Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, B. KRISHNA MOHAN, JJ.
The State of A.P., Rep. By P.P. H.C., Hyd. – Petitioner
Versus
Addasari Trinadha & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1090 of 2014
Decided On : 19-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: B Paramesewara Rao
Point of Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 – State preferred this appeal challenging the calendar and judgment, acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 5 who were accused in Sessions Case – Held, It is the case of the prosecution from the beginning that all the accused came to the scene of offence armed with deadly weapon i.e. axe (M.O.1) by A1 and others with brick bats. M.O.4 is four brick bats marked before the Sessions Court, but those stones can be secured at any place. However, in the previous statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) (Ex.P17), there is a reference about the brick bats and the manner in which the incident took place was narrated. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, only four persons i.e. A3, his wife Chamanti, son Trinadha and daughter Jyothi came to the scene of offence holding axe (M.O.1) and brick bats (M.O.4) - The duty of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal is similar to the appeal against conviction. Keeping in mind the law referred above, we reappraised the evidence afresh uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and on re-appreciation, we have no hesitation to hold that A3 caused death of Addasari Karuvulu in a heat of passion without any intention to kill him. Hence, A3 is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 323 of I.P.C, but the Sessions Court totally ignored and on technical ground acquitted the accused.
Facts of the Case:
that on 02.06.2005 Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) went to the house of her friend A. Tejalu (P.W.7) and slept on the verandah of their house. A3 who is aged about sixty years went to the house of A. Tejalu (P.W.7), lifted skirt (langa) of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), touched her private parts, which was witnessed by A. Tejalu (P.W.7) who informed the same to Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who in turn informed the same to her parents Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3). Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) in turn informed the same to her brother Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) and questioned A3 about his misbehaviour towards her daughter, he gave vague reply.
Finding of the Court:
It is the case of the prosecution from the beginning that all the accused came to the scene of offence armed with deadly weapon i.e. axe (M.O.1) by A1 and others with brick bats. M.O.4 is four brick bats marked before the Sessions Court, but those stones can be secured at any place. However, in the previous statement of Addasari Karuvulu (deceased) (Ex.P17), there is a reference about the brick bats and the manner in which the incident took place was narrated. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, only four persons i.e. A3, his wife Chamanti, son Trinadha and daughter Jyothi came to the scene of offence holding axe (M.O.1) and brick bats (M.O.4) - The duty of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal is similar to the appeal against conviction. Keeping in mind the law referred above, we reappraised the evidence afresh uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the Sessions Court and on re-appreciation, we have no hesitation to hold that A3 caused death of Addasari Karuvulu in a heat of passion without any intention to kill him. Hence, A3 is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 323 of I.P.C, but the Sessions Court totally ignored and on technical ground acquitted the accused
Result: Appeal is allowed-in-part
JUDGMENT :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. The State preferred this appeal challenging the calendar and judgment, acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 5 who were accused in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007 on the file of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, finding them not guilty for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C).
For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties to the appeal will be, hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Sessions Court.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 427, 302 and 324 read with 149 of IPC by the Sessions Court, after full fledged trial and after considering the evidence, the accused were found not guilty by the Sessions Court, acquitted them.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.06.2005 Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) went to the house of her friend A. Tejalu (P.W.7) and slept on the verandah of their house. A3 who is aged about sixty years went to the house of A. Tejalu (P.W.7), lifted skirt (langa) of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4), touched her private parts, which was witnessed by A. Tejalu (P.W.7) who informed the same to Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) who in turn informed the same to her parents Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3). Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) in turn informed the same to her brother Addasari Dharma Rao (P.W.1) and questioned A3 about his misbehaviour towards her daughter, he gave vague reply.
4. While so, on 04.06.2005, during evening hours, parents of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) went to police station, presented a report against A3 about his misbehaviour towards their daughter Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). On coming to know about lodging of report against A3, A1 to A5 bore grudge and A1 armed with an axe and A2 to A5 armed with bricks and brick bats went to the house of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) at about 8:00 pm, knocked the door of their house, caused damage to the house; Addasari Karuvulu who is father of Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and grandfather of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) questioned the accused who were present in the lane. All the accused grew wild and pelted brick bats and they hit Addasari Karuvulu with a brick bat on his head and also hit Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4). A3 pelted brick bats which hit on the left thigh of Palaka Pavitra (P.W.4) and at the instigation of A2, A1 hit Addasari Karuvulu with an axe (M.O.1) on his head, caused bleeding injury with an intention to kill him and the remaining accused also beat Addasari Karuvulu indiscriminately. Palaka Savitri (P.W.2) and her husband Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3) returned from police station, witnessed the incident and the other witnesses Addasari Dharma Rao, Palaka Savitri, Addasari Krishna Rao, Palaka Pavitra, M. Saraswathi and Addasari Mahalaxmi (P.W.1 to P.W.6 respectively), Palaka Padmanabham (L.W.3), Addasari Gowramma (L.W.6) and Addasari Adinarayana (L.W.7) witnessed the incident. As neighbours gathered, all the accused ran away from the scene of offence and absconded from the village by locking doors of their houses.
5. In the meanwhile, injured Addasari Karuvulu was shifted to Bathili police station, where the injured Addasari Karuvulu made a statement before the Sub-Inspector of Police, who reduced the same into writing and referred the injured to government hospital for treatment, after seizing blood stained clothes (M.O.2 and M.O.3) of Addasari Karuvulu under the cover of mediators report (Ex.P8) in the presence of Andhavarapu Srinivasa Rao (P.W.10) and Badapu Magatha (L.W.13).
6. S. Vijaya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili (P.W.16) registered the statement of injured Addasari Karuvulu as case in Cr.No.16/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC, issued FIR, original FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to the higher officials. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili S. Vijaya Kumar (P.W.16) examined Addasari Karuvulu, Palaka
