Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap Rep. By Pp vs Ogiboina Veeraiah on 10 July, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010408492009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.881 OF 2009
Between:
1. THE STATE OF AP REP. BY PP, HIGH COURT OF AP
HYDERABAD.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. OGIBOINA VEERAIAH, S/O.SEETHARAMAIAH
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
2. OGIBOINA KOTAIAH, S/O.SEETHARAMAIAH
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
3. KALAKANI APPAIAH, S/O.VENKATESWARLU
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
4. DEVARALA EDUKONDALU, S/O.NAGAIAH
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
5. OGIBOINA SEETHARAMAIAH, S/O.YELLAMANDA
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
6. DEVARALA KOTAIAH, S/O.NAGAIAH
PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU
MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
7. MARUBOINA PINNIBOINA SRINIVASA RAO,
S/O.KOTAIAH PUTTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE
SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL PRAKASHAM DIST
SRK, J
2 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009
8. PALUPUNURI VEERANJANEYULU MODDULA
ANJAIAH ANJI ANJAIAH, S/O.RAMAKOTAIAH @
VENKATESWARLU ALLURUVARIPALEM (V)
NARASAROPET MANDAL
9. OGIBOINA KONDALU DIED, PUTTAVARIPALEM
VILLAGE SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL PRAKASHAM
DIST
(Case against A9 is abated on 12.09.2006 as he died)
...RESPODENTS:
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C
against the judgment in SC No.8 of 2006 on the file of the
Asst. Sessions Judge, Addanki, dated 11th day of January,
2007 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set
aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused.
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents:
1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI SRK, J 3 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 The Court made the following JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 11.01.2007 passed in SC No.8 of 2006 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, whereby the respondents herein/accused were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 307, 307 read with 149, 324, 324 read with 149 IPC and, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges.
2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows.
i) All the accused and the injured PWs.1 to 3 are residents of Puttavaripalem village of Santhamaguluru Mandal. A1, A2 and A9 are own brothers and all the accused are interrelated to each other. PWs.2 and 3 are the sons of China Venkateswarlu and PW.1 is their cousin brother. On 30.01.2005, at about 04.00 PM, the accused are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like crowbars and sticks with a common object to do away with the lives of the de facto complainant/injured (PW.1) and his relatives in connection with the site dispute and trespassed into the site of PW.1 by coming on a tractor bearing registration No.AP 04 D 3306 and SRK, J 4 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 damaged the walls of the rooms under construction belonging to PW.1. When PW.1 objected the same, A1 beat him twice with a crowbar on his right upper arm and caused bleeding injuries. On seeing the same, when PWs.2 and 3 came to rescue PW.1, A9 beat PW.2 with a crowbar on his left hand and caused bleeding injury. A2 beat PW.3 on his body with a stick indiscriminately and caused injuries. After damaging the walls, the accused kept the bunk in the site of PW.1. When PW.1 tried to inform about the incident to police by telephone, A4 climbed the telephone pole near the scene of offence and cut off the wire.
ii) After the incident, the injured PWs.1 to 3 came to the police station and reported the matter. Based on Ex.P1 report given by PW.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in Crime No.10 of 2005 of Santhamaguluru Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 324, 307 read with 149 of IPC, and sent copies of FIR Ex.P12 to all concerned. He visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and sent the injured to the Government Hospital for medical examination. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
SRK, J 5 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009
3. The charge sheet was taken on file as PRC No.8 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, and as the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under Sections 207 and 209 Cr.P.C., committed the said PRC No.8 of 2005 to the Court of Session, Prakasam district, vide order dated 15.12.2005. The said case was numbered as SC No.8 of 2006 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, for disposal according to law.
4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 307, 307 read with 149, 324, 324 read with 149 IPC were framed, read over the contents of the charges and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 and 2.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the SRK, J 6 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which A1 stated that they got Ac.0-12 cents of site, and even after sale of the site by their father, when the injured attempted to occupy their site, they filed a suit and obtained stay orders from the lower Court and the Sub Inspector, being the caste man of the injured, foisted this case with a view to harass them. A2 stated that after obtaining stay orders, when they went to their site, PWs.1 and 3 obstructed them and stabbed A6 and the present case is foisted against them. Whereas, A6 stated that when he went to their site along with A2, PW.1 came to them, caught hold his shirt and pushed him down and when attempted to stab him with a knife he sustained injury on his right hand.
