Facts

Tondepi village was faction-ridden with two rival groups involved in land disputes and prior cases.[1000541200002] On 16/3/1993 at about 1:30 p.m., some accused abducted and attempted to kill PW-19 V. Seshagiri Rao, leading to Crime No.5 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 364, 307 read with 149 IPC; PW-19 was saved by police and admitted to Government Hospital, Sattenapally.[1000541200003] (!) After admitting PW-19, PW-1 to PW-10, Challa Singaiah, Rachankonda Chanchiah and others returned to the village in a tractor at night between 16/3/1993 and 17/3/1993.[1000541200003] At Dammalapadu Donka, accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with iron rods, axes, spears, sticks and bombs, attacking the group; bombs were hurled, Singaiah died on the spot, Chanchiah and injured PW-1 to PW-10 admitted to Government Hospital, Sattenapally, where Chanchiah died on 17/3/1993.[1000541200003] (!) Hospital intimated Additional Munsiff Magistrate, who recorded PW-1's dying declaration (Ex-P/1) at 3:15 a.m. on 17/3/1993; FIR (Crime No.43/1993) registered at PS Sattenapally under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302/149 IPC and Sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act, re-registered as Crime No.6/1993 at PS Muppala. (!) [1000541200012] Accused charged under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302/149 IPC; trial court (Sessions Case No.967/1994) acquitted all accused on 11/2/2000.[1000541200001] (!) State appealed; High Court by judgment dated 24/7/2003 set aside acquittal, convicting specified accused (A1, A3, A4, A11, A14, A15, A16, A21, A23, A24, A25, A27, A29) under Section 302 IPC (life imprisonment), some additionally under 324 IPC, A25 under 324/149 IPC, appellants A38/A39 under 324/149 IPC, all under 148 IPC (sentences concurrent).[1000541200001] (!)

Ratio

In appeals against acquittal, appellate courts have full power to review evidence but must respect double presumption of innocence (fundamental presumption reinforced by trial court's acquittal); if two reasonable views possible, acquittal not to be disturbed merely because appellate court prefers another view, absent perversity, glaring mistakes or distorted conclusions.[1000541200006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000541200019] Trial court's finding on insufficient light at night-time incident (no mention in FIR/observation/inquest reports, tractor/torch light implausible amid bomb smoke/dust, 50 attackers) was reasonable, enabling no reliable identification of accused/overt acts; High Court erred in interfering.[1000541200009][1000541200010][1000541200011] Failure to register FIR on injured witnesses' immediate statements despite police presence (PW-28 SI Muppala at spot/police camp, informed by witnesses of rival group attack), waiting for PW-1 dying declaration (recorded 3:15 a.m.), raised suspicion of fabrication/doctored FIR, especially with faction rivalry/prior attack; trial court's view correct, High Court wrongly dismissed as irregularity.[1000541200012][1000541200013][1000541200014][1000541200015] Dying declaration timing/manner suspicious: injured first to village (per PW-13) then hospital (contra PW-28), hospital intimation Ex-P/20 dated 16/3/1993 (pre-midnight), requisition Ex-P/18 initially 16/3/1993 overwritten to 17/3/1993, PW-19 (prior attack victim) in same hospital, party leaders visited (per PW-8); scope for deliberation/tutoring, undermining credibility.[1000541200016][1000541200017] Major discrepancies (omissions of witness/accused names in dying declaration/FIR, no TI parade despite unknown accused, inconsistent roles/deaths/timing, PW-1's contradictory statements) rendered prosecution case unreliable; trial court meticulously noted these, view reasonable, not perverse.[1000541200018] (!) High Court failed to identify perversity/compelling reasons for reversal, erred in interfering with reasonable acquittal.[1000541200019][1000541200020]