Telangana High Court
Gaini Suman A1 Adilabad Dt And 6 Otrs., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 5 December, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1035 OF 2016
Between:
Gaini Suman and others ... Appellants
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.12.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
THE HON'LE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
_________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
And
THE HON'LE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
+ CRL.A. No. 1035 OF 2016
% Dated 05.12.2024
# Gaini Suman and others ... Appellants
And
$ The State of Telangana ... Respondent
Rep. by Public Prosecutor
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel for
Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy for A1, A2,A5 and A6
Sri R.Sushanth Reddy for A3, A7 and A8
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arun Kumar Dodla,
Additional Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
1
(2022) 16 Supreme Court Cases 732
2
(2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 261
3
(1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 215
4
(1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 755
5
(2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 421
6
(1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 425
7
2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 331
8
(2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 106
9
(2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 164
10
(2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 630
11
(2003) 3 SCC 355
12 (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 106
13
(2016) 14 SCC 729
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
and
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1035 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants/A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 449 IPC and also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under section 148 of IPC vide judgment in S.C.No.200 of 2013 dated 15.09.2016 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M.Ramohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/A1, A2, A5 and A6 and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/A3, A7 and A8 and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
4
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 to A14 and deceased Gaini Chinna Muthanna and his son Gaini Subash (hereinafter referred to as 'D1' and 'D2') are close relatives residing in the same Godisera village. There was a dispute between A1 to A14 and D1's family regarding a land in Wadthala village Shivar and the use of a joint bore electric motor pump set at Godisera village shivar. D1 used to quarrel over petty issues and land disputes, dominating the appellants, which led to their grudge against him. On 26.9.2012, at around 6:00 pm, A11 watered her land using the bore valve and returned home. On 27.9.2012, at 11:00 a.m, D1 turned the valve towards his fields. A11, upon seeing this, turned it back to her fields and confronted D1, who allegedly abused and beat her. A1 and A2 intervened and rescued A11, but D1 picked up a quarrel with them. On the same day, D1 allegedly quarrelled with and beat A12 (Soundarya). A4 tried to rescue her but was also allegedly beaten by D1.On the same day in the night, A1 to A14 formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with axes and sticks,went to D1's house, allegedly dragged him outside, and when D1 tried to escape, they caught him, made him fall on ground. A1 and A3 hacked him with axes,while A2 and A4 to A10 beat him with 5 sticks, causing his death. D2, fearing for his life, attempted to flee with the complainant (mother of D2 and wife of D1, who died during investigation) and PW1 (sister of D2) on a motorcycle. However, A3 allegedly pushed him off the vehicle and hacked him with an axe, while A4 to A10 attacked him with sticks, beating him severely, leading to his death on the spot. During the incident, LW1, PW1, PW2, and PW4, who intervened to rescue D1 and D2, were allegedly beaten by A11 to A14 with hands and kicked with legs.
4. On 28.9.2012 at 8:00 a.m, the complainant (LW1), wife of D1, lodged a written complaint in Telugu at the PS, stating she is a resident of Godisera village; that her father-in-law had four brothers, each inheriting 5 acres of inam land which they cultivated separately. Similarly, she and her family cultivated their share of land independently. The sons of her three fathers-in-law, A2, A1, A3, A9, and A7, quarrelled with her husband last year, demanding a share in their land. Despite the intervention of village elders, who attempted to mediate, the appellants did not agree and hence, they were boycotted, which is why they fostered enmity against D1 and his family members. On 27.9.2012, at around 7:30pm, while D1 6 was having dinner at home, A2, A1, A4, and A5 allegedly entered the house, attacked D1, dragged him outside, and pushed him to the roadside. A3, A7, and A8 then allegedly assaulted D1 with axes and sticks. When the complainant/LW1, her daughter (PW1- Sujatha), and her brother-in-law (PW2-Gaini Pedda Muthanna) intervened to rescue D1, the accused allegedly assaulted them as well. Frightened, her son D2 tried to flee but was allegedly attacked by A1 and A3 with axes, while A6, A4, A10, A5, A11, A13, A14, and A12 allegedly beat him with sticks and hands. When her daughter- in-law (PW4, wife of D2) tried to intervene, the accused pushed her away and escaped. Upon observing, they found D1 and D2 dead with severe injuries.
