IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, SUBBA REDDY SATTI, JJ.
Bollavaram Malleswara Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Bareddy Bhaskara Reddy and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1181 of 2018
Decided On : 02-12-2025
JUDGMENT :
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
1. Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, in Sessions Case No.350 of 2013, dated 25.01.2018, the de facto complainant (P.W.1) filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Respondents 1 to 7/Accused 1 to 7 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the following charges:
(i) The first charge was under Section 148 IPC against A-1 to A-7.
(ii) The second charge was under Section 302 IPC against A-1 to A-4.
(iii) The third charge was under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPC against A-5 to A-7
(iv) The last charge was under Sec.307 IPC against A-2 & A-5 to A-7.
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in Sessions Case No.350 of 2013, for the sake of convenience.
4. Gravamen of the charge is that on 14.10.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., near the fields on Pesaravai rastha, outskirts of Bojanam village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, A-1 to A-7 with a common intention, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons, such as axes and sticks, and committed the offence of rioting; caused death of B.Sivarami Reddy (hereinafter referred to as deceased No.1) and Mallu Rameswara Reddy (hereinafter referred to as deceased No.2); that A-1 to A-4 hacked the deceased Nos.1 and 2 with axes and caused bleeding injuries and committed homicide of deceased Nos.1 and 2; that A-5 to A-7 assisted A-1 to A-4 in committing the offence of homicide and in that process, they beat the deceased Nos.1 and 2 with sticks; further, A-2 also beat P.W.3 with stick portion of axe and caused injuries; A-5 to A-7 beat P.W.1 with sticks and caused injuries and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 148, 302, 302 r/w 149 and 307 IPC.
5. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused 1 to 7 of the aforesaid charges by judgment dated 25.01.2018 in S.C.No.350 of 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal was filed.
6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:
(i) All the accused, deceased Nos.1 and 2 and other material witnesses are residents of Bojanam village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal. Fourteen years prior to the incident, A-1 and his followers murdered one Addakula Subbarayudu, and they were claiming supremacy in the village. Six months prior to the incident, A-1 and his family members raised a dispute with the father of P.W.3, as the accused suspected that P.W.1 and his supporters were gaining supremacy in the village.
(ii) On 14.10.2012 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased No.1 sowed jowar seeds in his land and requested the villagers not to take more water from the canal. P.W.1, along with P.Ws.2 to 5 and deceased Nos. 1 and 2, went to the agricultural fields at about 9.00 p.m. on 14.10.2012 and observed overflowing of water into the fields of deceased No.1. They went to the channel to check the water flow and observed that A-3 & A-5 to A-7 were standing near the channel. They questioned A-3, who in turn replied that he needed more water for his fields. P.Ws.2 to 4 removed the bund from the channel, and A-3 threatened them with dire consequences and left the place. P.Ws.1 to 6 and deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were standing near the south corner of the fields of deceased No.1. After half an hour, they observed two motorcycles coming there, which were parked at a distance of 20 feet. With the help of torchlights, they observed that A-1 to A-4 were armed with axes and A-5 to A-7 were armed with sticks. On seeing them, A-1 shouted and attacked on the head of the deceased No.2. A-1 to A-4 also hacked deceased No.2 with axes, and A-5 to A-7 beat with sticks. When the accused tried to catch hold of others, they ran away from that place due to fear. The accused chased the others till the fields of Swamy Das, where deceased No.1 fell and someone beat him, but P.W.1 did not observe who beat D1. After moving forward, P.W.1 turned back and observed A-1
(1) Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – When genesis and manner of incident itself are doubtful, benefit of doubt should always be in favour of accused.(2) Appreciation of evidence – While apprec....
The judgment underscores the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence, emphasizing the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimonies in criminal ca....
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
The appellate court affirmed that collective participation in unlawful assembly under IPC Section 149 holds all members culpable for resulting violent acts, despite minor evidential discrepancies.
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.