Dismissed¶68

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Gadda Raghavaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Mar 2025CRLA/1846/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1846 of 2007, decided 26.03.2025 by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy) against acquittal under Sections 148, 452, 324, 427 and 307 read with 149 IPC; principles for interference with acquittals — presumption of innocence, compelling and substantial reasons, perverse findings (Harbans Singh, AIR 1962 SC 439); hostile witnesses PWs.1 to 4; doubtful witness PW.6; planted mediator witness PW.7; contradictions with FIR Ex.P12 registration timing; death of investigating officer LW.13; acquittal in SC No.65 of 2005 confirmed; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the acquittal of respondents 1 to 10/A1 to A10 was confirmed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal were directed to stand closed. ¶68

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Gadda Raghavaiah — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the acquittal of respondents 1 to 10/A1 to A10 was confirmed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal were directed to stand closed.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether, in the State's appeal against the order of acquittal, there are substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the trial Court's findings. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

In appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, it would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal because the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal; absent substantial or compelling reasons, the trial Court's findings will not ordinarily be disturbed.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Compelling grounds for interfering with an acquittal include a perverse finding by the trial Court, admissible evidence not being taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence being looked into for arriving at a particular finding.

¶31

Key takeaways

Presence of PW.6 at the time of the incident is highly doubtful: his Section 161 statement (visiting Minagallu to ask about debt regarding Penchalaiah's land) contradicted his chief examination (purchase of seeds), DW.1 (son of Penchalaiah) denied the seed purchase and PW.6's visit, and PWs.4 and 5 never stated that PW.6 came to Minagallu with them.ratio¶46
PW.5's version was disbelieved: despite expressing suspicion in Ex.P1 she ventured out alone at 5.00 AM and raised no cries, PWs.1 to 4 (her close relatives) turned hostile and did not support her, and PWs.2 and 3 established that there were no civil disputes between the accused and PW.3 prior to the incident, disproving her account.ratio¶51
The evidence of PWs.5, 8 and 9 materially contradicts Exs.P5 and P12 on timing (case registered at 09.00 on 04.03.2000 versus claims of PWs.2, 4 and 5 coming to the police station at 07.30 am and hospital examinations at 07.55/08.30/08.45 am, before referral), leaving ambiguity whether the alleged incident occurred as suggested by the prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal against acquittal dismissed — presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal, and interference is warranted only for substantial or compelling reasons, such as a perverse finding, disregard of admissible evidence or reliance on inadmissible evidence (principle adopted from Harbans Singh, AIR 1962 SC 439). State appeal against the acquittal of ten accused of offences under Sections 148, 452, 324, 427 and 307 read with 149 IPC (04.03.2000 incident at Minagallu/Kotha Minagallu) fails because: PWs.1 to 4 turned hostile; PW.6's presence was highly doubtful on his own contradictions and DW.1's denial; PW.5's sole testimony was disbelieved (inconsistent conduct, no cries, no credible motive, prior disputes disproved by PWs.2 and 3); irreconcilable timing contradictions existed between the ocular, police and medical evidence and Exs.P5/P12; and the investigation stood unproved with the IO deceased, arrest and seizure unproved and PW.7 a planted witness. Acquittal dated 15.06.2006 in SC No.65 of 2005 (Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur) confirmed.

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1846 of 2007

¶2

Judgment:

¶3

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 15.06.2006 passed in SC No.65 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions judge, Kovvur, whereby and whereunder respondents 1 to 10 herein/A1 to A10 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 324, 427 and 307 read with 149 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges.

¶4

2. Case of the prosecution is as follows.

¶5

i) All the accused and PWs.1 to 4 are residents of Kotha Minagallu. There were disputes between the family of A4 and PW.3 with regard to Sivaijama land. On 15.02.2000, a petty quarrel ensued between PW.4 and A8 in fetching water from the public tap. Due to fear, PW.4 went to Kovvur and stayed with PW.5. On 03.03.2000, PWs.4 and 5 went to Kotha Minagallu village. PW.5 also learnt that accused planned to attack them

¶6

and decided to go back to Kovvur on the next day. On 04.03.2000, at about 05.00 AM, PW.5 came out from her house to

¶7

¶8

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶9

go to Tea shop. At that time, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and knives, with a common object of causing hurt to PW.5 and others, and in pursuance of their common object, assaulted PW.5 in front of the house of PW.3. A4 kicked PW.5 on her stomach with his leg, A2 dealt a blow with matchu katti on the left knee of PW.5. A4 beat PW.5 with a knife on her right knee. A5 beat PW.5 with a knife on the left side of her head, due to which she sustained simple injuries. Then all the accused trespassed into the house of PW.1 and A4 beat PW.1 with cart peg on her left leg, A5 beat PW.1 with a cart peg on the back of her chest, A8 beat PW.1 with a stick on her right knee and A9 beat PW.1 with a stick on her right shoulder blade. The other accused damaged the household articles of PW.1. Further, A1 beat PW.2 with a stick on his head and A4 beat PW.2 with „Matchukatti‟ on his buttock.

