IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.470 OF 2005 Between: The Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d Poola Venkateswarlu …Accused HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.A.No.470 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 0-10-2001 in S.C.No.220 of 2000, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, wherein the respondent herein, the accused, was found not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and was acquitted thereof under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution, on 06-11-1999 at about 10-00 P.M., the accused entered into an altercation with P.W.4, who is mother of P.W.1, and abused her, having failed to pay money after taking meals in the hotel of P.W.4 and P.W.1 intervened and asked the accused to leave the hotel premises after paying the cost of meals and thereupon the accused picked up an empty brandy bottle and broke it and threatened P.W.1 and the said incident was witnessed by P.W.3 and in the meantime P.W.7 and another constable Sanke Malli, who were on nigh patrol duty, reached the spot and on seeing them, the accused ran away. It is further alleged that on the next day i.e., 07-11-1999 at 02-30 P.M., while P.W.1 along with his friend P.W.2 went to the tea stall of P.W.6 and was waiting for tea to be served, the accused with an intention to kill P.W.1 went behind him armed with maddu kathi and attempted a blow on the back of the neck and P.W.1 suddenly raised from his seat and as a result of which he sustained a simple injury on the left side of the neck. It is further alleged that the accused also hacked P.W.1 with the same knife on the right side of abdomen and caused injury and the accused was chased up to the hotel of P.W.6 where P.Ws.6 and 5 intervened and prevented the accused from further attacking P.W.1 and the accused ran away along with the knife. P.W.1 was admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Buchireddipalem where he gave a complaint statement-Ex.P-,1 based on which F.I.R-Ex.P.11 was registered in Cr.No.138 of 1999 by P.W.11 Head Constable. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, investigated into the case. P.W.8, the Medical Officer, examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate- Ex.P-6 opining that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. P.W.12 arrested the accused on 16-11- 1999 and recovered M.O.1 knife at the instance of the accused in the presence of panchayatdars-P.Ws.9 and 10. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, a charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against him for which he pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14 and M.O.1. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kovvur, by a reasoned judgment, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C and acquitted him thereof. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present appeal. 7. It is seen from the record, as rightly observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the complaint- Ex.P-1 and also the F.I.R-Ex.P-11 are materially altered by way of interpolation regarding certain crucial aspects like the time and place of occurrence and the location of injury on the person of P.W.1. The inference of interpolation is fortified by the fact that the place of injury i.e., back of neck which is added in the complaint-Ex.P-1 was carried into the F.I.R-Ex.P-11 also. One can understand the addition of the word in Ex.P-1 which is mistakenly omitted at the first instance, but not the addition of the same word in the F.I.R also which clearly indicates that the said word regarding the location of the injury on the person of P.W.1 was subsequently added both in Ex.P-1 and P-11. It would certainly amount to material alteration in tampering with a prime document viz., F.I.R. The fact that F.I.R reached the Court with a delay of about two days, which delay is not explained, also is suggestive of tampering of F.I.R subsequent to its registration. 8. Secondly, the testimony of P.W.1, the injured, was found to be inconsistent with his earlier version in Ex.P-1 on material particulars even with regard to location of scene of offence. P.W.2 is said to be an eyewitness to the occurrence as he was stated to be waiting along with P.W.1 for serving of tea and he is said to have accompanied P.W.1 to the hotel. P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case. So also, the other witnesses P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 have also turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.3 is stated to be near the hotel where the incident took place and immediately after the occurrence he came to the spot and removed the knife from hands of the accused, but he did not support the prosecution case. P.Ws.5 and 6 are said to have overpowered the accused near the hotel of P.W.6 and prevented him from further attacking P.W.1, but they too turned hostile. When all the material witnesses, including the eye-witnesses, turned hostile, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of P.W.1, especially when his testimony is found to be inconsistent with his earlier version in Ex.P-1 which version itself is found to have been tampered with. The medical evidence on record also does not fully support the prosecution case, inasmuch as the Medical Officer, P.W.8, testified that the injury was irregular leaving irregular margins. When the accused is said to have attacked P.W.1 with knife like M.O.1, the injury would have been clear-cut one with clear-cut margins, but not irregular one with irregular margins. The medical evidence, therefore, throws any amount of doubt as to whether M.O.1 was, in fact, used in the commission of occurrence. The alleged recovery of M.O.1, at the instance of the accused, is also not duly proved as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The other injury is found to be an abrasion, which is unlikely, when the weapon used is a sharp edged one like knife. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, has furnished detailed reasoning in support of his finding of ‘not guilty’ recorded in favour of the accused. The said finding does not call for any interference by this Court even after re-appraisal of the entire evidence. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 307 IPC, is held not liable to be interfered with. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th August, 2009. Lrkm.