P. Venkata Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its P Hyd., 9 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 175 Tel

           HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         AT HYDERABAD
                              *****

             Criminal Revision Case No.181 OF 2007

Between:

P. Venkata Rao                                       ... Petitioner
                           And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad & Others
                                                     ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED:          10.01.2023
Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see             Yes/No
      the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law                         Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the             Yes/No
      Judgment?



                                               __________________
                                                K.SURENDER, J
                                  2


           * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                     + CRL.RC. No. 181 of 2007



% Dated 10.01.2023


# P. Venkata Rao                                 ... Petitioner
                           And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
At Hyderabad & Others
                                                  ... Respondents


! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. D. Kodanda Rami Reddy


^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,

                                 Addl. Public Prosecutor
                           Sri V.M.Krishna Reddy for R2 to R10


>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
                                3


           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.181 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioner who was examined as P.W.9 before the

trial Court has preferred the present Criminal Revision

questioning the correctness of the order of acquittal of the

respondents 2 to 10, who are arrayed as A1 to A9 and tried for

the offences under Sections 448 r/w 149 IPC and Section 302

r/w 109 and Section 324 r/w 149 of IPC vide judgment in

S.c.No.485 of 2006 dated 03.11.2006.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

respondents/accused and the deceased Polasani Veera Rao

are residents of Rangapuram village of Mogulapally Mandal.

On 22.01.2004, Padugula Narsaiah and Padugula Salender,

who are A7 and A8 quarreled with the deceased on a petty

issue, picked up sticks and beat him, which was registered as

Crime No.4 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 324 r/w 34

IPC of P.S.Mogulapally and pending trial. The deceased person

Veera Rao went to Warangal to attend trial in a case and while

returning back, he went to the house of P.W.8. At that

juncture, A1 called the witness P.W.2 and while they were

conversing, the deceased intervened and a quarrel ensued

between the deceased and A1. It is alleged that A1 felt

insulted by the acts of the deceased Veera Rao and went to his

village, gathered his relatives, who are A2 to A9 and armed

with deadly weapons and sticks, trespassed into the house of

the deceased and attacked him. The attack resulted in the

death of the deceased. A complaint was filed with the police

and they investigated the case and filed charge sheet. During

the course of investigation, it was found that the deceased

died due incised and chop wounds.

3. Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses

P.Ws.1 to 19 and marking Exs.P1 to P22 found that there is

evidence of P.W.1who is the mother of the deceased and PW5

who is the father of PW1, regarding the entire incident.

Further, statements of P.W.1 and PW5 in court were

inconsistent with their statements before the police regarding

the altercation between the deceased and A1 and also the

subsequent attack by all the accused. The other eye witnesses

did not support the prosecution case. On account of the

animosity between the deceased and the accused, the evidence

of P.W.1, who was an interested witness, was not accepted by

the Sessions Court. Narration of the incident from the

beginning, when there was an altercation between the

deceased and A1 at the house of P.W.8 and also the

subsequent attack, PW1 had stated different versions during

chief and cross-examinations. The learned Sessions Judge

found that on the basis of the tainted testimony of P.W.1 and

PW5 who did not appear to be truthful and did not inspire the

confidence of the court, conviction cannot be based on such

inconsistent testimony.

4. Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submits that since the acquittal is being questioned in the

present revision, the case has to be listed before the Division

Bench.

5. In accordance with the Appellate Side Rules of this court,

under Chapter-I (Constitution of Benches) (1)(f), a Single

Judge shall hear every application filed for the exercise by the

High Court of its powers to revise the proceedings of any

Criminal Court. For the said reason, there is no necessity to

send the case to Division Bench, as such, the case is being

heard and disposed by this Court.

6. Having perused the record, there are several

discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and the other eye

witness PW.5. P.W.1 is none other than the mother of the

deceased and an injured witness. P.W.5 is the other eye

witness, father of P.W.1.

7. There cannot be any doubt that evidence of relatives

cannot be accepted. However, in the present case, P.W.1 has

falsely implicated A9 in the case though he was not present.

The reasons regarding narration of incidents at the earliest

point of time about the altercation between the deceased and

A1 and the subsequent alleged attack are improvements made

during the course of trial.

8. This court under powers of revision under Section 401 of

Cr.P.C, cannot convert an order of acquittal into conviction.

However, this Court has powers to remand the case back for

retrial or a denovo trial only if the circumstances warrant such

remand. In the present case, there are no infirmities in the

findings of the learned Sessions Judge. The findings are

probable and reasonable. Only for the reason of a possibility

of another view which can be taken, this Court cannot

interfere with the order of well reasoned judgment of acquittal

and remand the matter back for retrial or denovo trial.

9. In an order of acquittal, there is a presumption of

innocence and unless there are compelling reasons in the form

of any illegality committed by the trial judge, interference by

this Court is not called for. For the aforesaid reasons, the

revision fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As

a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.01.2023 Note: LR copy to be marked.

B/o.kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.181 OF 2007

Dt.10.01.2023

kvs