¶10

ii) Based on the report given by PW.5, PW.8 registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2000 of Buchireddipalem Police Station for the aforesaid offences and submitted copies of FIRs to all concerned. Ex.P12 is the FIR. He referred PWs.1, 2 and 5 to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore. PW.9 examined

¶11

¶12

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶13

PWs.1, 2 and 5 and issued would certificates Exs.P13, P14 and P15 opining that all the injuries are simple in nature. After completing investigation, LW.13 filed charge sheet.

¶14

The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.18 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur. As the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.18 of 2004 to the Court of Session, Nellore Division, Nellore, by an order dated 15.04.2004. The said case was numbered as SC No.65 of 2005 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovur, Nellore district, for disposal according to law.

¶15

On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 148, 452, 324, 427 and 307 read with 149 IPC were framed against them, contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶16

¶17

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶18

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and exhibited MOs.1 to 11.

¶19

After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied.

¶20

On behalf of the accused, DW.1 was examined and Ex.D1, portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, was marked.

¶21

The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated 15.06.2006 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

¶22

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence of PWs.5, 6 and

¶23

¶24

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶25

He further submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitting the accused without any valid reasons.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 10/A1 to A10, submits that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly acquitted the accused of the aforesaid charges and there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶27

Heard. Perused the record.

¶28

This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are

¶29

¶30

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶31

substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.

¶32

On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab¹ , wherein it was held as follows: (para 8)

¶33

“The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State

¶34

1 AIR 1962 SC 439

¶35

¶36

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶37

of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.”

¶38

Though the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 in support of its case, they did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. The other evidence available on record is evidence of PW.5, who is the de facto complainant, and PW.6 – Talari Gopal.

¶39

PW.5 deposed that about six years back, she went to Minagallu to the house of her mother-in-law and that at about 5.00 AM, when she was going to take tea, all the accused formed

¶40

¶41

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶42

themselves into an unlawful assembly in a street, and on seeing her, A1 kicked her on her stomach and she fell down. A2 hacked her on her left knee with sickle, A4 hacked her on her right forearm with a sickle and A5 hacked her with sickle on the left side of her head. Other accused beat her with kattava stick and sticks on her back. Thereafter, all the accused went to the house of PW.1 and damaged the household articles. The evidence of PW.6 corroborates with the evidence of PW.5 with regard to the said aspects.

¶43

Now, it has to be seen whether presence of PW.6 at the time of incident is established or not. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW.6 stated that he went to Minagallu on 03.03.2000 at 09.00 pm to ask the debt with regard to land belonging to Penchalaiah and stayed two days there. But, in his chief examination, he categorically stated that he went to Minagallu for purchase of seeds. In order to discredit the evidence of PW.6, the accused examined DW.1, who is the son of Penchalaiah and who stated that PW.6 never came to his house at Minagallu and his father never purchased any seeds for PW.6 at any time. This evidence creates a doubt whether PW.6 was

¶44

¶45

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶46

present at Minagallu at the time of incident or not. Further, according to statement of P.W.6 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PWs.4 and 5 also came to Minagallu along with him. But, PWs.4 and 5 never stated that PW.6 also came to Minagallu along with them. In view of the same, presence of PW.6 at the time of incident is highly doubtful.

¶47

Admittedly, PW.5 is a resident of Kovur. According to her, six years back she went to Minagallu to the house of her motherin-law. She never stated that she went to Minagallu along with PW.4. In her cross-examination, PW.4 stated that on 15.02.2000, a galata took place between her and A8, and on that occasion she went to Kovur and took PW.5 to Minagallu. She denied that she stated to the police as in Ex.P4 i.e. 161 Cr.P.C. statement. The evidence of PW.4 is self-contradictory, therefore what she stated in cross-examination could not be believed to be true and correct.

