Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Boyakori Dastagiri, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., ... on 28 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by a convict. By a judgment dated 02.02.2009 in Sessions Case No.247 of 2008 learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool found this appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 304 and 307 I.P.C. He was accordingly convicted. For the charge under Section 304 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. For the charge under Section 307 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was found in custody between 11.03.2007 and 24.04.2007 and the said period was given set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.c.
2. In this appeal the said judgment is challenged.
3. Facts leading to the present appeal are:
2
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 Crime No.27 of 2007 of Kodumur Police Station was investigated into and a charge sheet was laid before learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool where it was registered as P.R.C.No.55 of 2007. After securing the presence of the accused and furnishing him with copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate acting in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Sessions Division. Case was assigned to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool for trial of S.C.No.247 of 2008 and on securing the presence of the accused and after hearing both sides, a charge under Section 304 I.P.C. and another charge under Section 307 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and exhibited MO.1 which is Bag Piper Whisky quarter bottle with 30 ML. Incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. His response was a condemnation of the truthfulness of the evidence. Defence did not adduce any oral or documentary or material evidence before the learned trial Court. After hearing arguments and after considering the material on record, the 3 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 learned trial judge found the sole accused/sole appellant herein guilty and convicted him as indicated earlier.
4. The substance of the case is that the accused has a sister by name Dasthagiramma and she was given in marriage to Sri B.Devalam Venkateswarlu/PW.3. Subsequently the said Dasthagiramma committed suicide and died. With reference to that, her parents and her brother/accused complained to police and the husband of the deceased Sri B.Devalam Venkateswarlu/PW.3 were tried and were finally acquitted. That acquittal created dissatisfaction in the mind of the accused and therefore, he was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge. It is in the backdrop of these facts with the above stated motive he was seeking an opportunity to kill his brother- in-law/Sri B.Devalam Venkateswarlu/PW.3.
5. It is stated that accused procured MO.1-liquor bottle and mixed organophosphate, an insecticide poison into it and his intention is to see that his brother-in-law consumes it and dies. The accused handed over this MO.1 bottle to PW.1 with a specific request to him to hand it over to PW.3 and to none else. It was alleged that PW.1 accordingly handed over this bottle to 4 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 PW.3 on 02.03.2007. PW.3 is a drunkard but he did not consume it on that day. He took it to home and on the next day/03.03.2007 at about 8:30 A.M. he called PW.2 and they together went to a hotel run by PW.4 and there sitting in the hotel they wanted to consume the liquor. It is stated that from MO.1-bottle PW.3 poured the liquor into a glass and offered it to PW.2, who consumed a little quantity of it and expressed that it was too bitter and he could not consume it and left it there. It was at that time one Mr. B.Srinivasulu happened to come there and he made a request to PW.3 to give him liquor and accordingly the glass containing liquor that was left out by PW.2 was offered to this Mr. B.Srinivasulu and he consumed it. All this occurred in the hotel of PW.4. Soon after consumption of this liquor both PW.2 as well as Mr. B.Srinivasulu suffered giddiness and vomited and fell down. They were shifted to their houses and thereafter Mr. B.Srinivasulu was taken to hospital and it was found that he was brought dead. On obtaining treatment PW.2 survived.
6. On 04.03.2007 on a written information lodged by PW.1 crime was registered and Ex.P.11-F.I.R. was issued. During the course of investigation, an inquest over the dead body was held 5 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 and the dead body of Mr. Srinivasulu was subjected to post- mortem examination and viscera was collected. On 10.03.2007 accused was arrested and MO.1-liquor bottle was seized and with a letter of advice through Court viscera was forwarded to A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory along with MO.1. The scientific expert gave report and thereafter the autopsy doctor rendered his final opinion stating that death of Mr. B.Srinivasulu was because of consumption of Organophosphate which is an insecticide poison associated with Ethyl alcohol intoxication. Investigating agency examined witnesses and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 was also recorded by a learned Magistrate.
