Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 895 (AP)

Neeladri Venkateshwar Rao v. State of A. P.

2023-06-16

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : The convict filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C questioning the correctness of judgment dated 29.10.2015 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri in S.C.No.295 of 2014. By the impugned judgment, the sole appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 307 IPC and 365 IPC. Towards punishment for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months. Towards punishment and under Section 365 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 2 months. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently without mentioning the remand period he underwent, a direction for setting off the period of detention was ordered in terms of Section 428 CrPC. 2. State is the respondent and on its prosecution, the appellant was tried and was convicted and was punished. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Sri. Dr. Majji Suri Babu submitted oral arguments and also submitted a brief note of arguments. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the state submitted oral arguments. 4. Point that falls for consideration is : “Whether the evidence on record has not established the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offences under Section 307 and 365 IPC beyond reasonable doubt but the learned trial Court on erroneous appreciation of the evidence recorded the conviction and inflicted the punishment requiring interference?” POINT:- Cr.No.170 of 2013 was investigated into and resulted in filing of a charge sheet by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tadikonda Police Station. The charge sheet was filed as against five accused who were arrayed as A1 to A5. The charge sheet was laid before learned Magistrate where it was registered as PRC.No.60 of 2013. On securing the presence of accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, learned Magistrate, acting in terms of Section 209 CrPC, committed the case to the Court of sessions. The case was numbered as S.C.No.295 of 2014 and was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri (Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri). 5. After hearing both sides, learned Assistant Sessions Judge adopted the procedure prescribed under Chapter 18 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/procedure for trial before a Court of Session. The case was numbered as S.C.No.295 of 2014 and was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangalagiri (Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri). 5. After hearing both sides, learned Assistant Sessions Judge adopted the procedure prescribed under Chapter 18 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/procedure for trial before a Court of Session. After hearing both sides, relevant charges were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The first charge is under Section 307 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5 and the second charge is under Section 365 read with 34 IPC as against A1 to A5. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1to8 and got marked Exs.P1toP12 and MOs.1to4. Defence cross-examined all the witnesses. Incriminating evidence was offered to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C seeking their explanations and they denied the truth of the entire evidence. On being invited to enter the defence evidence, all the accused reported no evidence on their behalf. After hearing arguments on both sides and after scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found A2 to A5 not guilty for all the charges and accordingly it acquitted them of all the charges. It found A1 guilty for both the charges. After affording an opportunity of hearing on the quantum and nature of sentence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced A1 as indicated earlier. It is that judgment which is assailed here in this appeal. 7. The grounds urged in this appeal : - That the evidence on record is discrepant. - According to prosecution version Sri Alla Hanumantha Rao is a crucial witness for several material facts but the prosecution never examined him as a witness. - The medical evidence did not match with the ocular evidence. - There are enough circumstances indicating improbability of occurrence of the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution. - Evidence of PW.1 and 4 stand opposing each other. - There is total misappreciation of the evidence and hasty conclusions on part of the trial Court. 8. It is in elaboration of those contentions, learned counsel appearing for appellant argued seeking for acquittal. 9. - Evidence of PW.1 and 4 stand opposing each other. - There is total misappreciation of the evidence and hasty conclusions on part of the trial Court. 8. It is in elaboration of those contentions, learned counsel appearing for appellant argued seeking for acquittal. 