Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Sirigiri Nageswara Reddy

Telangana HC9 Dec 2009CRLA/1845/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against the acquittal of 9 accused persons for murder, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment below. The Court found the reasons for acquittal, including conflicting witness versions and lack of forensic material, to be cogent and the evidence well appreciated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the accused.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1845 of 2009

¶3

Date: 09.12.2009

¶4

Between : The State of A.P., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶5

and

¶6

Sirigiri Nageswara Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, aged 33 years, R/o. Gundampadu village, Sirvel Mandal, Kurnool District and others.

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND

¶8

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1845 of 2009

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

¶11

Heard learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellantState as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1

¶12

to 5/A.1 to A.5.

¶13

2. Appellant is the State and respondents are A.1 to A.9 in the Sessions Case.

¶14

3. This Criminal Appeal, by the State, under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 30.7.2008, in Sessions Case No.104 of 2006, passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nandyal, Kurnool District, acquitting A.1 to A.9 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 354 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “I.P.C.”).

¶15

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A.1 to A.6 are brothers and A.7 to A.9 are their supports. The deceased-Sirigiri Siva Nagi Reddy, Sirigiri Bala Nagireddy (L.W.3) and Sirigiri Pedda Nagi Reddy (L.W.7) are brothers and residents of Gundampadu village of Sirvel Mandal. About two years prior to the incident, A.3 with the support of A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 eloped Ranemma, the daughter of Sirigiri Pedda Nagi Reddy (L.W.7) and A.2 performed their marriage. Since then the family members of Sirigiri Bala Nagi Reddy (L.W.3), Sirigiri Pedda Nagi Reddy and the deceased were not in talking terms with A.1 to A.6. Further, about 8 months prior to the incident, a squabble took place between the deceased and A.1 to A.4 with regard to taking the water of Telugu Ganga channel to their fields and a case is pending at Sirvel Police Station. Thus, disputes arose between the families of the deceased and the accused. Accordingly, on 28.4.2005 at about 5-30 p.m., when the deceased was returning to his house from the fields and while he was passing through the sunflower crop in the land of Revanuru Pedda Rama Sanjeeva Reddy in the outskirts of Gundampadu village, A.1 to A.9 way laid him by hiding in the sunflower crop armed with deadly

¶16

weapons, like knives, axes, sticks and in furtherance of their common object to kill the deceased, all the accused pounced upon him and killed the deceased and fled away from the spot. The deceased, who sustained injuries, was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal and from there he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. On receiving the M.L.C. intimation from the Government Hospital at Nandyal, the Station House Officer recorded the statement of the deceased and a case in Crime No.47 of 2005 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 354 read with 149 I.P.C. Subsequently, on 29.4.2005 the deceased died at Government Hospital, Kurnool and on receipt of the death intimation, the Station House Officer, Sirvel Police Station altered the section of law to 302 I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, the police laid the charge sheet under Sections 148 and 302 against A.1 to A.9, under Section 354 I.P.C. against A.1, A.2, A.4 and under Section 354 read with 149 I.P.C. against A.3, A.5 to A.9.

¶17

5. When the charges framed were read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶18

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 14, besides marking material objects MOs.1 to 6. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, except marking Exs.D-1 to D-6, relevant portions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6.

¶19

7. The Court below, having considered the entire material including the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, found all the accused not guilty of the offences with which

¶20

they were charged and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present criminal appeal.

¶21

8. Now, the point that arises for consideration, in this Criminal Appeal is whether the Court below has rightly appreciated the evidence on record before arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

¶22

9. The Court below, while recording the order of acquittal against the accused, mainly relied on four circumstances, firstly; there are conflicting versions as regards the place of occurrence. As per P.W.8, the attestor of the scene of offence panchanama, the panchanama was conducted in the land of Chinna Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, whereas as per the alleged eye witnesses the incident took place in the land of Pedda Rama Sanjeeva Reddy, which is on the southern side and the material objects were seized from the said land, thereby the scene of offence is different from the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.14-the investigating officer, who allegedly seized them. Hence, it creates any amount of doubt as regards the correct place of scene of offence and conducting of scene of panchanama and also the seizure of material objects.

¶23

Secndly; it was alleged that when P.W.3, sister of the deceased, tried to intervene, A.1, A.2 and A.4 obstructed her and pushed her aside and torned her blouse, which was seized by P.W.14-investigating officer under Ex.P-3 cover of panchanama, but the said blouse though seized, was not produced before the Court below. There is a contradicting evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 with regard to which of the accused misbehaved with P.W.3 and torned her blouse.

¶24

Thirdly; the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is contradicting with each other with regard to their witnessing the incident and involvement of the accused in the incident.

¶25

Fourthly; there are conflicting versions by P.W.14, the investigating officer. At one stage, he states that he came to know about the incident at 7-00 p.m. on 28.4.2005, and at another stage, he states that he do not know about the incident till 12-00 O’ clock in the mid night. Further, as per his own admission in the crossexamination, he sent Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses along with the charge sheet to the Court, but not immediately after recording the statements as required, which creates any amount of doubt with regard to recording the statements of the witnesses immediately after the incident.

¶26

10. The Court below also found several other circumstances, like delay in sending the statement of the deceased either to the Nandyal II Town Police Station or to the Sirvel Police Station immediately after recording it by P.W.10, the Head Constable, and also why the signature of the deceased was not obtained on Ex.P.6, and also when it was the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased was hacked by all the accused, no blood stains were found and control earth was not seized and produced before the Court. All these circumstances create any amount of doubt as regards the occurrence of the incident and also participation of the accused in the offence. Therefore, when there is serious conflict in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the Court below rightly found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged.

¶27

11. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Court below, while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the

¶28

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, in our considered view, are cogent and the evidence on record was well appreciated before arriving at such a conclusion.

¶29

12. For the foregoing, the criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed as having no merits.

¶30

13. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the judgment, judgment, dated 30.7.2008, in Sessions Case No.104 of 2006, passed by the Court below.

¶31

_________________________

¶32

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶33

JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 09.12.2009 Msr

¶34

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶35

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1845 of 2009

¶36

09.12.2009 (Msr)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Sirigiri Nageswara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, v. Sirigiri Nageswara Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., Vs Jaggu , Kona Sarojini

The State of a.P., Vs K. Kala Thirupaiah

K. Purushothamaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Udatha Yadamma, Vs The Station House Officer

The State of a.P., Vs Rayapati Srinivasa Rao , Sreenu

N. Santhosh, Vs The Station House Officer