5. A case was registered by PW15, and PW16 conducted further investigation. PW16 visited the scene of offence, had it photographed by LW6, in the presence of mediators (PWs 9 and 10), prepared a CDF, collected blood-stained earth, control earth, and two sticks under the cover of CDF. Inquests over the bodies of D1 and D2 were conducted, following which the bodies were sent for PME. PW13 conducted the autopsy, and the wearing clothes of D1 and D2 were seized. On 30.10.2012, the complainant and PW1 7 complained to PW16 about pain from injuries inflicted by the accused. They were sent to Government Civil Hospital, Mudhole, for treatment and certificates, and were treated by PW14. On 16.10.2012, A1 to A14 were arrested, and from the possession of A1 and A3, two axes (crime weapons) were seized, along with six sticks from A2, A4, A5, and A6.
6. According to postmortem examination Doctor/P.W.13, the following injuries were received by D1 and D2:
"Injuries over the dead body of D1 by name Gaini Chinna Muthanna, S/o.Muthana, aged 45 years:
1. Left ear pinne ovulsed and torn about ¾ of its entire size.
2. A laceration 1 ½ x 2 ½" above left eye brow
3. A laceration 2' x 2 ½ " and 3 ½" deep into the neck spanning from the mid line to left side of lower jaw along with the Jaw line exposing a fractured jaw bone and missing and loosened teeth. Clotted blood found in the wound and the adjacent part of neck.
4. A laceration 1 ½ x ½ " below lower lip.
5. Left half of upper jaw broken with missing teeth and the rest out of line.
6. Fracture jaw bone on right side.
7. A contusion 3 x 3 spread over left temple and cheek with broken underlying maxilla.
8. Bleeding from right ear noted
9. Contusion 1 ½ x 1" above left nipple.
All the above said injuries are anti-mortem injuries. I issued PME report. Ex.A8 is the PME report issued by me which bears my signature. Cause of death is due to lacerating injuries to the jaw and great vessels of neck on left side and fracture of temporal bone in the skull with damage to adjacent part of brain substance resulting in hemorrhagic shock and cardio respiratory arrest.
The above said injuries were possible with any house hold article or any weapons having sharp and blunt edges and the injuries depends upon the force used by the weapons.
8
Injuries over the dead body of D2 namely Gaini Subash S/o.Gaini Chinna Muthanna, aged 22years.
1. Scalp laceration in mid-line measuring 3" x 1 ½" bone deep.
2. Contusion 1 x 1 ½" over inner end of right collar bone and adjacent part of neck.
3. Contusion 1 x 1 ½" over back of head and adjacent part of neck left of mind line on the back.
4. Pinne of right ear cut irregularly across in half at mid part.
5. A contusion 1" x 1" right side of neck mid-way.
6. A bruise 1 x 1" over right cheek in front of the severed right ear.
7. Multiple about 4 in number parallel contusion over an area measuring 2 x ½" just below left nipple
8. Contusion 1 x 1" horizontally on right half of chest along with right coastal margin.
9. A small contusion ½ x ½" over left loin.
10. A small contusion ½ x ½" over tip of left shoulder-blade.
11. Clotted blood in both nostrils present.
All the above said injuries are external anti-mortem injuries. Internal injuries:
A large heamotoma measuring 3 ½ x 2 ½" wedged between both cerebral halves. Cerebral hemisphere lacerated in several places.
The cause of death is due to severe damage to the brain substance resulting in instantaneous unconsciousness and cardio respiratory arrest. I issued PME report. Ex.P9 is the PME report issued by me which bears my signature. The above said injuries were possible with any house hold article or any weapons having sharp and blunt edges and the injuries depends upon the force used by the weapons."