7. On behalf of the accused, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.
8. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges leveled against them and, accordingly, acquitted them, vide impugned judgment dated 11.01.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
SRK, J 7 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant/State submitted that there are case and counter cases registered against each other and PWs.1 to 3 received injuries in the hands of the respondents herein/ accused. According to him, the respondents herein/accused are the aggressors who are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the site of PWs.1 to 3 and demolished the walls of the rooms raised by PWs.1 to 3. He further submitted that the medical evidence is corroborated with the ocular evidence, where the prosecution witnesses received injuries, though simple in nature. He further submitted that since the accused attacked the prosecution witnesses with deadly weapons, the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against them.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused submitted that there is any amount of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and SRK, J 8 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 much credence cannot be given to such evidence. He further submitted that non-explanation of the injuries received by the accused by the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that it is quite evident from the record that A1 filed OS No.5 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki and obtained interim injunction order on 27.01.2005 in IA No.51 of 2005 and the said injunction order was being extended from time to time. He submitted that when the respondents/accused were in possession of their property, the prosecution witnesses entered into the premises and attacked A6. He further submitted that it can safely be inferred from the record that it is the prosecution witnesses who are the aggressors in the present case. He further submitted that the medical evidence is not corroborated with the ocular evidence, and considering the evidence on record in right perspective, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
11. Heard. Perused the material on record.
12. The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused of SRK, J 9 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the impugned judgment requires any interference by this Court?
13. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same.
SRK, J 10 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009
14. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) "The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52);
Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418:
(AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 SRK, J 11 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable."
15. Case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2005 at about 04.00 pm, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like crowbars and sticks with a common object to do away with the lives of PW.1 and his relatives in connection with the site dispute and trespassed into the site of PW.1 by coming on a Tractor bearing registration No.AP 04 D 3306 and damaged the walls of the rooms of PW.1 which are under construction and when PW.1 objected to the same, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences.
16. On the other hand, the accused denied the same. Their version is that A1 obtained injunction orders by filing a suit in OS No.5 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, and they were in actual possession of the said site. Pursuant to the injunction orders that were granted by the Court below, the accused went to the site to SRK, J 12 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 place their bunk and at that time, the prosecution witnesses objected for the same and caused injuries with knife by stabbing A6. In connection with that, a case was registered in CC No.156 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki, for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. It is the evidence of A1 and A6 that Ex.D2 is the copy of charge sheet in CC No.156 of 2005, Ex.D3 is copy of FIR in the said crime, and Ex.D4 is copy of affidavit, petition and docket orders in IA No.51 of 2005 in OS No.5 of 2005.
17. In his cross-examination, A1, who was examined as DW.1, categorically stated that the alleged incident took place due to civil disputes between them. Right from the beginning the accused did not deny or dispute the accusations that have been made. They were admitting the offence, but according to them, there was no criminal trespass into the property of the defacto complainant as alleged by the prosecution. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the property which is in dispute was in possession of the prosecution witnesses as on the date of offence and that the accused made criminal trespass to intimidate or insult or annoy them.
SRK, J 13 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009
18. PWs.1 to 3 in one voice stated that the property was purchased by the grandfather of PW.1 namely Venkaiah from the father of A1 and A2 long back. PW.1 in his cross- examination stated that after the said sale, Sitharamaiah had no site there. PW.1 denied the suggestion about filing of this case falsely in view of the injunction orders obtained by A1 against his uncle Venkateswarlu. PW.2, in his cross- examination, denied that the site in dispute exclusively belonging to the accused. PW.3 too denied the suggestion about their attacking the accused when the accused came there in pursuant to injunction orders obtained by them in the civil suit against his father. As against this evidence, A1 (DW.1) in his cross-examination stated about the purchase of land by PW.1‟s grandfather in the year 1959. He denied the suggestion about the non-mentioning of their land as eastern boundary in the said sale deed. He admitted about the possession of property by one Chilaka Chandramouli as eastern boundary of Orusu China Venkateswarlu, father of PWs.2 and 3 and he pleaded ignorance about the vendor of thesaid Chilaka Chandramouli. He denied the suggestion about the selling of the remaining land by his father to one Paruchuri Ramachandraiah on 02.10.1966 after the sale of the SRK, J 14 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 land to the grandfather of PW.1 and by showing western boundary as the land sold to PW.1‟s grandfather Venkaiah and he further denied the laying out of the said site by Rama