Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 724 (AP)

Kaviti Mohan Rao v. Killi Raja Mohanarao

2020-11-18

K.SURESH REDDY

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 29.09.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the prosecution witnesses and all the accused are residents of Ponduru Village and Mandal of Srikakulam District. There was a dispute with regard to vacant site along with a house, in which, Accused No.1 was running a hotel. Originally, P.W.5 is the owner of the said house. Though, P.W.5 was the owner of the said house, Accused No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since long time and there are some misunderstandings between them with regard to the disputed house. P.W.5 sold the said house to the wife of P.W.1 and executed a registered sale deed in her favour. On account of which, differences arose between P.Ws.1 & 5 and Accused No.1. Consequently, Accused No.1 filed a suit in O.S.59 of 2002 against the wife of P.Ws.1 and 5. While so, on 30.10.2002 at about 11.00 pm., P.W.1 along with his followers i.e., P.Ws.2 & 3 and the deceased went to the said house and some altercation took place between them, finally, they evicted Accused No.1 from the said house. Thereafter, on the intervening night of 30/31.10.2002, at about 1.00 a.m., all the accused went to the disputed premises and attacked P.Ws.1, 2 and deceased with weapons, thereby caused injuries to them. On that, at about 5.30 a.m., P.Ws.1 & 2 went to the Ponduru police station and lodged Ex.P1 report before them. Basing on that, police registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2002 for the offences under section 147, 148, 326, 324, 448, 379 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code,1860 ("for short IPC") and investigated into. Later, on the information furnished by P.W.6, about the finding of dead body in the bushes, P.W.10 altered the Section of Law by adding Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P1 to P43, M.Os.1 to 10. On defence side, Exs.D1 to D10 have been marked. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused as stated Supra. 5. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed charge sheet. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P1 to P43, M.Os.1 to 10. On defence side, Exs.D1 to D10 have been marked. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused as stated Supra. 5. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the revision petitioner (defacto complainant ) filed the present revision case before this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents/ accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent / State. 7. It is an admitted fact that Accused No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed house, were he was running a hotel. It is the prosecution party, who went to the house of Accused No.1 and attacked him. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not at all reliable as they are changing their versions from time to time. In fact, the prosecution went to the extent of implicating Accused Nos.11 to A15, though they were not present at the time of incident. Even in the earlier statement i.e., in Ex.P1 also, except mentioning the names of Accused Nos.11 to 15, no role has been attributed to them with regard to the participation in the offence. Apart from inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they did not explain with regard to the injuries sustained by the accused. In fact, the accused have also received injuries in the said incident and as such, the prosecution has not come out with true version and suppressed the injuries of the accused. Though the injuries received by the accused are simple in nature, it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to how they received injuries. Therefore, it creates suspicion on the version of the prosecution case. The accused also raised the ground of self-defence in this case. Hence, this Court has gone through the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that view taken by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said that it is a perverse and is not based on sound reasoning. The accused also raised the ground of self-defence in this case. Hence, this Court has gone through the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that view taken by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be said that it is a perverse and is not based on sound reasoning. Therefore, after careful evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence, it is held that the findings given by the learned trial Judge are reasonable and justifiable and hence, there are no valid grounds warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order. 8. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the Judgment of acquittal, dated 29.09.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Srikakulam, is hereby confirmed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.