7. The investigating officer during the course of investigation has effected the following seizures:
a) Following A1's confession, one axe (MO10) was produced from the backyard of his house. Blood was detected on the axe.
b) A2, post-confession, produced one stick (MO11) from the backyard of his house with blood stains found on it.
c) A3, in pursuance of his confession, produced one axe (MO12) from the backyard of A1's house which also had blood stains.9
d) A5 confessed that after assaulting D1 and D2, he threw his stick at the scene of the offence and fled. This stick was already recovered by the police under CDF/Ex.P15.
e) A6 and A7 confessed to discarding their sticks behind A1's house.
MO13 and MO14 are the sticks produced by A6 and A7, respectively. Blood stains were found on both sticks.
f) At the instance of A8, one stick (MO15) was recovered from A1's house backyard. Blood stains were also found on this stick.
g) MOs 10 to 15 were seized under ExP19, comprising two axes and five sticks. However, it remains unclear who discarded the second stick recovered from the scene, besides the one discarded by A5.
7. Learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record found that specific overt acts were attributed to A1 to A3 and A5 to A8 and accordingly, convicted them while acquitting A4 and A12 on the ground that they were in the police station when the incident occurred and against A9, A11, A13 and A14, as there was no evidence.
8. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/A1, A2, A5 and A6 mainly argued on three points:
(a) Firstly, according to the prosecution, and admitted by P.W16, A4 and A12 were in the police station at 7.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the actual assault and murder of D1 10 and D2 had taken place at 7.30 p.m and the involvement of A4 and A12 was specifically stated by the eye witnesses. The said eye witness account cannot be considered since the actual happening was suppressed and it is not possible for A4 and A12 to be at both the places.
(b) Secondly, there is a delay in lodging the FIR which was on the next day at 8.00 a.m. When the incident happened at 7.30 p.m, the lodging of complaint on the next day at 8.00 a.m with a delay of 11 ½ hours which was unexplained casts any amount of doubt on the version given by the witnesses.
(c) Thirdly, during postmortem examination, there was semi digested food in the both the dead bodies which even according to the Doctor/P.W.13 would be in case of consuming food 2 to 2 ½ hours prior to death. According to the eye witness account, the attack happened at 7.30 and it is highly improbable that the deceased had dinner/food at 5.00 p.m itself.
11
9. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar alias Nemichand and others v. State of Rajasthan 1, wherein it was held as follows:
"45. A fair investigation would become a colourable one when there involves a suppression. Suppressing the motive, injuries and other existing factors which will have the effect of modifying or altering the charge would amount to a perfunctory investigation and, therefore, become a false narrative. If the courts find that the foundation of the prosecution case is false and would not conform to the doctrine of fairness as against a conscious suppression, then the very case of the prosecution falls to the ground unless there is unimpeachable evidence to come to a conclusion for awarding a punishment on a different charge."
10. In Nallabothu Ramulu alias Seetharamaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
11. In Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the contents of the FIR cannot be read in evidence. However, in the present case, the complainant, who is the mother of P.W.1 was not examined since she died prior to trial and the conviction was based on the testimony of eye witness. 1 (2022) 16 Supreme Court Cases 732 2 (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 261 3 (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 215 12
12. In Bhudeo Mandal and others v. State of Bihar 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when conviction is recorded with the aid of Section 149 IPC, there should be clear finding regarding common object and assembly of persons which must be given in evidence. According to the learned Senior Counsel, when the prosecution case is that all of them formed into an unlawful assembly, no reasons are given as to why the trial Court had acquitted the accused/A4, A9, A11 to A14.
13. In Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and others v. State of Haryana 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"28. Thus, from the above it is evident that the Criminal Procedure Code provides for internal and external checks : one of them being the receipt of a copy of the FIR by the Magistrate concerned. It serves the purpose that the FIR be not ante-timed or ante-dated. The Magistrate must be immediately informed of every serious offence so that he may be in a position to act under Section 159 CrPC, if so required. Section 159 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to hold the investigation or preliminary enquiry of the offence either himself or through the Magistrate subordinate to him. This is designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation so as to enable him to control investigation and, if necessary, to give appropriate direction.
29. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation is not fair and forthright. Every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The expression "forthwith" mentioned therein does not mean that the prosecution is required to explain delay of every hour in 4 (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 755 5 (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 421 13 sending the FIR to the Magistrate. In a given case, if number of dead and injured persons is very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time in the prevalent circumstances.
30. However, unexplained inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely. An adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution when there are circumstances from which an inference can be drawn that there were chances of manipulation in the FIR by falsely roping in the accused persons after due deliberations. Delay provides legitimate basis for suspicion of the FIR, as it affords sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments. Thus, a delay in dispatch of the FIR by itself is not a circumstance which can throw out the prosecution's case in its entirety, particularly when the prosecution furnishes a cogent explanation for the delay in dispatch of the report or prosecution case itself is proved by leading unimpeachable evidence."
14. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgments in the cases of Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala 6 and Narasapuram Balaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh 7 on the aspect of delay in lodging FIR.
15. Learned counsel appearing for A3, A7 and A8 argued that there is any amount of delay in filing the FIR and there are discrepancies in the evidence of eye witnesses. Different witnesses have stated different versions regarding the incident and the arrival of the police at the place of incident. According to P.W.4, the police were present around 8.00 p.m at the scene i.e., within half an hour of the murder. According to P.W.8, when he went to the scene at 6 (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 425 7 2016 (2) ALD (Crl.) 331 14 11.00 p.m, the police were present. There is no explanation as to why complaint was not filed when the police were present at the scene on 27.09.2012 around 8.00 p.m according to P.W.4 and the complaint was filed with a delay of more than 11 hours. Learned counsel further argued that none of the independent witnesses were examined. He relied on the judgment of State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh 8 and argued that there is no motive which is established by the prosecution and there has to be parity with the co-accused, who was acquitted. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat 9.
16. The incident happened at 7.30 p.m on 27.09.2012 and written complaint was filed by the mother of P.W.1, who died prior to commencement of trial and was not examined. According to P.W.1, she stated that her mother was an illiterate, she gave complaint to the police at the scene of offence when the police came there after receiving information of the incident. Ex.P1 was drafted by the police as dictated by the mother of P.W.1. According to 8 (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 106 9 (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 164 15 P.W.4, the police arrived within half an hour of the incident and the incident happened at 7.30 p.m. According to P.Ws.3 and 8, who are not eye witnesses to the incident, reached the scene within one or two hours of the incident. According to P.Ws.3 and 8, police constables along with other persons in the village were present at the scene.
17. Accepting the evidence of P.W.1 that the complaint was written down at the scene of offence itself to the dictation of the mother of P.W.1, it is not known as to why the investigating officer has stated that the complaint was filed on the next day in the morning. According to officer of police station, P.W.15, LW1 came to the police station at 8.00 a.m on 28.09.2012 and lodged Telugu written complaint. According to P.W.16/investigating officer, though he stated that P.W.15 received a phone call about the incident, however, P.W.15 did not visit the scene of offence after receiving information. P.W.15 also did not send anybody to the scene of offence.
[[
18. As seen from the evidence of P.W.15/Sub-Inspector of police, the investigating officer, who is the Inspector of Police/P.W.16, the 16 police never went to the scene of offence till the complaint was received at 8.00 A.M on 28.09.2012. The version given by the eye witnesses and other witnesses who have gathered at the scene i.e., P.Ws.3, 4 and 8, who stated regarding the presence of the police immediately after the incident, casts any amount of doubt regarding the prosecution version and the manner in which the investigation was conducted. It is apparent that the actual version was suppressed by the prosecution witnesses and also the investigating officer. If at all information was received regarding double murder by P.W.15 after the incident happened, the question of not going to the scene on the said day until the complaint was received on the next day is again doubtful. In fact, P.W.15 did not speak about any information he received on the telephone as stated by P.W.16, during the examination of P.W.15 in the Court. P.Ws.15 and 16 police officers are contradicting one another.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P v. Ratan Singh 10 held as follows:
"9. Thus, not only was there a delay in filing of the FIR (which remained unexplained) which was taken as the basis of the investigation in this case, 10 (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 630 17 but also there was a wilful suppression of the actual first information received by the police. These factors together cast grave doubts on the credibility of the prosecution version, and lead us to the conclusion that there has been an attempt to build up a different case for the prosecution and bring in as many persons as accused as possible."