9. As against that learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent submits that after elaborate discussion of all the evidence on record, learned trial Court reached to appropriate conclusions on facts and inflicted appropriate sentence and there is no tenable ground raised in the appeal to take a different view and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The two charges on which this appellant was prosecuted are extracted here : 1. On 19.9.2013 at 7 PM, Near Chalapathi College, Lam Village, when LW.1-Thayi Siva Sankara Vara Prasad @ Siva Sankara Rao was going on a motorcycle, A-1 and A-2 of you followed L.W.1 on your motorcycle bearing No.AP07BH 3098 and A-3 to A-5 of you on your auto bearing No.AP7TW 5147 and when L.W.1 reached near Lam Farm, A-1 of you beat L.W.1 with a cricket bat on his back for twice and also beat on the face, back and left leg of L.W.1, due to which, L.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries, left leg was fractured and fell on the road and that A-1 to A-5 of you shifted L.W.1 into your auto and beat LW.1 with cricket bat on his mouth, shoulders and other parts of the body and caused severe injuries all along the way from Lam Village to Kantheru and when reached outskirts of Kantheru village, you dragged L.W.1 into a field and abandoned him and removed trousers of L.W.1 and that A-1 and A-2 of you beat L.W. I with cricket bat on the lower portion of left knee and severely caused fracture injuries and that A-3 to A-5 of you beat and kicked L.W.1 indiscriminately, with an intention to do away his life, and by that act you would have been guilty of murder and that you A-1 to A-5, thereby caused hurt to LW 1-Thayi Siva Sankara Vara Prasad @ Siva Sankara Rao and that you A-1 to A-5, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. 2. 2. That you A-1 to A-5, on the same date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, abducted one LW.1-Thayi Siva Sankara Vara Prasad @ Siva Sankara Rao with the intention of causing the said L.W.I-Thayi Siva Sankara Vara Prasad @ Siva Sankara Rao to be secretly and wrongfully confined in your auto and caused bleeding and fractured injuries on his person and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 365 r/w 34 IPC and within my cognizance. 11. To put it very briefly, the entire version of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2013, the victim/PW.1 in this case was coming on a motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 BL 5537. A1 to A5 noticed him and out of the previous rivalry that was there between A1 and PW.1, all the five accused thought of attacking him. Accused got divided into two groups. A1 and A2 is one group and A3 to A5 is another group. A2 drove the motor cycle bearing No. AP 07 BH 3098 on which A1 travelled as a pillion. A1 was holding a cricket bat which is used as a weapon of offence. A3 to A5 boarded auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 07 TW 5147. A5 is the auto driver. Both the vehicles went after PW.1 who was going on the motor cycle. A1 and A2 reached the motor cycle of PW.1 and then using the cricket bat, A1 hit on the back, on the face, on the left leg of PW.1 and thereby he fell down from the motor cycle. It was at that juncture, Sri. P. Murali Krishna/LW.7 reached there and saw PW.1 on the road and saw A1 and others and he questioned them as to what had happened and they told him that PW.1 was driving motor cycle in a drunken condition and fell down and thereby sustained injuries. On hearing that Sri. P. Murali Krishna/LW.7 left the place. Then all the accused picked up the victim/PW.1 and put him in the auto rickshaw. In the auto rickshaw all the accused beat PW.1 indiscriminately. They took him away from that spot of incident at Lam hills and they reached outskirts of Kantheru Village and put PW.1 in the agricultural fields and once again inflicted injuries on him with cricket bat on his hands, legs, mouth and shoulders and other parts of the body and caused serious injuries. They took him away from that spot of incident at Lam hills and they reached outskirts of Kantheru Village and put PW.1 in the agricultural fields and once again inflicted injuries on him with cricket bat on his hands, legs, mouth and shoulders and other parts of the body and caused serious injuries. They removed his trousers and left the place. Subsequently, the father of the victim who testified as PW.2 lodged a written report/Ex.P1 and the police registered the same and issued FIR/Ex.P8 and after the victim was traced in the agricultural lands, he was shifted to hospital. PW.6 is the doctor and he examined him and issued Ex.P3-Wound Certificate. During the course of investigation in the presence of panch of witnesses, the investigating officer was able to detect MO.1-Blood stained gray colour pant of the victim, MO.2-Cricket Bat which was used as a weapon of offence, MO.3-Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No. AP07BH3098 which was used by A1 and A2 in commission of offence and MO.4-Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP07TW5147 which was used by the accused in the act of carrying the kidnapped victim from the first scene of offence to the second scene of offence to the agricultural fields. 