State appealed the acquittal of four accused charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for a fatal attack in Chittoor District. Citing limited scope for interfering with acquittals and flaws in prosecution evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :::: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY AND
the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. V. L N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 4«<) Qp 2015 Between:
The Stale of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,Amaravathi.
...APELLANT/PETITIONER ' AND 1. L.G.Gandhi, S/o. M. Sambaiah. 51 ^ years, SC (Mala) by caste Pachipalapalli Harijanawada H/o. Damalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal. 2. Gandhi Ganesh, S/o. L.G. Gandhi, 27 years, SC (Mala) by caste, Pachipalapalli Harijanawada H/o. damalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal. 3. Gandi Karthik, S/o. L.G. Gandi, 25 years, SC(Mala) by caste, Pachipalapalli Harijanawada, H/o. Damalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal, 4. Gandi Kalavathi, D/o. 23 years, SC(Mala) by caste. achipalapalli Harijanawada, H/o. Damalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal.
Appeal under Section 378(3) & (1) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this ~" memorandum of criminal appeal against the judgment in S.C.No. 115 of 2009 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor dated 16-12-2011. Counsel for the AppellantrSRI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: : SRj. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT
1
KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.489 OF 2015
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl
TUESDAY THE TWENTY SIXTY DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
rpfcial division bench
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND
HON BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.489 of 2015 ,1 II n G M E N T
{Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Suresh Reddy)
Questioning the Judgment of acquittal passed by the District Case No. 115 of 2009 and Sessions Judge, Chittoor in Sessions represented by the Public Prosecutor dated 16.12.2011, the State Criminal Appeal against the Accused Nos.1 to filed the present 4/respondents herein. tried by the learned Sessions 2. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were for the offence under Judge under two charges. The first charge was Nos.1 and 2, for causing death of Section 302 IPC against Accused after referred to as one Mahasamudram Shanmugam (herein
2
KSR,J&BVLNC.J CrlA.No.489 Of 201S
deceased) and the second charge was for the offence under Section 307 IPC against A1 to A4 for causing grievous injuries in their attempt to murder P.Ws 3 and 5.
- After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted all the four (4) accused for both the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State through the Public Prosecutor filed the present Criminal Appeal.
All the four (4) accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws 1 to 5 are residents of Pachipalapalli Harijanawada, H/o Damalcheruvu, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District. There are two rival groups in the Harijanawada. One group is headed by Ramamurthy, a Teacher and the other group is headed by Krishnaiah. The accused party are the supporters of Ramamurthy group and the prosecution party belongs to Krishnaiah party.
On 16.3.2008, when A1 to A4 were harvesting the tamarind fruits from tamarind tree standing in Devudu Manyam,whichusedto auction and spend the sale proceeds for maintenance of the Temple, the deceased and others belonging to the group of Krishnaiah
3
KSR.J&BVLNC.J Crl.A.No.489 OF 2015
questioned, whereby the accused said to have threatened the deceased and others with dire consequences if they raise any objection. While so, on 19.3.2008 at about 11.30 A.M.P.Ws3and5 went to the Electrical Transformer situated near the house of Accused No.1, to change fuse, which was burnt. Then,Accused Nos.1 to 4 armed with deadly weapons, attacked P.Ws.3and5and caused bleeding injuries. The deceased, who is fatherofP.W.3,on hearing the cries, rushed to the scene to rescue them.ThenA1to A4 attacked him with deadly weapons and fled away.Thereafter,the deceased and P.Ws 3 and 5 were shifted to GovernmentHospital, Pakala, where the deceased was declared brought dead. Then P.Ws 3 and 5 were shifted to S.V.R.R. Government Hospital, Tirupathi for expert treatment. On the same day, atabout6.00P.M., P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report tothepolice. P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of Ex.PI report from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 109readwith34 IPC against the accused. He issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P14 is the copy of FIR.
Having received the information, P.W.15 the Inspector of Pakala Circle went to the police station and recorded
Police,
<-"A.Ho.4a9OF201S
ststement °f P.W.1 in Ii,e <-"A.Ho.4a9OF201S police station. Then Government Hospital^ he vis/ted the Pakala and posted 3 Guard 3t the diortuary Where the dead body of the deceased '^as lying. On the he/d inquest next day, he over the dead body of 'he deceased between ^n''9-30A.M./nthe 7-00 A.M. recorded presence of P.w.9 and others under Ex. P2. He statements of P.\N.2 and another Thereafter, he vi during inquest. visited the scene of offence and prepared observation reporf/Ex.Ps in the presence of p.w.9 and another. ''^Os 5 and 6/blood hte collected stained earth and controlled earth at the Offence. He also prepared scene of ''ough Sketch-Ex. P15 offence. He at the scene of got photographed the scene of Pfiotographs with otfence. Ex.Pie fsi the negatives. Thereafter, he visited S.V.R. Tirupathi R. Hospital, and '■ecorded statement °fP-W.3. He could not record the statement of p.w. ^ os she was in unconscious state, MOs. 7, 8, Re seized 9 and 10 clothes belonging to the deceased cover of under the Panchanama-Ex.Pi7 He came back to police station and sent the dead body for conducting postmortem examination.
P-W-'O Civil Assistant Surgeon dead body of the conducted autopsy over the deceased and found si (6) external ini ®te''en (11) internal ini injuries and 'ojuries on the dead '=ody of the opined the deceased. He cause Of the death '^as due to 'haemorrhage end shock,
f
\
KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crt.A.No.489 OF 2015
due to injury to vital organs like lung, spleen, brainleadtocardio respiratoryfailure. He issued post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P6. Dr. Hari Kumar treated P.Ws 3 and 5 who issued wound certificatesmarked as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 through P.W. 13 another doctor.
