2020 Supreme(AP) 841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
C. Praveen Kumar, R. Raghunandan Rao, JJ.
Boya Bogam Pedda Maddilety and Ors.- Appellant
Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 450 of 2014
Decided On : 06-08-2020

Headnote:

The Court held that the FIR was anti-timed and prepared at the behest of a rival group. The Court also held that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses was not reliable. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased along with his two sons, namely, PW 1 and PW 3 left their house to go to a weekly market at Veldurthy. All three of them went to the auto stand of the village at about 12.40 p.m. and found PW 5, one Yella Reddy and Vadla Lakshmaiah at the auto stand. All of them boarded the auto of one Harijana Bandari Ramudu [PW 11] to go to Veldurthy. The deceased sat on the left side of the auto driver, while others were in the back seat. After crossing a kilometre from their village, and when the auto was reaching Cheruvu Vanka, one Boya China Hanumanthu [A6] came across the auto armed with a hunting sickle in his left hand and a dagger in his right hand followed by A1 to A5 and A7 to A12. It is said that, A1 and A5 came to that side of the auto where the deceased was sitting and dragged him out of the auto by holding his shirt. Seeing the same, the driver of the auto escaped from the scene. The deceased was made to fell on the ground and thereafter A6 is said to have stabbed the deceased with the dagger on the stomach. It is also said mat, A1 dragged the deceased and stabbed him over the stomach staring that he was responsible for getting good name in the village and bad name to the accused. So saying, he exhorted other accused to attack the deceased. Then, A2, A3, A4, A7 and A10 slabbed the deceased with sickles in stomach. It is said that, intestines of the deceased came out with profuse bleeding. A8 stabbed the deceased with a dagger over his face causing injury on left side of the cheek extending towards back of the ear. The deceased struggled for sometime and later collapsed. At that time, A6 took the hunting sickle into his right hand and hacked the deceased on back side of the neck. All made an attempt to" stab the deceased and when he raised his hand to ward off the blow, it landed over the thumb and index finger. A9 is said to have stabbed the deceased over his forehead with dagger, while, A12 caused an injury in the same place with dagger. It is said that, PW 1 and others saw the incident by hiding on the other side of the auto. At that time, PW 6 who was present in the nearby fields and PW 7 who was coming on a motorcycle, rushed to the spot and raised cries. PW 1 who is elder brother of PW 3 and PW 5 also rushed to the spot where the deceased was lying. A1 and other came against them threatening to kill by showing the daggers. It is said that, A5 attacked PW 5 with a dagger causing an injury over left side of neck and also an injury with a dagger on his right hand. A1 is said to have caused an injury with a dagger on the nose of PW 6 stating "ee nakoduku ikkade unnadu podachandira". Being afraid of the same, all the witnesses ran towards their village while accused ran towards Togarichedu Village.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the FIR was anti-timed and prepared at the behest of a rival group. The Court also held that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses was not reliable. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: 1. Whether the FIR came to be lodged after due deliberations and confabulations? 2. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the evidence of two injured eye-witnesses can be accepted? 3. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt? 4. Whether the learned Sessions Judge having acquitted six of the accused against whom specific role has been attributed right from Ex. P1, was right in convicting the other six accused?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the FIR was anti-timed and prepared at the behest of a rival group. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: a. The FIR was lodged at 1.45 p.m., on 11.5.2008, but the endorsement made by the Magistrate on the FIR shows that it was received at 11.00 a.m., on 12.5.2008. b. There were a number of over-writings and corrections on the endorsement made by the Magistrate on the FIR. c. The inquest report, which was prepared at 3.15 p.m., on 11.5.2008, does not mention the presence of PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7 at the scene of offence. d. The investigation officer admitted in his evidence that PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 11 stated before him that PW 1 has falsely implicated A2, A3, A4, A7, A8 and A12 in this case. 2. The Court held that the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses was not reliable. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: a. PW 5 and PW 6 were not sent to the hospital on the same day of the incident. b. PW 5 and PW 6 did not sustain any bleeding injuries, though they were attacked with daggers. c. PW 5 and PW 6 did not inform anybody about the incident till the next day. d. PW 5 and PW 6 deposed about the presence and participation of A2, A3, A4, A7, A8 and A12, even though they had earlier stated before the police that these accused were falsely implicated. 3. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: a. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was not reliable. b. The medical evidence did not support the oral evidence with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. c. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR and the over-writings on the endorsement made by the Magistrate on the FIR. 4. The Court held that the learned Sessions Judge was right in acquitting six of the accused against whom specific role has been attributed right from Ex. P1. The Court relied on the following factors to arrive at this conclusion: a. The evidence of the eyewitnesses was not reliable. b. The medical evidence did not support the oral evidence with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. c. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR and the over-writings on the endorsement made by the Magistrate on the FIR.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.