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 2009damaged 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 2009examine 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