20. In Rajeevan v. State of Karnataka 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"12. Another doubtful factor is the delayed lodging of FIR. The learned counsel for the appellants highlights this factor. Here it is worthwhile to refer Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. [(1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 543] wherein the delayed filing of FIR and its consequences are discussed. At para 12 this Court says: (SCC p. 397) "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
21. As already discussed, P.W.1 stated that around 7.30 p.m, when they were all present in the house, all the appellants including the acquitted accused trespassed into the house, pulled out their father (D1) and beat him indiscriminately with sticks and axes and while the father of P.W.1 i.e., D1 tried to escape, all of 11 (2003) 3 SCC 355 18 them chased him and beat him till death. The death of the brother of P.W.1, D2 was when he tried to escape from the scene, all the appellants beat him with sticks and axes. However, according to the investigating officer/P.W.16, on the date of the incident, in the evening at 7.30 p.m, A12 accompanied by A4 went to the police station with head injury and they were referred to the Government Hospital for treatment. The prosecution has failed to explain as to how A4 and A12 were at the place of incident i.e., at the house of the deceased attacking D1 and D2 and at the same time they were in the police station. Further, as admitted by PW.16, no case was registered with regard to the narration given by A4 and A12.
22. The evidence of the prosecution is not only self-contradictory but the actual version of the assault and attack of D1 and D2 is made up after deliberating the next day. The manner in which the incident has taken place and involvement of persons in the murder of D1 and D2 is suppressed. No reasons are given by P.W.16 as to why no action was taken immediately when A4 and A12 went to the police station. P.W.16 in his cross-examination admitted as follows:
"On the day of incident in the evening at about 19.30 hours A12 accompanied by A4 came to the police station with a head injury. I 19 referred her to the Government Hospital for treatment. No case was registered with regard to this incident. I did not file any medical certificates with regard to the treatment of A12."
23. Initially, P.W.16 during the course of his cross-examination stated that on the date of incident, he was at Bhainsa and P.W.15 received the phone call. However, as seen from the above admission, P.W.16 was very much present in the police station. His prevarication and self-contradictory statements would go to show that neither the investigating officers are stating the truth nor the eye witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh 12 held as follows:
"7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as many as six witnesses were found injured and that would establish their presence at the place of the incident. In our opinion, this contention is of no help to the appellant because their evidence has not been discarded on the ground that they were not present. Their evidence was discarded because they were found not telling the truth before the Court. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 stood corroborated by two independent witnesses, namely, Ramjilal and Jeevan Singh. PW 8 Ramjilal had stated that he had gone to the spot on hearing the sound of a gunshot and tried to snatch away the gun from the respondent. But he was contradicted by his police statement wherein he had not stated anything regarding snatching of the gun. This omission on such a vital point has to be regarded as a contradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the truthfulness of his version. PW 9 Jeevan Singh had stated that he had also rushed to the spot on hearing the sound of a gunshot. He further stated that he had made an attempt to save Harveer and in doing so, he had received an injury. He had not so stated before the police. This also shows that this witness had made a material improvement before the Court in order to make his evidence acceptable."12
(2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 106 20
24. P.W.4 admitted that there were houses surrounding their house. However, none of the neighbors came to their rescue and remained indoors. According to P.W.16/investigating officer, he did not examine any of the witnesses in the nearby houses surrounding the house of the deceased. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A.Kotrappa Reddy v. Rayara Manjunatha Reddy 13, held as follows:
8. The second issue, which is of paramount consideration, is the testimony of the eyewitnesses. PW 1, PW 2, PW 5, PW 10 and PW 11 are the five eyewitnesses, out of which PW 1 and PW 5 are injured witnesses.