12. Prosecution alleged two facts forming as a motive for A1 to commit this crime against PW.1. One fact alleged is that one Padma was married to A1 about 14 years ago. Earlier to that marriage, the victim of this case/PW.1 through his parents made an attempt to marry padma but that did not fructify. It is one incident that occurred 14 years ago as one of the causes for disaffection between A1 and PW.1. The second fact alleged is that the victim/PW.1 availed a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from A1. He failed to repay to A1. A1 was demanding for repayment. PW.1 humiliated him and did not repay. This is another cause of dispute between A1 and PW.1 13. It is in the context of these facts, A1 utilising his other friends namely A2 to A5, committed this offence. 14. Prosecution having alleged all these facts was bound to prove all the material facts with credible evidence. Now it has to be seen whether prosecution was able to do it or not and whether learned Assistant Sessions Judge properly appreciated the facts and circumstances or not. 15. 14. Prosecution having alleged all these facts was bound to prove all the material facts with credible evidence. Now it has to be seen whether prosecution was able to do it or not and whether learned Assistant Sessions Judge properly appreciated the facts and circumstances or not. 15. At the trial, parents of the victim testified as PWs.2 and 3. According to these witnesses, they did not witness the crime incident. After they came to know about missing of their son/PW.1 and after learning about the incident, it is the father/PW.2 who lodged Ex.P1-Report to the police. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that Sri Samba Siva Rao witnessed the accused inflicting injuries on PW.1 and taking him away in auto rickshaw. Thus, as per Ex.P2. Sri Samba Siva Rao is the sole eye witness. Ex.P1 does not refer to any other person witnessing the incident. This Mr. Samba Siva Rao testified as PW.5 before the learned trial Court. In his evidence he said that he does centering work and he does not know any of the accused and he does not know PW.1/victim, his parents/PW.2and3 and other witnesses. He further said that he does not know anything about this case. He positively said that accused have no connection with the crime alleged. His Section 161 CrPC statement was marked by the prosecution as Ex.P2. Thus, the sole eye witness has not supported the prosecution version. 16. According to Ex.P1, the said eye witness/PW.5 found the mobile phone of the victim/PW.1 at the spot of offence and it is from that mobile phone itself, he called PW.2 and passed on the information. PW.8 is the investigating Sub Inspector. In his evidence, he said that when he observed the scene of offence, he prepared Ex.P9-Scene Observation Report. He found at the spot this mobile phone and the motor cycle on which PW.1 was going at the time of offence and he seized both of them. Be it noted, that both these items which were seized were never exhibited at the trial. PW.8 admitted that he omitted to collect any call data particulars. Prosecution has not shown any evidence to the effect that from the mobile phone seized from the scene of offence at a particular point of time it was used for calling PW.2. Be it noted, that both these items which were seized were never exhibited at the trial. PW.8 admitted that he omitted to collect any call data particulars. Prosecution has not shown any evidence to the effect that from the mobile phone seized from the scene of offence at a particular point of time it was used for calling PW.2. There is no evidence brought on record about at least the mobile numbers of PW.1 and his father/PW.2 in establishing any of the facts that are referred above. PW.5 did not depose about making a phone call to PW.2 from this mobile phone. 17. According to prosecution, the victim/PW.1 was admitted in NRI Hospital. Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate and PW.6 is the Doctor who examined PW.1 and issued this Wound Certificate. A perusal of Ex.P3 shows that the victim was admitted on 21.09.2013 and was discharged on 26.10.2013. This document shows that the incident occurred on 19.09.2013. Thus, two days after the incident, the victim was allegedly admitted in the hospital. This document also shows that at 4:35 PM on 20.09.2013, the victim was first seen by the Doctor. While according to prosecution, the victim was beaten at about 7.00 PM on 19.09.2013, the Doctor had first seen him about twenty hours later. As per Ex.P3-Wound Certificate, the victim was brought to the hospital by Sri Alla Hanumantha Rao who is stated to be brother-in-law to the victim. PW.6/Doctor has categorically stated that the victim was brought to the hospital