Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana,Rep By Pp., vs Bejjanki Ramaswamy, Chigurumamidi M ... on 9 January, 2025

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
                                AND
           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.909 OF 2017


JUDGMENT:

(per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondents/accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302, 307

r/w.34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and Sri D.Purnachandra

Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 1 to 3.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 is father of A2

and A3 is the husband of A2. The deceased by name Bejjanki

Mahadev (herein after referred to as the deceased) was the younger

brother of A1. All of them are residing in the same locality in

adjacent houses. There was some vacant site in front of the house of

the deceased regarding which some disputes were prevailing between

their families. In the night of 26.07.2014, the deceased abused A1 to

A3 in filthy language in an intoxicated condition, whereby A1 to A3

planned and decided to kill the deceased. Thus, on the next day

morning, at about 6.00 a.m., when the deceased came out of his

house, A1 axed on his head whereby the deceased fell down and then

A3 beat the deceased with a stick on his head, stomach, legs and

back and then A2 pelted a logwood on the head of the deceased due

to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the

spot. It is also stated that when A1 to A3 were killing the deceased,

Smt.Bejjanki Radha (PW.1) wife of the deceased, tried to rescue her

husband, but A1 hacked on her left hand with the axe and caused

an injury and because of fear she ran from there, though all the

accused chased her, she escaped. It was witnessed by Sri

Dunnapothula Yellaiah (PW.4), Dunnapothula Yellavva (LW.6) and

Dunnapothula Mondaiah (PW.5).

4. On report given by PW.1, the wife of the deceased, at about

7.30 A.M., the Sub Inspector of Police, Chigurumamidi P.S. (PW.10)

registered the same in Cr.No.110/2014 for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 302 r.w,34 of IPC and issued Express FIR and

then investigation was taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police

(PW.11) who visited the scene of offence. Photographs of the dead

body were taken. The scene of offence panchanama and Inquest

proceedings over the dead body were conducted in the presence of

one Geekuri Ravinder (LW.13) and Mohd.Sarwar Pasha (PW.8).

Dr.E.Ramadevi (PW.12) conducted postmortem examination on the

requisition of the Police and she opined that the death of the

deceased was due to massive hemorrhagic shock which resulted

from multiple fractures.

5. The Inspector of Police, in the course of investigation, arrested

A1 to A3 on 28.07.2014 at about 11.00 A.M., at Chigurumamidi Bus

Stand and on interrogation, they confessed to the commission of the

offence. A1 showed the axe, which was hidden in the Church of

Chigurumamidi Village. A2 showed a blood stained stick used by

him near Yellamma Temple of the same village which was seized. In

the presence of Mamidishetti Rajaiah (LW.15) and Gudem Rajaiah

(PW.9) both axe and stick were recovered. On completion of

investigation, charge sheet was filed by deleting the names of

Kommu Pruthvi and Kommu Neha, who are the son and daughter of

A2 and A3 against whom PW.1 gave report, on the ground that their

involvement was not established.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to

12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P14 apart from M.Os.1 to 8 and closed

its evidence. Exs.D1 and D2 are marked for the defence, which are

portions of statements said to have been made by PW.4 and PW.5 to

the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., when they were under cross-

examination.

7. Having considered the evidence of witnesses, the learned

Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants on the following grounds.

i) A3 finding the deceased alive and abusing him as son of a bitch,

that he did not die and by uttering 'you die' A3 kicking on his

testicles is an omission. Further hitting deceased head with boulders

and killing him is also an omission. Participation of son and

daughter of A2 and A3 was ruled out by the police during the course

of investigation.

ii) PW.1 deposed before the Court below that A3 inflicted injury on

the head of her deceased husband by using an axe and on finding

the deceased still alive, A2 and her daughter beat her husband with

sticks. She further deposed that A2 beat her husband with a piece of

wooden log and caused fractures and then her husband died on the

spot. The same is repeated by PW.2, the daughter of PW.1, which

was found to be incorrect during investigation.

iii) PW.4 deposed that A1 to A3 together killed the deceased with

axes and sticks. He further deposed that after hitting the deceased

with an axe and when the deceased fell down, he was beaten with

sticks until he died. PW.4 stated to the police that A1 hit with axe on

the head of the deceased and when the deceased had fallen down, A1

hacked on his head. The versions are contradictory.

iv) PW.5, another alleged eye witness, deposed that after A1 brought

the deceased, he was beaten by all the three accused with axe and

sticks and thus killed the deceased. He did not give specific overt

acts of each of the accused and the weapon each of the accused was

carrying and using in the alleged attack made against the deceased.

The evidence of PW.5 is contrary to evidence of PWs.3 and 4.

v) PW.6 deposed that A1 to A3 killed the deceased by using axe, stick

and wooden log. PW.6 did not specify the overt acts and what

weapon was used by each accused.

vi) As seen from the rough sketch prepared by the Investigation

Officer as to the scene of offence, the houses of PWs.4 to 6 are not at

all seen near at the place of occurrence of the offence.

vii) No reason whatsoever is stated by the prosecution for not

examining the persons who were residing adjacent to the scene of

offence and the inhabitants of the houses situated in front of the

houses of the accused and the deceased.

viii) The offence is said to be taken place at about 6.00 A.M. on

27.07.2014. The report is said to be given at 7.30 A.M. to the police

which police station is in the same village. PW.11/Inspector of Police

who conducted investigation in this case stated in the cross-

examination that the time noted by the Magistrate appears to be

8.30 p.m. Further the trial Judge held that complaint must have

been received during night hours at his residence and the Court

stamp with date 28.07.2014 is seen which would be of the next day

morning. There is no reason whatsoever given by the prosecution for

the said delay of 12 ½ hours in complaint reaching the Magistrate.

ix) Though it is the case of prosecution that PW.1 was attempted to

be killed by the accused, in Ex.P1/report, it is not stated as to who

hacked her hand with axe.

x) PWs.1 and 2 further deposed that they were chased by the

accused with a view to kill them, but they did not depose as to in

what manner and how they were chased and towards what direction

and to what distance so to know the real intention on the part of the

accused whether they wanted to kill amounting to attempt to murder

PW.1 so to bring home the guilt under Sec.307 of IPC.

8. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an

appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether

the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly

when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an

order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour

of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in

reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

9. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the

settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in

reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"

for doing so.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.

vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."

10. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that PW.1 is both

eye-witness and injured person in the attack by the respondents/

accused. No reasons are given as to why the version given by PW.1

and PW.2 are not accepted. Only on the basis of PW.1's evidence,

acquittal has to be reversed.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused

supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as reasonable

and probable.

12. The learned Sessions Judge found that the version given at the

time of complaint was incorrect and two of the accused named in the

FIR were found to be not complicit in the alleged offence.

13. There is any amount of variation in between the versions of the