Mallu Khader Reddy, Kurnool., vs Avula Narendra Murthy Naidu, Kurnool 7 ... on 31 January, 2025
29. The precedent relied on, by the learned senior
counsel Sri B.Adinarayana Rao in Ambika Prasad and
another v. State (Delhi Administration) case (3 supra)
would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present case for the reason that it is a case where
the accused were apprehended on the spot i.e. at the
instant. Further, there is evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7
whose presence on the spot was established beyond
reasonable doubt. They suffered injuries and their
evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. In the
39
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.383 of 2017, 505 of 2017 & 806 of 2017
present case on hand, there were disputes between both
the parties and they were at logger heads. In such a
scenario, the prosecution has to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. No doubt, it is necessary to remember
that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely
to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also
presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is
as important as the other. When it is stated that motive
is a double edged weapon, the evidence of the sole eye
witness has to be scrutinized meticulously. In the case
on hand, medical evidence does not corroborate, and
when the defence is seriously disputing presence of
P.W.4 at the time of the incident and contending that he
is a planted witness, non-seizure of medical record with
regard to admission, discharge and the medication
provided to P.W.4 is fatal. In view of the said reasons,
the aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the
present facts and circumstances of the case.