by A. Hanumantha Rao. Thus, A. Hanumantha Rao is one witness who must have first found the victim at the agricultural fields and must have brought him and admitted him in the hospital. It is not the case of prosecution and it is not the evidence of PW.6/the Doctor that by the time of admission of the victim he was not conscious. In such circumstances, the victim must have disclosed his brother-in-law(Alla Hanumantha Rao) as to what had happened and who did what to him. Prosecution has not cited him as a witness and has not produced him for evidence in the Court. Thus, the next immediate witness who could have deposed to some of the relevant material facts was not made available to the Courts for assessment of the case. 18. Prosecution has not cited him as a witness and has not produced him for evidence in the Court. Thus, the next immediate witness who could have deposed to some of the relevant material facts was not made available to the Courts for assessment of the case. 18. The only person who was able to say about the crime incident is only the victim who testified as PW.1. In his examination in chief PW.1 said that he knows A1 to A5. Coming to the aspect of motive, he did not say about the alliance proposal for him with padma and its failure and her marriage with A1. He did not say anything about himself borrowing Rs.1,00,000/- from A1 and his failure to repay to A1 and A1 holding grouse against him. In fact, about this Rs.1,00,000/-, defence made a suggestion during his cross-examination and he categorically denied it. Thus, the motive for crime as attributed by prosecution is not supported by the crucial witness for prosecution who is PW.1. 19. According to PW.1, he owned an auto rickshaw and that was taken on hire by A1 on a hire amount of Rs.200/- per day and for two days the hire charges were not paid by A1. He further said that the said overdue amount was paid by A1 two months later. He did not give any particulars of his ownership over auto rickshaw and did not furnish the dates on which A1 took the auto on hire and did not furnish any other information relevant to the facts. PW.1 further said that he has a friend by name K. Bujji and the accused took cement bags from him and did not pay the sale consideration. The said K. Bujji was not a witness at trial. Thus, what PW.1 was speaking with reference to the motive was not part of the case alleged by the prosecution and more over what was spoken to by PW.1 as forming part of the motive was never sought to be established by appropriate evidence. Thus, motive was never established before the trial Court. 20. While PW.1 opened his evidence saying that he knows A1 to A5, a reading of the entire examination in chief and cross-examination do indicate that he completely omitted to say anything against A2 to A5 either about their presence or about their participation in any manner in commission of the offence. 20. While PW.1 opened his evidence saying that he knows A1 to A5, a reading of the entire examination in chief and cross-examination do indicate that he completely omitted to say anything against A2 to A5 either about their presence or about their participation in any manner in commission of the offence. According to prosecution, A2 to A5 also beat him on the road as well as in the auto rickshaw and also at agricultural fields where they dropped PW.1 in agricultural fields. He only says there are other persons along with A1 but he did not identify rest of the accused at all and did not name them and did not identify them. Prosecution did not choose to question him in cross, did not choose to elicit relevant information at trial. The trial judge also did not evince any interest in holding appropriate trial where alone facts and evidence could be gathered. In fact, not only PW.1 but also other witness said nothing against A2 to A5 and therefore, the learned trial Court in one single sentence stated that it found no evidence against A2 to A5 and therefore straight away it recorded its finding of not guilty against rest of the accused. All this is relevant to note here since prosecution did not appeal as against acquittal of the rest of the accused. When allegations are made against five accused and their physical participation was alleged and when there was no evidence from the prime witness/PW.1 as against A2 to A5 that has to be borne in mind while assessing the credibility of PW.1 so far as his evidence as against A1 is concerned. A reading of the judgment of the learned trial Court does not indicate any such awareness in keeping in mind those facts and circumstances. It simply said that PW.1 spoke about injuries and PW.6/Doctor gave evidence about injuries and therefore he found A1 guilty. Requisite attention was not paid by learned Assistant Sessions Judge and reading of its judgment makes that aspect very clear. To explain that lapse, a few facts are to be noticed here: Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate. It noted six injuries. PW.6 in his evidence deposed about these six injuries and they are mentioned below : i. A laceration over the right side upper lip 4cm with left type I fracture. ii. Left clavicle middle1/3 fracture. iii. To explain that lapse, a few facts are to be noticed here: Ex.P3 is the Wound Certificate. It noted six injuries. PW.6 in his evidence deposed about these six injuries and they are mentioned below : i. A laceration over the right side upper lip 4cm with left type I fracture. ii. Left clavicle middle1/3 fracture. iii. A laceration 3X2 cm exposing muscle with underlying fracture mid shaft of right tibia iv. A puncture wound over Right leg 3X3 cm with underlying distal fracture of shaft tibia and fibula v. Fracture shaft of 4th and 5th metatarsals. vi. A big contusion 10X10 cm over right shoulder. Ex.P3 does not mention the possible time of sustainment of these injuries. It also does not show his opinion as to whether they are simple injuries or grievous injuries. It discloses that according to the victim he was hit by cricket bat by known people and he does not mention the names of any of these known people who inflicted those injuries. Ex.P3 does not indicate colour of the injuries. Thus, Ex.P3 does not offer any other necessary information which could enable a court of law to reach to appropriate conclusions about the time and date of offence and the nature of injuries and the weapon which could have caused the injuries. This Wound Certificate in Ex.P3 was issued by the Doctor on 29.10.2013 and two years thereafter he testified before the Court as PW.6 on 30.07.2015. During his cross-examination he admitted about all the above referred omissions on his part. He admitted that colour of injury was to be noted so as to determine the age of the injury. Without making a note of it in Ex.P3(colour of injury and age of injury) he simply says that injuries were 20 hours old. He spoke out only about the fact based on Ex.P3 where he was informed by the patient about the possible time of offence. The possible time of offence was not mentioned but the date of offence was mentioned as 19.09.2013 in Ex.P3. Thus, the evidence of PW.6 is half based on Ex.P3 and half based on his surmise. This surmise is not based on a fact available on record. The Doctor working in NRI General Hospital cannot by any stretch of latitude could remember hundreds and thousands of patients he examined. Thus, the evidence of PW.6 is half based on Ex.P3 and half based on his surmise. This surmise is not based on a fact available on record. The Doctor working in NRI General Hospital cannot by any stretch of latitude could remember hundreds and thousands of patients he examined. His ability to depose the relevant facts is always dependent on the record he maintains. The record he maintains in Ex.P3 is the record which does not furnish some of the crucial facts about the age and colour of the wounds. While he deposed that there are fractures on the body of PW.1, to detect fractures, he must have utilized radiography or some other test to detect the nature of the injuries as to where the fracture is and how deep the fracture is. All that is relevant because even according to Ex.P3 Wound Certificate for more than a month the victim was stated to have been treated in that hospital as inpatient. No X-Ray reported is filed, no radiographer’s report is seen and nothing to show the nature of fractures is brought on record by prosecution. All these lapses remained unexplained. While this PW.6/the Doctor is in the witness box, he was not shown MO.2 cricket bat so as to elicit from him whether the injuries seen on PW.1 could possibly be caused by utilising that weapon. 21. As per the evidence of PW.8 MO.1-blood stained pants was recovered. It is undisputed that blood stains on that alleged MO.1 were not subjected to scientific examination. PW.1 in his evidence did not even claim that it is his trousers. He simply says MO.1 is blood stained grey colour pant, MO.2 is the cricket bat. Even PW.1 did not say it was with this bat he was beaten. Neither he nor any other witness ever said about existence of any blood stains on MO.2 cricket bat. 22. PW.1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he himself was accused of several offences in several cases and in his evidence, he never said that either A1 or other accused ever intended to kill him. Thus, even the victim did not say that the accused was nursing an idea to kill him. PW.6/Doctor never said in his evidence that the injuries on PW.1 could also result in death. Thus, even the victim did not say that the accused was nursing an idea to kill him. PW.6/Doctor never said in his evidence that the injuries on PW.1 could also result in death. In its judgment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not record even one sentence about facts and circumstances driving him to think that A1 intended to kill PW.1. He simply notes that there are injuries and therefore he finds A1 guilty. His conclusion is not supported by appropriate reasoning that was expected of from the judge trying the case. Thus, there is no evidence on record establishing motive and there is no evidence on record disclosing the fact that A1 was intending to kill and there is no evidence on record that A1 with the knowledge that the injuries he was inflicting could lead to the death of PW.1. Without such facts being established, the finding of the trial Court is that A1 committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. All injuries were not inflicted by A1 alone. A2 to A5 also inflicted injuries. Common intention among A1 to A5 was not proved. Participation of A2 to A5 was not proved. Thus, attributing all injuries to A1 is impermissible. 23. According to prosecution all the accused put PW.1 in auto rickshaw, took him away from the road and drove for several kilometers and left the victim in the agriculture fields. It is from these facts section 365 IPC was charged. When it was found by the trial court itself that there was no participation for all other accused the entire episode with reference to lifting and carrying PW.1 from the road to the auto rickshaw and taking PW.1 in the auto rickshaw up to the agricultural fields and leaving the victim in the agriculture fields and taking away the auto rickshaw from that spot stood not proved. It is not the case of prosecution that A1 drove the auto rickshaw and carried PW.1. Thus, all the material facts that are relevant in establishing the charge under section 365 IPC were not established. Yet, the learned trial court recorded guilt of A1 for the offences under section 365 IPC. It did not put any effort in reaching to such conclusion. It did not record any reason for it to form an opinion about guilt of A1 for the offence under section 365 IPC. Yet, the learned trial court recorded guilt of A1 for the offences under section 365 IPC. It did not put any effort in reaching to such conclusion. It did not record any reason for it to form an opinion about guilt of A1 for the offence under section 365 IPC. For total absence of reasons in finding of guilt of A1 for the charge under section 365 IPC, the same be set aside. 24. During the course of its judgement learned trail Court mentioned that PW.4 informed the incident to PW.2. Factually that is incorrect. This Court has gone through Ex.P1 and as per it, PW.5 had informed the alleged incident to PW.2 25. PW.4 is a friend of PW.1. It is the motor cycle of PW.4 that was given to PW.1 and while PW.1 was coming on motorcycle the crime incident occurred. PW.4 in his evidence said that Sri Alla Hamumantha Rao telephoned him and said that PW.1 suffered accident and sustained injuries. PW.4 then reached the spot. He said that he found the motor bike and slippers of PW.1. He did not say about seeing mobile phone of PW.1. However, several hours thereafter PW.8 reached the spot and he did not find the slippers and he found the mobile phone. These discrepancies were never sought to be explained by the learner trial judge despite the fact that they were all argued before him. Thus, the evidence on record was not scrutinized properly and the trial court without furnishing adequate reasons recorded the guilt of A1 for the offences under section 307 IPC. 26. Having considered the entire material on record and having considered the submissions of the defence and having considered the findings of the learned trial court, this court is unable to approve the findings recorded by the trial court. The evidence on record did not establish the motive, the evidence on record did not establish the requisite intention on part of A1 to kill PW.1 and it did not establish the knowledge of A1 that the injuries he was inflicting would possibly lead to the death of PW.1. The medical evidence and ocular evidence do not match each other. There is no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt to accept the version of PW.1 that he was beaten by A1. The medical evidence and ocular evidence do not match each other. There is no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt to accept the version of PW.1 that he was beaten by A1. In the context of total absence of evidence against A2 to A5 and in the context of non-mentioning of any of the known assailants in Ex.P3 Wound Certificate and in the context of sloppy evidence of medical man and total absence of scientific evidence, this Court finds the accused/appellant not guilty. The judgement of the learned trial court impugned here cannot be sustained here. Point is answered in favour of appellant. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant/A1 is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 307 and 365 IPC. He is acquitted. Judgment dated 29.10.2015 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri in S.C.No.295 of 2014 is set aside to the extent of A1 is concerned. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. The fine amount paid by him shall be refunded to him on his application before the learned trial Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.