7. When it comes to substantive evidence produced before the trial Court the 1st witness who is PW.1 denied giving Ex.P.1- written information, denied knowledge of all facts. Prosecution chose to examine him in cross and his former statement recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked as Ex.P.2. He was asked whether his statement was recorded by learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He admitted to have given a statement before the learned Magistrate but stated 6 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 that it was at the instructions of police he made such statement and disowned the contents of it. What was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not shown to him when this witness was in the box. PW.2 stated that at the hotel of PW.4 he found a glass of alcohol and he consumed it and fell unconscious. He said that he does not know who else consumed liquor along with him. He did not say whether he alone went to the hotel of PW.4 or he went along with PW.3 or others. He did not say about the source of alcohol as to who gave it to him. He did not say whether he purchased alcohol or he brought alcohol for consumption. As he also did not support the case of prosecution, State questioned him in cross and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was marked as Ex.P.3. Sri B.Devalam Venkateswarlu for whose death the accused was allegedly awaiting testified as PW.3. In his evidence he stated that PW.1 gave him MO.1 whisky bottle and on the next day he went to the hotel of PW.4 and while he was there, PW.2 came and expressed his desire to consume alcohol and then PW.3 offered him the liquor from MO.1 and PW.2 consumed a little of it and stated to him that it was not good. PW.3 also stated that it was at that time Mr. B.Srinivasulu came and asked for liquor 7 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 and he was served with the liquor from MO.1 and he consumed. Thereafter, the said B.Srinivasulu and PW.2 fell down and they struggled for their lives and in the meantime their relations came and took them away. In his evidence he also said that subsequent to this incident he went to PW.1 and questioned him and had come to know that MO.1 was given by accused to PW.1 with a specific instruciton to hand it over to him/PW.3 and that PW.1 told that accused promised to pay money also. PW.3 said that from those facts he entertained the belief that the accused intended to kill him and therefore did all this.
8. PW.4 is the one who runs the hotel and he said that to his hotel on that day in the morning at 8:30 A.M. PWs.2 and 3 came together and they ordered for break past and to fetch it he went inside and in the meantime Mr. B.Srinivasulu/deceased also came there and PW.2 and Mr. B.Srinivasulu consumed the liquor from the Bagpiper quarter bottle and they fell down. He further said that subsequently he came to know that because poison was mixed in that liquor all that happened. He said that he is not aware as to who is responsible for mixing poison in that liquor bottle. According to prosecution on many relevant 8 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 facts he did not support the prosecution version and therefore he was questioned in cross-examination.
9. PW.5 is a daily wage labourer and he said that he knew deceased B.Srinivasulu and he attended inquest over the dead body and he signed Ex.P.4-inquest report.
10. PW.6 is wife of deceased B.Srinivasulu. While she was at Markapur, she got the information about trouble for her husband on consumption of liquor and therefore she and others reached the hotel and found her husband lying on the floor and also found PW.2 lying on the ground and they were unconscious and they shifted them to hospital. She said that her husband died and she also said that she subsequently came to learn that because of poison being mixed in the liquor this incident occurred.
11. PW.7 is brother of PW.6. According to him, while he was at his home in Kodumur he got the information about the death of his brother-in-law and then he went to hotel and along with PW.6 and others they shifted him to hospital etc., facts. 9
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009
12. PW.8 is Village Revenue Officer of Kodumur and he stated that on 10.03.2007 being called by police he went with them to the house of accused and they found the accused there and they arrested the accused and from his house police seized MO.1-liquor bottle. In evidence of all this Ex.P.5-Panchanama was made.
13. PW.9 is the Assistant Professor in Forensic Science Department in Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool. On 05.03.2007 between 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of Mr. B.Srinivasulu and preserved the viscera. Thereafter that was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory. Ex.P.7 is post- mortem examination report. Ex.P.6 is report from Forensic Science Laboratory. After receipt of Ex.P.6, PW.9 issued Ex.P.8- final opinion expressing the cause of death.
14. PW.10 is Director of Viswa Bharathi Hospital, Kurnool where PW.2 was examined. Ex.P.9 is the medical certificate issued with reference to that. These aspects were spoken to by PW.10. According to this witness, PW.2 was actually treated by 10 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 Dr. Thimmaiah. The said doctor Thimmaiah though still working in the hospital, prosecution did not examine him.
15. PW.11 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodumur Police Station. He said that PWs.1 and 2 and others came to the police station at 1:00 P.M. on 04.03.2007 and PW.1 lodged Ex.P.10-written information and he issued Ex.P.11-F.I.R. He then stated about some of the witnesses and thereafter handing over the investigation to his Inspector.
16. The Inspector of Police of Kodumur testified as PW.12 and he spoke about examining some of the witnesses and arrest of the accused and recovery of MO.1 and about rest of the investigative formalities. He made letter of advice as per Ex.P.14. In his reexamination he stated that statement of PW.1 was recorded by a learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool and the said statement is Ex.P.15.
17. The above evidence was available before the learned trial Court. It was on that evidence it found the accused guilty.
18. In this appeal it is urged that crucial witnesses are PWs.1, 2 and 4 and they all turned hostile and did not support the 11 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 prosecution version. PW.3 was developing grouse against accused because it was at the behest of the accused he was prosecuted for the death of sister of accused and he was waiting for an opportunity and he created the false story and got filed this false case. As per the evidence of PW.3 himself he was the one who carried the liquor bottle and he offered the liquor to PW.2 and the deceased and he was left out and innocent accused was prosecuted. The evidence with reference to MO.1 is fallacious. If poison was mixed with it, there should be some evidence as to whether MO.1-liquor bottle was found sealed or not when it was received by PW.3. No evidence was given on that behalf either by PW.3 or anybody else. The alleged seizure of MO.1 is not proved by competent witnesses. Though PW.1 turned hostile, learned trial Court considered Ex.P.15/Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement elaborately which is against law. It is on all these points, learned counsel for appellant argued that the judgment of the trial Court is totally incorrect and the evidence on record was misread and misinterpreted leading to reaching wrong conclusions.
19. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that enough and appropriate evidence was led 12 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 by the prosecution before the trial Court and that was accurately appraised by the trial Court and there are no merits in this appeal and requests for dismissal of the appeal.
20. On considering the arguments on both sides and on considering the material on record, the following points fall for consideration:
1. Whether the learned trial Court incorrectly appreciated the evidence and violated the principles of law?
2. Was there evidence proving the charges under Sections 304 and 307 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?
21. Points:
According to prosecution, this appellant/accused had planned to kill PW.3. Even according to prosecution, the appellant had no grouse against PW.2. It is never the prosecution case that this accused had got any acquaintance with deceased B.Srinivasulu and had any intention to kill him. The man accused wanted to kill is the man who never 13 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 consumed the alcohol allegedly supplied by accused. PW.3 did not consume alcohol, did not suffer any hurt and did not make any attempt to drink alcohol even according to the evidence of PW.3. However, the alleged alcohol allegedly supplied by accused killed Mr. B.Srinivasulu and caused trouble to PW.2. For killing Mr. B.Srinivasulu accused was charged for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. For attempting to kill PW.2 accused was charged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Thus, in a way it is a case of "Transferred Malice". Learned trial Court has not considered any fact or law with reference to this doctrine of "Transferred Malice".
22. MO.1 is the liquor bottle. It is described as whisky and its brand name is Bagpiper and its size is quarter bottle. Under Ex.P.14-letter of advice, according to PW.12, this bottle along with viscera of dead person was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and the said laboratory examined it and sent Ex.P.6 report. A perusal of Ex.P.6 shows that the liquor bottle/item No.3 mentioned in its report was examined and it was found that it contains Organophosphate which is an insecticide poison and it is there along with Ethyl alcohol. By the same report, the laboratory examined the viscera which also found containing 14 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 the above substance. Based on this, Ex.P.8-final opinion was rendered by PW.9-post-mortem doctor stating that it was because of such substance death occurred to Mr. B.SRinivasulu. Learned trial Court accepted this evidence and concluded that accused is the culprit. The way this aspect was dealt with indicates superficial examination of available evidence and lack of aptitude in scrutinizing the evidence. Ex.P.6 forensic science laboratory report in item No.3 mentioned that it is reddish turbid liquid in a bottle labelled as 'Bagpiper Whisky' marked as item No.4. Item No.4 is brown coloured liquid. Thus, what was examined by APFSL was 'Whisky'. Learned trial Court referred to and relied on Ex.P.15 which was statement of PW.1 recorded by learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A perusal of Ex.P.15 shows that this witness stated before the learned Magistrate as extracted here from his very statement:
"On 2nd day of March, Kari Dasthagiri (accused) gave me quarter bottle of Brandi and told me to give the same to his brother-in-law".
23. It is based on this learned trial Court concluded that MO.1-liquor bottle was given by accused to PW.1 and thereafter 15 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 PW.1 gave it to PW.3. Thus, what this witness by Ex.P.15 was telling was "Brandi" and not whisky. What was examined by APFSL was "Whisky" and not Brandi. Be it noted, all witnesses deposed before the trial Court did not say whether it was whisky or brandi. They only referred it as liquor or medicine. If what was given to PW.1 was brandi then that brandi was the one that was handed over by PW.1 to PW.3 and it was that brandi that must have contained the poison. That aspect of the matter was never proved before the trial Court. When whisky was not handed over to PW.1 by the accused and when whisky was not handed over by PW.1 to PW.3, but when that whisky found to have killed Mr. B.Srinivasulu and caused trouble to PW.2 then accused could not have been convicted for what he did not supply. This is one aspect of the matter available from the evidence.
