Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1225 (AP)

Public Prosecutor v. Dagada Bujji Reddy

2004-10-26

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
( 1 ) THE State preferred the present Appeal as against an order of acquittal recorded in S. C. No. 60/97 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali. ( 2 ) THE S. I. of Police, Kaligiri Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 307 and 324 IPC in Cr. No. 29/96. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is a resident of Kaligiri. Dagada Srinivasulu Reddy is a resident of Kaligiri and he is the elder brother of the accused. Dagada Vijayamma is the wife of the said Srinivasulu Reddy. It is also the version of the prosecution that there are ill-feelings between the accused and Dagada Srinivasulu Reddy with regard to the division of their ancestral properties and in consequence of it there are misunderstandings at the cutting of Japan Babul trees in the disputed site which is on the Southern side of Arundhatiyawada. While so on 25-6-1996 at about 11 A. M. while Srinivasulu Reddy along with his wife was cutting Japan Babul trees the accused went there with an evil decision of doing away with the life of Dagada Srinivasulu Reddy and picked up quarrel with him and stabbed him on the right upper arm and on the middle of the back due to which Srinivasulu Reddy fell unconscious. When the accused attempted to stab on the neck of Srinivasulu Reddy, Vijayamma intervened and caught hold of the knife due to which she sustained injuries to her left thumb and left palm. Then the accused left the knife at the spot and went away. Dagada Vijayamma lifted her husband to the Government Hospital, Vinjamur in an unconscious stage. The then S. I. of Police, VINJAMUR Police, recorded the statement from Vijayamma and transferred the case to Kaligiri Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. J. Ravi Babu, Police Constable No. 1848 registered the case as F. I. R. in Cr. No. 20/96 and the same was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge made over the same to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali and the learned Judge recorded the evidence of PW-1 to PW-12, marked Exs. P-1 to P-10. Exs D-1 to D-5 and M. Os. 1 and 2 and ultimately found the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 307 and 324 I. P. C. and recorded acquittal. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. P-1 to P-10. Exs D-1 to D-5 and M. Os. 1 and 2 and ultimately found the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 307 and 324 I. P. C. and recorded acquittal. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mohd. Osman Saheed would contend that this is a case where clear material is available on record and despite the same the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 had been discarded by the learned Judge on flimsy grounds and the said findings cannot be sustained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court thought the evidence available on record and would submit that this is a fit case where though not under Section 307 IPC, conviction should have been recorded under Section 324 IPC in the light of the clear evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and the medical evidence. ( 4 ) ON the contrary Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/accused would contend that acquittal had been recorded on well justifiable grounds and the learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded and would contend that in the course of scuffle in his anxiety to protect the property, this might have happened and nothing beyond that. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard. ( 5 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 25-6-1996 at about 11 a. m. at the fields the accused with an intention to kill PW-2 armed with knife caused injury on the right upper arm and the middle of the back of PW-2 and when PW-1 intervened the accused also caused injuries to PW-1 with the same knife and therefore he committed the offence under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. PW-1 in his evidence deposed that two years back at about 11 a. m. herself and her husband were in their fields and cutting Japan Babul trees and then the accused came there and questioned them as to why they were cutting the trees and when they replied stating for the last year the accused took away the trees and that they were cutting the trees for this year, the accused picked up altercation and then removed the knife from his waist portion and stabbed on the right fore arm and on the back of her husband and caused bleeding injury. PW-1 further deposed that when the accused tried to stab on the neck of her husband immediately she refused and caught hold of the knife with her left hand and as a result she sustained bleeding injury to his left palm and that the accused tried to stab her husband by crying that the would kill her husband. ( 6 ) PW-2 deposed in detail about what happened on the fateful day. He deposed that himself and PW-1 went to fields for cutting Japan Babul trees and in the mean time the accused came there and picked up altercation for cutting the trees and in the mean time the accused stabbed with a knife on his right fore-arm and stabbed on his back and as a result he sustained bleeding injuries. PW-2 further deposed that again when the accused tried to stab him PW-1 came there and caught hold of the