, the Trial Court has acquitted both the accused

by extending the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the

possibility of the accused having committed the offence as

narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution founds 9 MGP,J Crl.A.No.943 of 2011

doubtful. Therefore, in this appeal, this Court is of the opinion

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt

against both the accused and more so, the Trial Court has

rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an acquittal

judgment. Consequently, the appeal does not have any bone of

contention to re-visit the impugned judgment of acquittal and

also to re-appreciate the evidence as sought for. Consequently,

this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be

rejected as being devoid of merits.

13. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the

order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar, in S.C.No.191 of 2010, dated 19.04.2011 in

acquitting both the accused of the charge under Section 307

r/w. 34 IPC.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J

01st December, 2022 pgp/tsr