Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17696
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
The State of A.P – Appellant
Versus
Ravilla Nagabhushanam Naidu – Respondent
CRLA 1095/2009
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Public Prosecutor
For the Respondents: O Kailashnath Reddy
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the trial court's decision is perverse. Unexplained delay in lodging FIR, non-examination of independent witnesses, and suppression of genesis are grounds for upholding acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 378(1) and (3) - Appeal against acquittal - Scope - Appellate court should not interfere unless judgment is perverse or manifestly illegal - Presumption of innocence strengthened on acquittal - If two views possible, view favourable to accused to be adopted. (Paras 11,12,45,46) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147,148,149,324,354,34 - Offences of unlawful assembly, rioting, assault, outraging modesty - Acquittal confirmed - Discussion on delay in FIR - Non-examination of independent witnesses - Failure to explain injuries on accused - Suppression of genesis.
(B) Evidence - Delay in lodging FIR - Unexplained delay of four hours fatal to prosecution case - Duty of prosecution to explain delay - Reliance on Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala and State of M.P. vs. Kriparan. (Paras 32-35)
(C) Evidence - Non-examination of material witnesses - Where independent witnesses available but not examined by investigating officer, such omission is fatal to prosecution's case. (Para 22)
(D) Criminal Trial - Interested witnesses - Existence of enmity between parties does not automatically discredit witnesses but requires careful scrutiny - However, when prosecution fails to examine independent witnesses and suppresses genesis, evidence of interested witnesses cannot form basis of conviction. (Paras 23,24,37) (E) Criminal Trial - Injuries on accused - Prosecution must explain injuries sustained by accused - Failure to do so leads to inference that prosecution is suppressing genesis of incident - Reliance on Venkatanna vs. State and Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar. (Paras 38-40)
Facts of the case:
A land dispute existed between the complainant party and the accused. A civil suit was pending and an interim injunction restrained the complainants from interfering with the accused's possession. On 22.03.2004, while the complainant and others were performing pooja at a temple, the accused allegedly assaulted them with sticks, causing simple injuries. The complainant lodged an FIR after about four hours. Both sides lodged complaints; the accused also sustained injuries. The prosecution examined five witnesses who were interested and related. The investigating officer failed to examine independent witnesses (other women present at the scene) and did not collect evidence regarding the temple's existence. The trial court acquitted the accused.
Findings of Court:
The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning. The delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained; independent witnesses were not examined; there was suppression of the genesis of the incident; the injuries on the accused were not explained; and the complainant's own witness admitted that the accused did not outrage her modesty. The evidence of interested witnesses was not reliable. Therefore, the acquittal was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence. Here, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to multiple infirmities: unexplained delay, non-examination of independent witnesses, suppression of genesis and failure to explain injuries on the accused. Hence, the acquittal was proper.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.
The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal, filed under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is preferred by the Appellant–State, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 15.06.2007 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti (for short, “the Trial Court”), in Sessions Case No.246 of 2006. By the said judgment, the Trial Court acquitted Accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”).
2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of the accused, none were examined, and Ex.D1 document was marked.
3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:
A.1 to A.4 and A.8, residents of Diguva Maradawada village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, are interrelated and belong to the Kamma caste. PWs.1 to 5 are also residents of the same village. A land dispute existed between A.1 to A.4 and A.8 on one side and PW.1 on the other. PWs.1 to 5 claimed the disputed land as temple property of Lord Sri Venkateswara Swamy, while the accused asserted ownership based on patta certificates issued by the revenue authorities. Owing to rival claims, a civil suit was filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu, which is still pending.
On 22.03.2004 at about 6:30 a.m., while PW.1 and others were performing pooja at the idol of Lord Venkateswara Swamy, A.1 to A.4 and A.8 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, and assaulted PWs.1 to 5, causing bleeding injuries. A.1 assaulted PW.1 on the head; A.1 to A.4 and A.8 also assaulted other women present. When PWs.2 to 5 intervened, A.1 assaulted PW.2, A.2 assaulted PW.3, A.8 assaulted PW.4, and A.4 and A.5 assaulted him on the shoulder, all with sticks.
PW.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1), leading to the registration of Crime No.19 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, and 324 read with 149 IPC. After investigation, the accused were arrested on 31.03.2004 and remanded to judicial custody. PW.6, Dr. R. Srinivasan, examined PWs.1 to 5 and issued wound certificates (Exs.P2 to P6). Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A.1 to A.4 and A.8 under Sections 147, 148, and 324 read with 34 IPC.
4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathyavedu, took cognizance of the case as P.R.C. No.10 of 2004 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.10. During pendency, the case was split against A.5 to A.7 and A.9 to A.10 and registered separately as P.R.C. No.6 of 2006. The remaining case in P.R.C. No.10 of 2004 was committed to the District and Sessions Court, Chittoor, under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
5. The Court of Sessions, Chittoor Division, registered the case as S.C.No.246 of 2006 and referred it to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti, for disposal. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 354, and 324 read with 149 IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable it to consider the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and against them. But the accused denied the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After the conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them.
7. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State, contends that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 354, 324 r/w 149 of IPC were made out. He further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbeliev
