THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2899 and 2470 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Surender)

Criminal Appeal No.2470 of 2018 is filed by accused No.1, questioning his conviction under Sections 302 and 342 of IPC. Criminal Appeal No.2899 of 2018 is filed by the de facto complainant questioning the acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 9.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were charge sheeted by the Bellampally Police. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, namely Ravi, who is the husband of PW.1, was assaulted in front of the Gram Panchayat Office. He was dragged out of the Gram Panchayat Office and beaten with an iron rod and stone in front of the Gram Panchayat Office. PWs.2, 4, and 5, who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, were confined in the Panchayat Office by the accused after the deceased was dragged out. According to PWs.2, 4, and 5, they had witnessed the incident while they were confined in the Gram Panchayat Office. According to the investigation, the appellant/accused No.1, along with accused Nos.2 to 4, were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 302 and 342 read with 109 of IPC. Accused Nos.5 to 9 were charge sheeted under Sections 302 read with 109 of IPC for abetting accused Nos.1 to 4 for attacking and causing the death of the deceased. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, who witnessed the incident, found that accused No.1 had caused injuries on the deceased resulting in his death. However, the benefit of doubt was extended insofar as accused Nos.2 to 9 were concerned.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 would submit that all the eye-witnesses/PWs.2 to 5 are planted by the prosecution. Their contradictory evidence would clearly suggest that none of them have witnessed the incident and their presence at the Gram Panchayat Office is not proved. PW.1 is not an eye-witness to the incident. However, she lodged a complaint with the police, and her statement is hearsay in nature. Further, the contradictory version given by PWs.2 to 5 cannot form basis to convict the appellant.

6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh1, where it was held as follows:

“11. It is well settled, as laid down in a locus classicus case of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras1, there are three types of witnesses, which are (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unereliable. The law laid down in Vedivelu Thevar (supra) is consistently followed by this Court in a catena of judgments. It can thus be seen that, there are three types of witnesses. If the witness is wholly reliable, there is no difficulty inasmuch as relying on even the solitary testimony of such a witness conviction could be based. Again, there is no difficulty in the case of wholly unreliable witnesses inasmuch as his/her testimony is to be totally discarded. It is only in the case of the third category of witnesses which is partly reliable and partly unreliable that the Court faces the difficulty. The Court is required to 1 AIR 1957 SC 614 separate the chaff from the grain to find out the true genesis of the incident.

12. Let us examine the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand so as to find out in which of the categories these witnesses would fall.”

1 Criminal Appeal No.2300 of 2009

7. The learned Counsel appearing in Crl.A.No.2899 of 2018, representing the de facto complainant, would submit that though the witnesses have partially supported the case of the prosecution by alleging specific overt-acts insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, however, PW.5 have also stated about accused Nos.2 and 3. Learned Sessions Judge ought to have considered the injuries inflicted