24. PW.4 is the man who runs the hotel where the whole incident occurred. In his evidence PW.4 stated that he observed PWs.2 and 3 coming to the hotel. He observed Mr. B.Srinivasulu coming thereafter. He stated that PW.2 and deceased consumed liquor and suffered. What he stated in his cross-examination is a matter of great relevance. He 16 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 categorically stated that the said liquor quarter bottle became empty and that empty bottle was carried away by PW.2. Thus, the offending liquor bottle became empty according to PW.2. No other witnesses spoke that the said bottle still had in it some portion of the liquor. If that be the case, MO.1 bottle that was said to have been recovered from accused still contained 30 ML liquor. These two facts contradict each other, cannot coexist. The evidence of PW.4 is that the offending liquor bottle was carried away by PW.2. It is never the evidence of PW.2 that from him accused took back that bottle. There is no other evidence indicating that from PW.2 the offending liquor bottle was once again taken back by the accused. It is not the evidence of PW.4 or other witnesses that the offending liquor bottle remained at the hotel of PW.4 and that this accused came there and took away the bottle. All these facts and circumstances are very conspicuously appearing in the record but were never considered by the trial Court. Prosecution utterly failed in explaining this part of the evidence of PW.4. Thus, finding MO.1-liquor bottle with accused is completely suspicious in the given facts and circumstances. According to prosecution, accused mixed the poisonous substance into the 17 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 liquor and gave that liquor bottle to PW.1 requesting him to hand it over to PW.3. Therefore, PW.1 is the crucial witness to prove these facts. In his evidence in chief he never whispered about accused giving him MO.1 or any other liquor bottle. He also did not say that he having received such liquor bottle gave it to PW.3. Prosecution theory was suggested to him and he denied it as false. Thus, witness tendered by the prosecution was sought to be impeached on his credibility by the prosecution itself. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 given on oath does not help prosecution in establishing the crucial fact of accused handing over liquor bottle to PW.1. However, learned trial Court considered his evidence and considered Ex.P.15/his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. It is that aspect of the matter that is challenged in this appeal and learned counsel for appellant submits that such approach of the learned trial Court is against law and cited Sivakumar v. State by The Inspector of Police1. No contrary ruling is cited before this Court by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor. Facts available from substantive evidence alone deserve consideration for 1 2015 SCC Online Mad 6608 18 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 arriving at any conclusion. Evidence of a witness given in a Court of law on oath in the presence of accused recorded in terms of Section 273 Cr.P.C. is what is called substantive evidence. What PW.1 deposed before learned trial Court is substantive evidence. What PW.1 stated before police and recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement contained in Ex.P.2 is only a former statement of the witness and that is not substantive piece of evidence and that cannot be used to prove a fact. Former statement recorded by police is helpful to contradict the witness and not for corroborating the witness by virtue of embargo contained in Section 162 Cr.P.C. Former statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a learned Magistrate is also not a substantive piece of evidence since that was recorded in the absence of accused. Such statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. could be used either for contradicting witness or for corroborating the witness as is provided in Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When a witness supported the case of prosecution in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and if at the trial he resiles from it and deposed contrary to what was there in his former statement under Section 164 19 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 Cr.P.C. then the former statement could be used to contradict him. Ignoring what he deposed one cannot use Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. This is the purport of the above stated ruling. The above ruling further shows that the formerly recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement must be confronted to the witness when he is on oath. I have gone through the evidence on record and the prosecution did not confront Ex.P.15 to PW.1. It did not bring his attention to any of the contents of Ex.P.15. The approach of the learned trial Court in utilizing Ex.P.15 as substantive evidence even when PW.1 denied the truth of its contents is certainly against law and cannot be supported.
25. Where from accused procured Organophosphate insecticide poison and when did he procure it is not proved by any evidence. If he had mixed that poison into the liquor, the seal of the bottle should be opened. There is no evidence from PW.1 or other witnesses whether the bottle that was allegedly handed over by accused to PW.1 was found sealed or opened. PW.3 is the one who said that he got the liquor bottle from PW.1. Even he did not depose whether it was found sealed or opened. From his own evidence it emerged that he has been in 20 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 the habit of consuming lot of liquor. If that be the case, in a case of this nature whether the bottle was found sealed or opened is of material importance. Prosecution by its slackness did not choose to have that material aspect deposed by this crucial witness. This is another vital lapse in the evidence of prosecution, which the trial Court completely lost sight of.