knife and during struggle, PW-1 sustained injury to her right hand or some other hand and MO-1 is the knife. ( 7 ) PW-3 deposed that she had not witnessed any incident. PW-4 deposed that she does not know anything. PW-5 deposed that about more than a year back while he was going to take meals PW-1 requested him to shift PW-2 in his rickshaw and then he shifted PW-2 to the hospital. PW-6 deposed that he does not know anything about the case. PW-7 deposed that he is working as V. A. O. and Police obtained his signature in Police Station on panchanama and Police have not shown any weapon to him. PW-8 deposed that he is working as Medical Officer and he had examined PW-1 and PW-2 and found injuries noted in the wound certificates Exs. P-6 and P-7. PW-9 deposed that he had recorded the statement of PW-1 in Ex. P-1 and transferred Exs. P-1 and P-8 to Kaligiri Police Station on point of jurisdiction. PW-10 deposed that he is working as Police Constable of Kaligiri Police Station and he received Exs. P1 and P-8 and registered Cr. No. 20/96 under Section 324 and Ex. P-9 is the F. I. R. PW-11 deposed about signing mahazarnama Ex. P-5 at Police Station and he was not shown any material object at the relevant point of time. PW-10 deposed that he is working as Police Constable of Kaligiri Police Station and he received Exs. P1 and P-8 and registered Cr. No. 20/96 under Section 324 and Ex. P-9 is the F. I. R. PW-11 deposed about signing mahazarnama Ex. P-5 at Police Station and he was not shown any material object at the relevant point of time. PW-12 deposed about the details of investigation and altering the Section of law to Sections 324 and 307 I. P. C. and submitting altered F. I. Rs. and after receiving filing charge sheet. ( 8 ) THE Learned Judge recorded the reasons in detail. As per the evidence available on record, it is clear that the mother of the accused and PW-2 filed a suit for partition in O. S,no. 226/97 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kavali and there are misunderstandings between the accused and PW-2 relating to the cutting and enjoying the Japan Babul trees in alternative years. PW-2 and the accused are brothers and are having certain disputes. On the fateful day PW-1 and PW-2 went to the disputed field to cut the Japan Babul trees and they were in possession of knives and also axe for cutting the branches of the trees. Ex. P-1 is the report given by PW-1. Ex. P1 does not disclose that the accused had any intention to kill PW-2 but ultimately not only under Section 324 IPC the accused was charged under Section 307 IPC also. Hence, in the light of Ex. P1. the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be found fault that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not satisfied. As per the evidence available on record, there was some struggle in between PW-1 and PW-2 and the accused. It is not in controversy that PW-1 and PW-2 also were in possession of knives as they were cutting the branches of Japan Babul trees on the fateful day. It appears that the accused as a law abiding citizen first went to the Police Station for reporting the matter when his brother was cutting away the trees, but however since there was no response he came and obstructed PW-1 and PW-2 from cutting the trees. The discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also the injuries on the person and Exs. The discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also the injuries on the person and Exs. D-1 to D-5 also had been taken into consideration and ultimately acquittal had been recorded by the learned Judge. In Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 465 the Apex Court held that in an Appeal against acquittal when trial Court gave cogent reasons for acquittal, the High Court should not interfere with the acquittal merely because another view may be possible. Reliance also was placed on State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Seeni Ambalam alias Veeranan Ambalam (Dead) SIR 1990 S. C, 2133 and also Ramji Surjya Padvi Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 S. C. 810. In Surat Lal Vs. State of M. P. AIR 1982 S. C. 1224 the Apex Court held that when two views of the evidence one indicating conviction and the other supporting acquittal are equally possible, the High Court should not disturb the finding of the trial Court. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the Counsel for the respondent/accused also would submit that the right of private defence had been exercised within the permissible limits as can be seen from the material available on record. On the evidence available on record in the course of quarrel between the brothers, PW-1 and PW-2 were present at the scene of offence and accused made an attempt to secure the presence of Police and inasmuch as he was aggrieved of the cutting of the trees he came and objected and in the course of scuffle, the incident happened on the fateful day. On an over all appreciation of evidence available on record, inasmuch as two views are possible and when on appreciation of evidence a particular view had been preferred by the learned Judge and when the findings cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence at all, merely because another view is possible, the appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge. In view of the same, the findings recorded by the learned Judge are hereby confirmed and the Appeal shall stand dismissed.