Akula Veera Venkata Surya Prakash @babi v. Public Proseuctor, High Court of Ap.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. . 1. Chalienge in this appeal is to the judgment ola Division B Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court pa.rtly allowing the appeal filed by the State and setting aside the acquittal so far as the present appellant is concerned while upholding the acquittal in respect, of rest of the accused persons. · c 2. A-1 to A-9.-were tried for the offences under section 120B, 148, 149, 324, 307 & 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for having caused th.e death of one Abbai Reddy and injuries to Yedukondalu (P.W.1) and Mohammed Basha (P.W.2). The trial Court acquitted all the accused on 0 12. 7.1999. State preferred appeal before the High Court. The Appeal was allowed i.n respect of A-1 alone and he was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appeal in respect of A2 to A-9 was dismissed. Challenging the same, Criminal Appeal has E been preferred by A-1. 3. Prosecution versio·n in nutshell is as follows: On 4.11.1993 at about 7.00 P.M. Abbai Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and Yedukondalu (P.W.1) came . in the car driven by P.W.2 Basha. While coming to the turning F near to the house of the deceased, the accused persons Al .to AB stopped the car and broke the front glass of the car. Then they broke operi the doors bf the c_ar. All the. accused persons attacked the-deceased Abbai Reddy with knives. Some accused attacked P.W.1 ;:ilso, P.W.1 and PW-2 managed to escape after G receiving injuries. P.W.3 to 6 are the close relative of the deceased. Abbai Reddy on hearing the cries came out of the house and saw these accused running away from the scene after attacking the deceased. H P.W.1 made a telephonic call to P.W.22 S.I. of Police and .. AKULA VEERA VENKATA SURYA PRAKASH @ BAB! V. 547 PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P[DR. ARIJIT PA$AYAT, J) ·"" informed about the incident. P.W.22 after giving information to A higher official came to the scene of offence along with P.W. 15 the professional photographer. He.took photograph of the victim • deceased, car and the scene of offence. Then the deceased and P.W.1 were taken to the hospital. There the Doctor (not examined) declared Abbai Reddy dead. PW-1 was examined B by PW-16 Doctor on 4.11.1993 at 9.00 p.m. The PW-16 doctor issued Ex.P53 wound certificate. Thereafter, PW-22, S.I. Police obtained the statement Ex,P1 from PW-1 at 9.30 p.m. and registered the case atabout 10~00 p.m. under SecUon 3021PC and other offences. PW-23 the Inspector of f;olice took up the c . investigation and conducted the inquest on 5.11.1993. PW-17 · · conducted autopsy and iss.ued post mortem certfficate Ex.P54. P.W.23 lnspectorof Police continued the investigation and arrested the accused. During the course of investigation ·identification parade was conducted· by P.W.19 Magistrate, D P.W.1 identifiedA1,A2 andA4. P.W.2 identifiedA4·alone.After completing the investigation P.W.23filed the charge sheet. · P.W. 1to23 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Ex.P-1 to P-94 marked. D.W.1 was .examined on behalf of accused. Ex.D-1 to D4 were marked. Al is the son 9f A9, A2 is the clerk under A-9, A3 to A5 are · close friends of Al, A6 to A8 are friends of A2, A9 is A l's father. • There was a Quarry Business rivalry between A9 on the one ·hand and deceased Abbai Reddy on the other hand. The land F belonging to one Haribabu was put to sale. Both A9 as well as . deceased were trying to purchase the same, and ultimately deceased Abbai Reddy purchased the land at_ higher price. Due to~this ·there used to be frequent quarrels betWeen A9 and · deceased. P.W.1 Yedu~ondalu is business partner of deceased. G P.W.2 Basha is the driver: P.W.3 is the elder brother, P.W.4 is · " the friend, P.W.5 is the brother-in-law and P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased Abbai Reddy. The trial Court disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted all the accused. However, the High Court in the appeal H · A filed by the State set aside the order of acquittal in respect of Al .,. and convicted him for offence under Section 302 IPC and confirmed the acquittal in respect of other accused. 4. It is relevant to take note of the grounds on which the High Court sustained acquittal of A2 to A9. According to the 8 prosecution the occurrence had taken place near to the house of the deceased from where P.W.3 to 6 had witnessed the occurrence. The. evidence of PW.3 to 6 is not reliable because , P.W.3 to 6 could not have seen the occurrence from the deceased house as the scene of offence has been purposely C shifted from the actual scene of offence to a place near to the market yard from the place near to the house of deceased in order to plant P.W.3 to 6 as eye witnesses. The evidence of P.W.1 ~Photographer who had photographed the actual scene of offence would show that the scene of offence is a place D opposite to the market yard which is far away from the house of deceased. ~ 5. Now the reasons which weighted with the High Court to set aside acquittal of A 1 need to be noted. Since P.W.1 has given the names of Al in Ex.P.1 FIR and he is an injured witness, his E evidence alone is believed to convictA-1 for Section 302 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 to 6 mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W.15. If the finding given by the High Court ~ F in the light of the evidence of P.W.15 Photographer that P.W.3 to 6 is unreliable, would falsify the entire prosecution case. As such P.W.1 also cannot be believed also. 7. The specific findings of the High Court are as follows: · (1) The exact scene of offence is in front of market yard which is far away from the house of deceased and not the place near to the house of the deceased. • (2) P.W.15 has taken the photograph of the dead body inside the Car. So deceased must have been attacked H and murdered inside the car itself. ..