26. According to PW.3, accused holding grudge because his sister committed suicide and died and PW.3 is responsible for her death. This aspect of the matter convinced the learned trial Court to conclude that prosecution proved motive for accused to kill PW.3. For two reasons this conclusion can be stated to be incorrect. While cross-examining PW.3, defence elicited that PW.3 was acquitted since there was a compromise. Thus long prior to the present case incident the accused and PW.3 settled their disputes and as a result of it only PW.3 was acquitted. It is never the case of prosecution and never the evidence of PW.3 that even after that acquittal which took place about 1½ years earlier to the present case, the accused and PW.3 had any other discussion or any other dispute giving rise to a vengeful motive for accused against PW.3. While cross-examining PW.3, it was elicited that between PW.3 and accused there have been no 21 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 talking terms. This is another crucial aspect in this case. When there are no talking terms between them, how is that PW.3 without murmer received the bottle from PW.1 which was allegedly given by accused to PW.1. This fact and this circumstance, though vital, was never considered by the trial Court.
27. PW.2 is victim and accused is charged for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. This PW.2 in his evidence did not say anything about MO.1 and he was not confronted with MO.1 and he did not say who else was there with him when he consumed liquor in the hotel. He did not support prosecution version. When he suffered so much by consuming the liquor there was no occasion for him to leave the culprit. If really the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, this witness would have certainly supported the case of prosecution. Even according to prosecution, PW.1 is friend of PW.3 and PW.2 is not a friend of accused. Learned trial Court did not put its regard to any of these aspects of the matter. PWs.6 and 7 are not witnesses to any facts and they are witnesses to the aspect of reaching to hotel and carrying away the deceased B.Srinivasulu. PW.5 is inquest panchayatdar. Ex.P.4 is inquest 22 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 report and he is not a witness to any facts alleged in either of the charges. PW.8/Village Revenue Officer merely assisted PW.12, the investigating inspector, for arrest and seizure of MO.1. They are not witnesses to material facts. Their evidence about seizure of MO.1 does not inspire any confidence in the context of the fact analysis that was already rendered in the earlier parts of this judgment. The evidence of PW.3 concerning motive for the accused has no substance in view of the fact admitted by PW.3 that there was a compromise between him and the accused and as a result of that only he was acquitted in the earlier criminal case and the fact that there have been no talking terms between them thereby he improbabilised the version of the prosecution about accused passing on the liquor bottle. PW.1 is the very brother-in-law of PW.2. It is undisputed that PW.2 consumed liquor and suffered. If that be the case, there was no occasion for PW.1 not to speak to the version of prosecution. However, he did not support the prosecution version. PW.3 is not a witness for procurement of poison, procurement of liquor bottle by the accused and accused passing on the liquor bottle to PW.1. Thus, a liquor bottle in the hands of PW.3 found no connection with accused. 23
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 Rest of the evidence of PW.3 is only about consumption of this liquor by others and the consequences suffered by them because of that consumption. Therefore, charge mentioned allegations against accused that he with intention or knowledge of killing B.Srinivasulu and his failure to kill PW.2 failed on all material aspects. The way the evidence was dealt with by the learned trial Court is wanting in many aspects and many respects. That the guilt is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the law is that when the facts brought on record give rise to any doubt, the benefit of that doubt should go to accused. Learned trial Court except narrating the principles, failed to apply the law to the facts available before it. The approach of the trial Court makes it clear that it believed what was there in Ex.P.15/Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 and therefore, on that anvil it read other evidence and concluded that case was proved. Since it is found under law that Ex.P.15 cannot be used as PW.1 did not support that version, the whole logic of trial Court in reaching to its conclusions falls apart. All the grounds urged in this appeal have merit and all the submissions that were made before the trial Court were never considered in their proper perspective. 24
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 Having considered the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that on all the crucial facts, there is absolutely no evidence on record to find the guilt of this accused for death of one and hurt to the other. Both charges shall fail. Both points are answered in favour of the appellant.
28. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment dated 02.02.2009 of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Sessions Case No.247 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 307 I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted for the said offences. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be refunded to him.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 28.03.2023 Ivd 25 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.A.No.184 of 2009 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.184 of 2009 Date: 28.03.2023 Ivd