¶48

In her statement Ex.P1, PW.5 categorically stated that she had suspicion that the accused could do something against her and others. If such is the case, she could not have come outside from the house at 5.00 AM lonely. PW.5 stated that she saw all

¶49

¶50

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶51

the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly to beat her, but even after seeing all the accused, she did not try to run away or to raise cries. She never stated that she raised cries even at the time of beating by the accused. According to PW.5, there were disputes between her father-in-law and the accused. If such is the case, it is not known as to why the accused beat PW.5 instead of her father-in-law. PW.3, who is father-in-law of PW.5, categorically stated that there were no civil disputes between him and the accused. PW.2 also stated that the civil dispute between his father and Totapalli Subbaiah has been compromised even prior to this case. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 is clear that there were no disputes between the accused and PW.3 prior to the incident, which disproves the version of PW.5. The contention of the accused is that PW.5 is doing money lending business at Kovur and her enemies went to Minagallu and beat her.

¶52

The evidence of PW.5 is not supported by PWs.1 to 4, who are the close relatives of PW.5. Had the accused really beat PW.5, as stated by her, certainly PWs.1 to 4 would have supported her evidence, as she is one of their family members.

¶53

¶54

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶55

According to PW.5, she went to police station at about 08.30 or 09.00 am. She started at 08.30 am from Minagallu to go to police station. She also further stated that police referred her to Hospital at 08.30 am. Exs.P5 and P12 clearly show that police recorded the statement of PW.5 and registered a case at 09.00 am on 04.03.2000. Ex.P12 further shows that it is not mentioned in Col.No.3(b)(c) as to when the information was received whether it was at 09.00 am or 09.00 pm, but it was simply mentioned as 09.00. According to PW.5, she alone went to police station. But, according to PW.8, PW.5 came along with PWs.2 and 4 to the police station and he recorded their statements in the police station. PWs.2 and 4 categorically stated that police never examined them and they never went to police station. The evidence of PW.8 is contradicting with the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5. Further, according to PW.8, PWs.2, 4 and 5 came to police station at 07.30 am and then he registered a case. Ex.P12 the FIR clearly shows that a case was registered at 09.00 and Ex.P5 the statement of PW.5 also clearly shows that it was recorded at 09.00 on 04.03.2000. If PW.5 went to police station at 08.30 am or 09.00 am, it creates a doubt as to how PW.8

¶56

¶57

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶58

records the statements of PWs.2, 4 and 5 and to register a case at 07.30 am.

¶59

Further, PW.9, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Buchireddipalem, stated that on 04.03.2000, he examined PW.5 at 08.30 am, PW.1 at 08.45 am and PW.2 at 07.55 am. As per Exs.P5 and P12, the case was registered at 09.00 and thereafter PW.8 referred PWs.1, 2 and 5 to the Government Hospital for treatment. The evidence of PW.9 is contradicting with the contents of Exs.P5 and P12. When Ex.P12 was registered at 09.00, it is not possible for PW.9 to examine PWs.1, 2 and 5 as he stated. It is not the case of PWs.1, 2 and 5 that they went to the Hospital directly from the scene of offence and PW.9 examined them. The evidence of PWs.5, 8 and 9 is contradicting with the contents in Exs.P5 and P12. There is any amount of ambiguity as to whether the alleged incident as suggested by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not.

¶60

According to PW.8, LW.13-Ch.Balakrishnam Raju, who investigated the case, is no more and PW.8 identified his signature. Though PW.8 identified the signature of LW.13, he did not speak about the investigation done by LW.13, therefore the

¶61

¶62

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶63

accused did not have opportunity to cross-examine the I.O. regarding investigation done by him. The prosecution miserably failed to prove that he arrested the accused, seizure of MOs.1 to 11 and how PW.7 was secured by the I.O.. The evidence of PW.7 clearly shows that himself and one Vijaya Prasad signed Exs.P6 to P9 in the police station. When mediators are available at Buchireddipalem, LW.13 could have secured the mediators from Buchireddipalem or from the place from where the property was seized at the spot and it is not necessary to secure PW.7 and another punch witness from Kovvur who are residents of Kovvur village, which itself clearly indicates that PW.7 is a planted witness and his evidence is doubtful. Further, PW.7 in his evidence has categorically stated that he could not identify the accused due to long gap and he failed to confirm that police arrested the accused and seized the property at the instance of accused.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is on

¶65

¶66

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶67

correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶68

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 15.06.2006 passed in SC No.65 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur.

¶69

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶70

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶71

Dated:26.03.2025. Nsr

¶72

¶73

SRK, J Crl.A.No.1846 of 2007

¶74

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶75