IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb the order of acquittal but if, however, it is found that the finding of acquittal is manifestly wrong leading to miscarriage of justice, the conviction of appellant has got to be upheld.

Headnote:(i) Appeal Against Acquittal -Scope-If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on basis of evidence-Appellate Court should not disturb order of acquittal-If finding of acquittal is manifestly wrong leading to miscarriage of justice-Convictions to be upheld. (Para 9)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148 and 302/149-Prosecution for offences under-Two rival political groups-Deceased met with a homicidal death in office of PW 4, Mandal Revenue Officer-PW 4 detailed prosecution case-However, he did not name any of appellants as miscreants-He was most natural and probable witness-About 10 miscriants entered inside office of PW 4-One of them dealt a blow on head of deceased with an iron instrument-Unimpeachable evidence of PW4 that PWs 1 to 3 were present at material time-PWs 1 to 3 being partisan witnesses-PW 1 to 3 stated that A1 started assault followed by other appellants-Medical evidence and FIR fully corroborates ocular version-Prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt-Finding of acquittal recorded by trial Court reversed-Appellants liable to be convicted.
       Held : Having carefully gone through the evidence of the four eye witnesses, the F.I.R. and the medical evidence which fully corroborates the ocular version, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. We need not, therefore, go into the question whether the finding of the trial Court regarding alleged recovery of weapons pursuant to the statements of some of the appellants is perverse or not. (Para 20)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 154-First Information Report-Delay of 14 hours in lodging FIR-Held, on facts not unjustified-Two political rival groups-Assault in the evening-Ghastly murder-Evidence of PWs 1 and 3 that they spent the night in the fields to save their lives, then walked entire distance of 10 miles-Report lodged at police station at 8.30 A.M.-Held, there was no avoidable delay in lodging FIR-It was lodged at earliest possible opportunity. (Para 15)
       (vi) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections, 162, 164-Homicidal death of deceased in office of PW4-Report sent by PW 4 to police station in that very night through village servant-Report received by police only after investigation was taken up-Report would be a statement recorded under Section 162-It could not be admitted in evidence-Failure of prosecution to produce this report-Not fatal.
       Held that the evidence of P.W. 10 clearly shows that the report sent by P.W. 4, through the village servant, was received by him only after investigation was taken up. In other words, the report sent by P.W. 4 would be a statement recorded under Section 162 Cr. P.C. and consequently it could not be admitted in evidence. This aspect of the matter can be viewed from another angle also. Having regard to the fact that P.W.4 did not name any of the assailants, suppression of the report sent by him to the Investigating Agency did not and would not have helped the prosecution in any way. In other words, the prosecution would not have been benefited in any way by suppressing the report that was made by P.W.4, more so when, the fact that the incident took place inside the office of P.W. 4 in the evening of February 26, 1988 was not challenged by the defence. Judged in that perspective even if that report was produced and treated as F.I.R. the prosecution case would not have been implied in any way much less on the ground canvassed by the trial Court. (Para 13)
       (v) Criminal Trial-Partisan witnesses-Their evidence has to be examined with utmost case and caution. (Para 14)
       (vi) Criminal Trial-Murder case-Non-examination of driver of jeep in which appellants fled away and persons present nearby-On facts, inference adverse to prosecution could not have been drawn-These not being material witnesses. (Paras 17, 18)

JUDGMENT

Mukherjee, J.-This appeal under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 read with Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated December 31, 1992, rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1991 whereby it reversed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the seven appellants herein by the Sessions Judge, Ongole in respect of charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and convicted them thereunder. The gravamen of the charges was that on February 26, 1988 at or about 6.30 P.M. the appellants (who were arrayed as A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-8 respectively in the trial Court and hereinafter will be so referred to) along with A-3 (who died during the pendency of the trial), formed an unlawful assembly in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peda Cherlopalli ( P.C. Palli for short) village armed with deadly weapons with the common object of committing he murder of Nalluri Thirupathaiah of village Merella and in furtherance of that common object did commit his murder. The charges were based on the following prosecution case :

2. (a) A-1 to A-5, A-6 and A-7 and A-8 were residents of villages Merella, Peda Alavalapadu and Gudevaripalem respectively. A-1 was the President of Telugu Desam party of P.C. Palli Mandalam and A-2 to A-8 were his friends and associates. The deceased, Tirupathayya (P.W.1) and Brahmayya (P.W 2) were residents of Merella Village whereas Gangayya (P.W.3) was a resident of Pothavaram village. Both these villages were within the jurisdiction of P.C. Palli Mandalam. Suryanarayan Rao (P.W. 4) was the Mandal Revenue Officer of P.C. Palli Mandalam at the material time.

(b) Since 1984, two rival political groups were functioning in Merella village, one led by A-1 and the other by the deceased; and a number of criminal cases instituted by the groups against each other were pending. In February 1987, elections were held there for the Mandal Praja Parishad in which wife of A-1 was elected the President of the Parishad while the deceased was elected as the President of Single Window Society of P.C. Palli Mandalam.

(c) In the following year, i.e. 1988, February 27, was fixed as the date for filing nomination papers for the panchayat election. Some of the candidates for such election were to file, along with their nomination papers, extracts of voters list and their caste certificates. As such, on February 26, 1988 a number of people came to the office of P.W. 4 to obtain those documents. One of them was A-1, who approached P.W. 4 for caste certificates and extracts of voters list for his party members. Following him came the deceased, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 at or about 6 P.M. with a similar request. While they were sitting in the office of P.W.4, A-1, who had left his (P.W.4 s) office in the meantime, came back and requested P.W. 4 to visit Pothavaram village to consider the inclusion of about 40 persons, who were his followers, as voters. The deceased however insisted that P.W. 4 could not leave the office without issuing the voters lists and caste certificates asked for by him. A.1 then left the office saying he would came back within half-an-hour and asked P.W. 4 to complete his job in the meantime.

(d) Sometime later (at or about 6.30 P.M.) the seven appellants along with A-3 rushed into the office of P.W. 4 armed with deadly weapons and started beating the deceased. While A-1 beat him with an axe on his neck, A-2 beat him with a similar weapons on his right forearm and hear. Thereafter the others stabbed the deceased indiscriminately with knives resulting in his instantaneous death. Then they fled away in a jeep and a car.

(e) On the following morning P.W. 1 went to Kanigiri Police State at or about 8.30 A.M. and submitted a written report of the incident (Ex. P-1) to S.I. Sankara Reddy (P.W.10). On the report P.W. 10 registered a case (Crime No. 26/88) and sent copie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document