CRLA/1367/2007 of SANNALA VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, Vs THE STATE OF AP REP BY ITS PP HYD., on 1 April 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Heard Ms. S. Mahaswetha Varma, learned counsel representing Sri M. Ravindra, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/A1 in C.C. No. 1 of 2004 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore, challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2007, whereby the appellant/A1 was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC, convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for causing injuries to PW1. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months, for causing injuries to PW2. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

3. The appellant/A1 was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.2 to 20 were also found not guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324 read with 149 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW1 is the elder brother of PW2.On 08.04.1998 at about 5:00 PM, PW1, PW2, and others were present near the house of PW2. They came to know that one Vagala Pullaiah and the accused were erecting a fence, thereby obstructing a passage. PW1 went to the spot and questioned the accused regarding the obstruction. The accused refused to remove the fence. When PW1 attempted to remove the same, Vagala Pullaiah hit PW1 on the right temporal region with a crowbar. The appellant/A1 beat PW1 with a stick on his right thigh. The other accused also bet PW1, as a result of which, he became unconscious. Later, PW1 came to know that PW2 and other witnesses were also beaten by the accused.

5. PW1 was shifted to the Primary Health Centre at Vinjamur. A Head Constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1, which was marked as Ex.P1. Subsequently, PW1 was shifted to the Headquarters Hospital, Nellore, for better treatment.

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

6. PW2 and others, on coming to know about the assault on PW1, went to the scene of offence and were also beaten by the accused, including the appellant/A1.

7. Based on Ex.P1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vinjamur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.15 of 1998 on 08.04.1998, under Ex.P5 – FIR. He visited the hospital, examined PW1 and PW2, and recorded their statements. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence at Chintalapalem Village, which is situated on a passage leading to agricultural fields. In the presence of PW5 and another witness, he observed the scene and prepared a panchanama under Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P6. Thereafter, he examined PW3, PW4, and others and recorded their statements.

8. During the course of investigation, on 24.07.1998, the appellant and other accused were arrested. Accused Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 also sustained injuries. Vagala Pullaiah also sustained injuries and later succumbed to the same. Consequently, another case in Crime No.16 of 1998 was registered in that regard.

9. After completion of investigation and upon receipt of wound certificates, a charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It appears that a separate charge sheet was also filed in Crime No.16 of 1998 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which was taken on file as Sessions Case No.256 of

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

2001 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nellore. Since both cases arose out of the same incident, they were treated as case and countercase and tried together.

10. The appellant/A1 and other accused were charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, and 324 read with 149 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

11. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Exs.P1 to P6, apart from material objects. The appellant and other accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same as false.

12. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced; however, Exs.D1 to D7 were marked during the cross-examination of PW1 to PW9.

13. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found the appellant/A1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC on two counts, i.e.,

(1) for causing injury to PW1 and (2) for causing injury to PW2, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

14. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is:

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

“Whether the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC?”

15. As already mentioned above, PW-1 is brother of PW-2. As could be seen from the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, PW-1 and PW-2 in the case are arraigned as A1 and A2 respectively, in S.C.No.256 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989. It also appears that they were convicted for the above offence by the trial Court, and they preferred Crl.A.No.1315 of 2007 before this Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 07.04.2010. A copy of judgment is now placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant herein.

16. Reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench would disclose that the material witnesses in the case belongs to one group, whereas the appellant and other accused belongs to another group. In other words, the accused and injured belongs to two factions in the village.

17. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the evidence on record would establish that both cases arose from one incident occurred in the village. PW-1 and PW-2 in the case were arraigned as A1 and A2 in the other case i.e., S.C.No.256 of 2001, for causing the death of one Vagala

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

Pullaiah. PWs-1 and 2 in the case, in their evidence, suppressed the truth as to how the dispute arose and the real manner in which the incident was occurred. They did not explain as to how the appellant and other accused in the case sustained injuries and why Vagala Pullaiah died after suffering injuries in the incident.

18. Therefore, they came to the Court with a colored version. They did not depose whole truth about the incident to know who are the aggressors, who exercised the right of private defence, or whether it is a free fight between two factions. Therefore, it is very difficult for the Court to rely on the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and other witnesses in the case to come to a conclusion that A1 committed the offence for which he was charged. It is not at all safe to rely on the colored version deposed by PWs-1, 2 and others, as it is raising so many reasonable doubts about the actual incident occurred on that day.

19. She would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench, in the Criminal Appeal filed by PWs-1 and 2 against the judgment in S.C.No.256 of 2001, at Paragraph No.17, observed as under: “Furthermore, it is on record that there was a case and counter-case. It appears that some of the persons belonging to accused party including A-1 and A-2, received injuries in the said incident. There is absolutely no clarity in this connection. In such a case, it is very difficult for this Court to believe the version of P.Ws.4 and 5 as

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

regards the offence allegedly committed by A-1. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against A-1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained.”

20. The same analogy could be applied to the present case also. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained.

21. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is a free fight occurred between two factions in the village and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. However, he would admit that two cases arose from the same incident, which includes S.C.No.256 of 2001 filed against PWs-1 and 2 herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the death of Vagala Pullaiah. He would also admit that PWs-1 and 2 herein preferred an appeal before this Court vide Crl.A.No.1315 of 2007, and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2010, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants therein.

22. The evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would disclose as if the incident occurred due to the erecting of a fence by Vagala Pullaiah and others on the passage in the village. Therefore, PW-1 went there and questioned them about the fencing. Then, the appellant and the other accused in the case beat PWs-1, 2 and others. PWs-1, 2 and other witnesses in the case did not depose that both parties beat

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

each other and that it was a free fight between two factions in the village. Therefore, both parties sustained injuries, and as a result, one of them died due to the injuries.

23. They denied the suggestions of the defence about the injuries sustained by the other group and registering of a case against PWs-1, 2 and others. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and other witnesses examined in the case, about the incident, deposed only half-truth of the incident. They suppressed the remaining half of the incident.The Investigating Officer, for the first time in the cross-examination, came with a theory of free fight between two factions.

24. In those circumstances, as there is no clarity in this connection as to whether the incident was occurred due to the accused No.1 and other accused in the case, i.e., whether the accused No.1 and other accused are aggressors, whether PWs-1, 2 and others exercised right of private defence, or whether it is a free fight between two factions in the village.

25. In those circumstances, it is not at all safe to rely on the evidence of PWs- 1, 2 and other witnesses examined by the prosecution to believe the case of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 beat PWs-1 and 2, as deposed by them, and caused the injuries found in the wound certificate.

BVLNC, J Crl.A.No.1367 of 2007, dated 02.04.2026

26. In those circumstances, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained.

RESULT:

27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment dated 21.09.2007 in C.C.No.01 of 2004 passed by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) at Nellore, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC on two counts. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted of the said offence. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refundedto him in accordance with law. This judgment be certified to the trial Court as per Section 405 Cr.P.C.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 2nd April, 2026 cbn/pmk

BVLNC, J

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1367 of 2007

2nd April, 2026 cbn/pmk