SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K. Suresh Reddy and Subba Reddy Satti, JJ.
Bollavaram Malleswara Reddy – Appellant
versus
Bareddy Bhaskara Reddy and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2018
Decided on 2.12.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao
For the Respondents: Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri B.S. Reddy, Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 appreciating evidence of a witness, approach must be whether evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 302, 302 r/w 149 and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – Appeal against acquittal – It is a faction rivalry – In such circumstances, evidence should be scrutinised with great caution – There must be sufficient and compelling reasons for appellate court to alter order of acquittal to one of conviction – Testimony of material prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence in court to convict respondents – When a total of seven people attacked, four with axes and three with sticks, witnesses watching the incident at a distance of 150 meters in darkness and some of witnesses escaped without any hurt, creates any amount of doubt in mind of Court regarding the incident as well as presence of witnesses – Identification of accused by witnesses at a distance of 150 meters cannot be relied upon, and it carries minimal probative value – Prosecution has not explained delay in despatching F.I.R. to Magistrate – In absence of any proper explanation offered by prosecution vis-à-vis delay, it gives rise to reasonable suspicion that F.I.R. was ante-timed, leaving scope of embellishment and false motive in preparing the report – Prosecution has not come up with a true genesis – When genesis and manner of incident itself are doubtful, benefit of doubt should always be in favour of accused – Judgment of acquittal affirmed. (Paras 24, 30, 34, 38, 39, 42 and 43)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – While appreciating evidence of a witness, approach must be whether evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth – Once that impression is formed, it is necessary for Court to scrutinise evidence more particularly keeping in view deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against general tenor of evidence given by witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief – Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by Investigating Officer not going to root of matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole. (Paras 25 and 27)

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Subba Reddy Satti, J.—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 ob

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top