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

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

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

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

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

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:

(2006) 11 SCC 444 7 KS, J & JAK, J

"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

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