All the five witnesses are either related or the party members of the deceased, hence they are partisan or interested witnesses. Merely because they are interested witnesses their evidence cannot be discredited. However, in our view, it appears that the evidences of each of these eyewitnesses are doubtful and require careful scrutiny. It is also pertinent to note that the incident in the present case occurred in broad daylight in the afternoon and there were a number of neighbours in and around the scene of the incident. But the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness which casts a doubt on its genuineness. The High Court has scrutinised at length the statements of individual eyewitnesses and has rightly discredited their testimonies. PW 1 and PW 2 are closely related with the deceased and are thus interested parties. It has been proved that there has been a series of litigation, both civil and criminal, on each side. The above added to the fact that neither bloodstained clothes of PW 1, PW 2 or PW 5 were seized nor their conduct seemed natural, further weakens the prosecution case. The injuries on PW 1 and PW 5 are minor and upon medical examination, were opined to be self-inflicted. Thus, the High Court rightly pointed out that they could not have been eyewitness to the incident. PW 10 and PW 11 are the working ladies in an Anganwadi within close proximity of the place of incident. However, as per their narration of the story, their presence at the place of incidence is itself doubtful. They deposed that the timings of the Anganwadi was 9.30 a.m. 13 (2016) 14 SCC 729 21 to 1.30 p.m., and the fact that they left the school early on that day is unnatural, since the school was an Anganwadi which is usually attended by infants. The witnesses further deposed that they went to collect their honorarium. However, no explanation was given as to why they left early just to collect honorarium, or how could they both have left the infants without any guidance. Also, no proof of any honorarium being paid to these two witnesses on the date of incidence was ever adduced in the evidence before any court. Thus, their presence at the time and place of incident is not sufficiently proved. Another witness PW 18 was the labourer, who deposed that repair work was going on at the back of the temple and not in front of the house of the accused, as contended by the prosecution. The said witness is the only non-partisan and chance witness. However, he turned hostile and deposed that he did not see any quarrel between the accused party and the deceased, in and around the place of incident.
28. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness'."
25. The evidence of injured witnesses P.W.1 and L.W.1 going to the police station five days after the incident with head injury is of no consequence since the witnesses are not speaking the truth.
26. P.W.13/postmortem examination Doctor stated that there was semi digested food in the stomach of both the deceased. According to him, semi digested food would be found if the food was taken two to two and half hours prior to death. If at all the incident happened at 7.30 p.m, they must have had food around 5.00 p.m on the date of the incident. However, none of the eye witnesses including P.W.1 22 speak about the deceased having food 2 to 2 ½ hours prior to the incident. The two eye witnesses are P.W.1 and P.W.4. Though P.W.2 narrated as though he was present in the house, however, during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he received a phone call informing about the incident around 8.00 p.m and thereafter he went to the scene. The eye-witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.4 and closely related. P.W.4 is the wife of D2. Both P.Ws.1 and 4 are interested witnesses. Other than the evidence of interested witnesses P.Ws.1 and 4, there is no other eye witness account.
27. As already discussed, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident cannot be believed. Though family members would be probable witnesses in such cases, there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case which are unexplained and makes the version of P.W.1 and P.W.4 unreliable. A4 and A12 were in the police station at 7.30 p.m, which is the time of incident in the village. Though the police arrived at the scene within half an hour of the incident, there is no complaint filed till 8.00 a.m on the next day. The delay of nearly 12 hours in lodging the complaint was not explained by the prosecution. The only 23 logical conclusion is that after due deliberations on the incident, the complaint was filed on the next day involving 14 accused. The actual happening is suppressed by the prosecution and a tainted version is projected. The said tainted version cannot form basis to sustain the conviction recorded by the Court below. Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.
28. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in S.C.No.200 of 2013 dated 15.09.2016 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
29. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J ____________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date : 05.12.2024 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o.kvs