CRLA/1414/2014 of The State of A.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Yellampati venkataiah, on 31 December 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated28.11.2008 passed in S.C.No.243 of 2006 by the Assistant SessionsJudge, Gudur.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

There are misunderstandings between the congress and TDPParty people of Annamedu Girijanas in connection with a bore pointerected by one Suneel Reddy, who belongs to congress party, in thesite of one Konduru Polaiah of the said Girijana colony. In thisconnection, Kotlapati Rajamohan and others belonging to TeluguDesam Party made representations to the Revenue Officials. Whileso, on 28.5.2005 in the morning, M.L.A., Sullurpet and Revenueofficials, visited Girijana colony and set right the matter with theirdecision. Then, Kotlapati Rajamohan, Kotlapati Krishnaiah,Siddapareddy Chinnabbaiah, Siddapareddy Bujjamma and othersdisliked their decision and with a view to remove the said bore point,they tried to erect shamina in front of the MRO office, Naidupet toexpress their dislike. When the MRO, Naidupet rejected their act,Kotlapati Rajamohan, Kotlapati Krishnaiah, SiddapareddyChinnabbaiah, Siddapareddy Bujjamma and others came toAnnamedu Girijana colony, and tried to erect the shamina. At that timeA1 to A8 formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with sticks,in furtherance of their common object and questioned KotlapatiRajamohan about their act with an intention to do away KotlapatiRajamohan and picked up a quarrel, during the course of which, A3beat him with a stick on right shoulder and back side of head, causedbleeding injuries. A8 beat him with a stick on legs and causedinjuries. A1 beat Kotlapati Krishnaiah with a stick on head and causedbleeding injury. A2 beat Kotlapati Krishnaiah with a stick on hands,A7 beat Krishnaiah with a stick, A4 beat Siddapareddy Chinnabbaiah with a stick on head and caused bleeding injury. A5 and A6 beatSiddapareddy Buijjamma with sticks, caused injuries over right handand back side. Then, Chinnambeti Ramesh, Annameti Ramesh,Pamala Raveendra, who had noticed the occurrence, pacified thequarrel. Kotlapati Rajamohan, Kotlapati Krishnaiah, SiddapareddyChinnabbaiah, Siddapareddy Bujkjamma shifted to Naidupet hospitalfor treatment. Kotlapati Rajamohan gave statement to the Sub-Inspector of police, who registered the case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of police visitedthe scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, seized the shaminaand sticks under a cover of observation report in the presence ofmediators and recorded their statements. On 30.5.2005, the SubInspector of police arrested A1 to A3, A6 to A8 at Annamedu Girijanacolony, seized six sticks from their possession under a cover ofmediatornama duly attested by the mediators. On 27.6.2005, the SubInspector of police arrested A4 and A5 and forwarded them to theCourt along with the charge sheet.

3. The trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections147, 148, 324, 307 r/w 109 IPC, against the accused, read over andexplained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to betried.

4. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined andExs.P1 to P12 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral ordocumentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learnedtrial Judge having found the accused not guilty for the charges levelledagainst them, acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the State filedthe present appeal.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record.

7. On perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious thatexcept the evidence of the investigating officer and the witnesses to

the seizure report, all the material witnesses have turned hostile. P.Ws.1 to 4, who are injured and P.Ws.5 & 6 turned hostile and theydenied to have stated before the police that the accused personsarming with sticks rioted and caused injuries to them. Their statementsalleged to have been made before the police were marked as Exs.P2to P7. P.W.1 admitted the signature on the report. But he denied thecontents of the report. The material witnesses have neither whisperedany act of the accused nor have uttered the names of the accused,who participated in the crime. It is apparent that all the witnesses haveturned hostile in view of the counter case, which was alsocompromised outside the Court. Having regard to the circumstances,the trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.

8. Considering the findings of the trial Court and the facts andcircumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that thejudgment under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or perversitywarranting interference by this Court and therefore, the appeal is liableto be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently,the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

Dated:31[st] December, 2014

Nn

_______________

RAJA ELANGO, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

Nn

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1414 of 2014

31.12.2014