P. VENKATA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was examined as P.W.9 before the trial Court has preferred the present Criminal Revision questioning the correctness of the order of acquittal of the respondents 2 to 10, who are arrayed as A1 to A9 and tried for the offences under Ss. 448 r/w 149 IPC and Sec. 302 r/w 109 and Sec. 324 r/w 149 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.485 of 2006 dtd. 3/11/2006.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the respondents/accused and the deceased Polasani Veera Rao are residents of Rangapuram village of Mogulapally Mandal. On 22/1/2004, Padugula Narsaiah and Padugula Salender, who are A7 and A8 quarreled with the deceased on a petty issue, picked up sticks and beat him, which was registered as Crime No.4 of 2004 for the offence under Ss. 324 r/w 34 IPC of P.S.Mogulapally and pending trial. The deceased person Veera Rao went to Warangal to attend trial in a case and while returning back, he went to the house of P.W.8. At that juncture, A1 called the witness P.W.2 and while they were conversing, the deceased intervened and a quarrel ensued between the deceased and A1. It is alleged that A1 felt insulted by the acts of the deceased Veera Rao and went to his village, gathered his relatives, who are A2 to A9 and armed with deadly weapons and sticks, trespassed into the house of the deceased and attacked him. The attack resulted in the death of the deceased. A complaint was filed with the police and they investigated the case and filed charge sheet. During the course of investigation, it was found that the deceased died due incised and chop wounds.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 and marking Exs.P1 to P22 found that there is evidence of P.W.1who is the mother of the deceased and PW5 who is the father of PW1, regarding the entire incident. Further, statements of P.W.1 and PW5 in court were inconsistent with their statements before the police regarding the altercation between the deceased and A1 and also the subsequent attack by all the accused. The other eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. On account of the animosity between the deceased and the accused, the evidence of P.W.1, who was an interested witness, was not accepted by the Sessions Court. Narration of the incident from the beginning, when there was an altercation between the deceased and A1 at the house of P.W.8 and also the subsequent attack, PW1 had stated different versions during chief and cross-examinations. The learned Sessions Judge found that on the basis of the tainted testimony of P.W.1 and PW5 who did not appear to be truthful and did not inspire the confidence of the court, conviction cannot be based on such inconsistent testimony.