On 21.3.2008 at about 3.00 P.M. P.W.15 arrested Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the presence of P.Ws 7 and 9 and on theconfession made by Accused Nos.1 to 4, he seized Mos 1 to 4-weapons in the of P.Ws 7 and 9 under cover of Panchanama-Ex.P5. After presence receipt of Post-mortem Certificate, Wound CertificatesandRFSL report, he filed charge sheet.
X
KSH, J & BVLNC. J Crl.A.Mo.4S9 OF 2015 7. After completion of trial ’ *®3fned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused vide Judgment in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2009 dated 16.12.2011, which is i IS impugned in the present Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused/respondents herein. We have gone through the entire material on record.
9- The motive according to the prosecution in the present case IS that Accused Nos.1 to 4 wi without knowledge of the villagers were harvesting the crop from the tamarind tree standing in Devudu Manyam, which crop used to be auctioned regularly for spending the sale proceeds for benefit of the Temple. It is the specific case of the prosecution at that juncture, the deceased and others belonging to the group of Krishnaiah questioned the accused, for which the latter said to have threatened with dire consequences. P.W. 15/the Investigating Officer gave a requisition to P.W.7/ the Additional R.l. to enquire and submit report with regard to the ownership of the said tamarind tree. After conducting enquiry, P.W.7 submitted a report stating that the disputed tamarind tree is situated in the Government land which was proposed to allot house sites to landless poor. So far as the site, in which tamarind tree i is situated was not allotted to beneficiary. In view of the above Vr-» any specific report submitted by P.W 7
7
KSR, J & BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.489 OF 2015
r
it came to light that the said tamarind tree did notbelongtoDevudu Manyam and is situated in Government land, which landisproposed for allotment of house sites to landless poor people.
8
^2. The ^>’131 Court XSIt,J& bvlnc j P'‘osecuf/on wi '^'^esses i IS not^/so found that the ocular 'version As of the after With the the Nodical found that oncorrob entire ovidence on record, ^^iclence. orated teetin, trial Courf ofp.ws '*ries found ^ to 5 3s there i on the IS no ^riy amount P^^son Of the ^^^ospicion ‘deceased, against the ^^ere /c Of the 13. prosecution. Further, this is an Coaling With the oppeal Against appeals PP Order of against acquittal. In Power to ^^guittai, re~ appreciate ^'rough this slow i the ovidenc ^°ort has full in i o, at the With the ^^rne time, it ^rder of P^^^umption ^^guittal bee, ^^rier law that Unless focused i IS a contrary /IS IS presumed to be i proved and innocent ^^''^mhened that by the order acquittal ^ P''^sumption ISi further ^^^Pelling roasons artless there ibe trial Court Wi are ^ob^tantial or Court. If disturb fbe trial ‘be find! then it bos g,Veg ngs can be a ^riy perverse ground to / Similarly, if interfere w//With the binding ^rder of ^dmissibi® ewdence ^uquittal. p°Ps/dera(,on or i‘^^bmissibie has not been ‘^ben into purpose Of ^^idence has arriving at a '’®®P looked i be a Ponicular findin mio for thg ^^rnpeiiing 9> then also can be caid to reason to iinterfere With the Same.
9
KSR, J & BVLNC, J CrLA.No.489 OF 201S
Khuman Singh & anr.^’, the apex Court held as follows:
“ Coming to the ambit of power of High Court underSection 401 of the Code, the High Court in its revisional powerdoesnot ordinarily interfere with judgments of acquittal passedbythetrial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when itisfoundthat the order under revision suffers from glaring illegalityorhas caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found thatthe trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or wherethetrialCourt has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwiseoughttohave been considered or where the material evidence whichclinches the issue have been over looked. These are the instanceswhere the High Court would be justified in interfering withtheorderof acquittal. ”
an order of acquittal, the power of High Court to interferewiththe same, the Apex Court held thus;
“Unless the findings of trial Court are perverse orcontraryto the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal.
^ 1998 (8) Supreme
^ 2003(1) see 1
10
KSR.J&BVLNC.J Cri.A.No.489 0F2015
substitute its findings merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. ”
as follows:
“While exercising the powers in an appeal against theorderof acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarilyinterferewiththe order of acquittal unless the approach of the lowerCourt is vitiated by some manifest illegality land the conclusionarrivedat would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and,therefore, the decisions is to be characterized as perverse. Merelybecause two views are possible, the court of appeal would nottakethe view, which would upset the judgment, delivered bytheCourt below. However, the appellate court has a power toreviewthe evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifesterror of law land ignored the material evidence on record.Adutyis cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re appreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decisiononthebasis of material placed on record to fine out vyhether anyofthe accused is connected with the commission of the crimehe is charged with. ”
judgment of trial Court.
^ (2007) 2 see (erl.)162
11
\
/
r^.
KSR, J & BVLNC, 1 Crl.A.No.489 OF 2015
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SEC FFICER
To
5.Three C.D.Copies
nm
t
high court DATED:26/03/2024
ORDER CRLA.No.489 of 2015
the CRIMINAL APPEAL IS dismissed
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State's criminal appeal could overturn the acquittal of four accused on murder and attempted murder charges given unproved motive, FIR delay and interested witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vimal Singh v. Khuman SinghRelied on¶14
1998 (8) Supreme (Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh)
C. Antony v. K.G. RaghavanRelied on¶15
2003(1) SCC 1 (C. Antony v. K.G. Raghavan) · Who else cites this
State of Goa vs. Sanjay ThakranRelied on¶16
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri.) 162 (State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran) · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by the Public Prosecutor
L.G. Gandhi
Gandhi Ganesh
Gandi Karthik
Gandi Kalavathi
K. Suresh Reddy
B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