Chandraiah into plots and selling away the same to third parties showing the boundary as that of the land of China Venkateswarlu. He further denied the suggestion about their not having any land there. PW.13 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Santhamaguluru Police Station who registered the case and laid the charge sheet though in cross-examination stated about the furnishing of title deed by PW.1 standing in the name of his forefathers relating to the disputed property, pleaded ignorance about the civil litigation between the accused and the injured and also the existence of injunction orders in favour of the accused. When specific suggestions were made to A1 by the prosecution side that the family of A1 had no site after the sale of the land to the grandfather of PW.1 and also about the subsequent alienations by the father of A1 and A2 and the same were denied, it is for the prosecution to place such evidence to disprove the possession of property by the accused there. PWs.1 to 3 did not speak anything on the lines as suggested to DW.1 by APP. The prosecution did not place any document to support SRK, J 15 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 their suggestions. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence on the accused side goes to show that just few days prior to the incident in this case, A1 filed OS No.5 of 2005 and also obtained ex parte interim injunction on 27.01.2005 in IA No.51 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge‟s Court, Addanki and same is in force even by 30.10.2006 as can be seen from the docket orders thereon. From time to time, the interim order is being extended by the Court on petitions as can be seen. This was filed against Orsu China Venkateswarlu, the father of PWs.2 and 3. Even though the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 reveals their ignorance about the filing of such suit and obtaining injunction orders by A1, still the fact remains on record is that prior to the incident in this case, A1 obtained interim injunction orders against the father of PWs.2 and 3 and it was in force and no steps were taken by their side to get it vacated or for the disposal of injunction application on merits for the reasons best known to them. When interim injunction order was there and in force as on the date of alleged incident and when the evidence reveals that the accused had been to the spot to place their bunk making a bona fide claim to the property in dispute including possession thereof, it cannot be said that SRK, J 16 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 PWs.1 to 3 have been in possession of the property by the alleged date of offence and thereby it cannot be termed that the accused made criminal trespass into the property in dispute as claimed by the prosecution.
19. Admittedly, there were disputes between both the parties with regard to the subject site. The prosecution witnesses suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and failed to explain as to how the accused received injuries. When a specific question has been put to the prosecution witnesses with regard to attack on A6, they refused by saying that they did not attack A6. On the contrary, the accused had spoken very close to the reality. According to them, there were disputes between them and the prosecution witnesses with regard to site and they filed OS No.5 of 2005 and also IA No.51 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Addanki and obtained injunction orders in their favour. It is also admitted that the injunction orders passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, were being extended from time to time. These aspects have not been mentioned by the prosecution witnesses during their evidence. A1 himself was examined as DW.1 and the documents with SRK, J 17 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 regard to attack on A6 and injunction order were filed by the accused and the same were marked through DW.1. These aspects are very crucial and non mentioning of these aspects by the prosecution witnesses throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution case, whether the alleged attack on the prosecution witnesses by the accused is authentic.
20. Time and again the Hon‟ble Apex Court and this Court consistently held that non-explanation of injuries received by the accused is fatal to the prosecution case. To substantiate the same, the accused also relied upon a decision reported in Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu2.
21. Admittedly, there were disputes between both the parties with regard to site. Case of the prosecution is that the accused are alleged to have damaged the rooms under construction in the site belonging to the prosecution witnesses. In connection with that, there is any amount of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. When there are discrepancies with regard to said aspect, much credence cannot be given to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 2 2006 Crl.L.J 3907 SRK, J 18 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009
22. Apart from the same, the prosecution witnesses were examined by PW.11 - the Government Doctor, who issued Exs.P8 to P10 wound certificates. According to the doctor, the injuries received by PWs.1 to 3 are simple in nature and those injuries are also not on the vital parts. By virtue of the same, it can safely be inferred that the accused have no intention to cause injuries on the prosecution witnesses or his relatives. Even accepting the fact that PWs.1 to 3 received injuries in the hands of accused, it is only while exercising their right of private defence when they were at the spot pursuant to injunction orders obtained by A1 against the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 3. Since the prosecution has not come up with the true version of genesis of attack and the case of prosecution is silent as to how A6 received injuries, though a specific question was put to the prosecution witnesses, it is fatal to the prosecution case.
23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. The judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and there is no ambiguity in the same. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the SRK, J 19 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
24. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 11.01.2007 passed in SC No.8 of 2006 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:10.07.2025 Nsr SRK, J 20 Crl.A.No.881 of 2009 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.881 of 2009 Date:10.07.2025