Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Surender, Anil Kumar Jukanti, JJ.
Gaini Suman and others - Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1035 of 2016
Decided On : 05-12-2024
Key Points: - The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal (!) (!) . - The court emphasized the need for reliable eyewitness accounts and found the prosecution's evidence riddled with inconsistencies (!) (!) . - The unexplained delay of nearly 12 hours in lodging the FIR, without a cogent explanation, cast grave doubts on the credibility of the prosecution version (!) (!) . - A4 and A12 were present at the police station during the incident, which contradicted the timeline of the alleged assault and raised questions about their involvement (!) (!) . - The court considered the injured witnesses' testimonies but found discrepancies and lack of independent corroboration, weakening the prosecution's case (!) (!) . - Benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellants due to the tainted version of the incident and suppression of actual facts by the prosecution (!) (!) . - The judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted based on the above grounds (!) (!) . - The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged as they were acquitted (!) . - The criminal appeal is allowed in favor of the appellants (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants/A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC , further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 449 IPC and also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under section 148 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.200 of 2013 dated 15.09.2016 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M.Ramohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/A1, A2, A5 and A6 and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/A3, A7 and A8 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 to A14 and deceased Gaini Chinna Muthanna and his son Gaini Subash (hereinafter referred to as ‘D1’ and ‘D2’) are close relatives residing in the same Godisera village. There was a dispute between A1 to A14 and D1's family regarding a land in Wadthala village Shivar and the use of a joint bore electric motor pump set at Godisera village shivar. D1 used to quarrel over petty issues and land disputes, dominating the appellants, which led to their grudge against him. On 26.9.2012, at around 6:00 pm, A11 watered her land using the bore valve and returned home. On 27.9.2012, at 11:00 a.m, D1 turned the valve towards his fields. A11, upon seeing this, turned it back to her fields and confronted D1, who allegedly abused and beat her. A1 and A2 intervened and rescued A11, but D1 picked up a quarrel with them. On the same day, D1 allegedly quarrelled with and beat A12 (Soundarya). A4 tried to rescue her but was also allegedly beaten by D1.On the same day in the night, A1 to A14 formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with axes and sticks,went to D1's house, allegedly dragged him outside, and when D1 tried to escape, they caught him, made him fall on ground. A1 and A3 hacked him with axes,while A2 and A4 to A10 beat him with sticks, causing his death. D2, fearing for his life, attempted to flee with the complainant (mother of D2 and wife of D1, who died during investigation) and PW1 (sister of D2) on a motorcycle. However, A3 allegedly pushed him off the vehicle and hacked him with an axe, while A4 to A10 attacked him with sticks, beating him severely, leading to his death on the spot. During the incident, LW1, PW1, PW2, and PW4, who intervened to rescue D1 and D2, were allegedly beaten by A11 to A14 with hands and kicked with legs.
4. On 28.9.2012 at 8:00 a.m, the complainant (LW1), wife of D1, lodged a written complaint in Telugu at the PS, stating she is a resident of Godisera village; that her father-in-law had four brothers, each inheriting 5 acres of inam land which they cultivated separately. Similarly, she and her family cultivated their share of land independently. The sons of her three fathers-in-law, A2, A1, A3, A9, and A7, quarrelled with her husband last year, demanding a share in their land. Despite the intervention of village elders, who attempted to mediate, the appellants did not agree and hence, they were boycotted, which is why they fostered enmity against D1 and his family members. On 27.9.2012, at around 7:30pm, while D1 was having dinner at home, A2, A1, A4, and A5 allegedly entered the house, attacked D1, dragged him outside, and pushed him to the roadside. A3, A7, and A8 then allegedly assaulted D1 with axes and sticks. When the complainant/LW1, her daughter (PW1- Sujatha), and her brother-in-law (PW2-Gaini Pedda Muthanna) intervened to rescue D1, the accused allegedly assaulted them as well. Frightened, her son D2 tried to flee but was allegedly attacked by A1 and A3 with axes, while A6, A4, A10, A5, A11, A13, A14, and A12 allegedly beat him with sticks and hands. When her daughter- in-law (PW4, wife of D2) tried to intervene, the accused pushed her away and escaped. Upon observing,
The prosecution failed to establish a reliable case due to contradictions in witness testimonies and unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and convincing evidence in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court affirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness possesses significant evidentiary weight, and the premeditated nature of the attack ruled out claims of sudden provocation, justifying t....
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.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant procedural irregularities or unreliable witness testimony can lead to an acquittal.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
