THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.389 OF 2003 & CRIMINLA APPEAL NO.246 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: 1. On the basis of a report given by one Venkataiah who was examined as P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.32 of 2000 was registered against the respondents 1 to 9 herein for the offences punishable under sections 147, 452, 324, 323 and 506 r/w 109 of IPC and after investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Musheerabad P.S. filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad as C.C.No.799 of 2000. During the course of trial, the complainant as stated supra, was examined as P.W.1 and six more witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of defence one witness was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. The learned Magistrate after assessing the entire evidence both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the respondents herein and thus by his judgment dated 31.10.2002 acquitted the respondents of the charged offences. Questioning the said judgment the State filed Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2004 and the de facto complainant i.e. P.W.1 filed Criminal R.C.No.389 of 2003. In the light of the said commonness in these two matters, these cases are disposed of by this common order. 2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the brother of the de facto complainant Venkataiah purchased two flats bearing Nos.203 and 204 in an apartment from the first accused and paid almost all the amount to him. According to the agreement, the builder has to handover the flats with all amenities on 13.9.1999 and an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- to be paid to the builder after completion of all amenities. But the builder failed to provide amenities. Therefore the first accused entered into another agreement to receive the entire amount with interest, but he has failed to do so. On 30.1.2000 the first accused permitted them to perform pooja in his second flat. Therefore on 30.1.2000 when the de facto complainant and his family members are making arrangements for pooja all the accused in intoxication condition trespassed into their flats and attacked them with weapons and bet them due to which two persons received injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.32 of 2000 was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police file charge sheet. 3. Heard. 4. P.Ws.1 to 3 are close relatives and according to the accused they are all interested witnesses. May be it is a fact that they are all related to each other but merely on that sole ground of interestedness their evidence cannot be ignored. The evidence of the interested witnesses can be accepted provided there is corroboration. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.4 and 5 also witnessed the incident. But unfortunately they did not support the case of the prosecution. According to them the accused i.e. respondents herein did not participate in the offence. According to P.W.5 only A.1 was present and he pushed P.W.1. In the absence of any corroboration by the independent witnesses it is not possible for the court to hold that the said testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are apparently interested witnesses cannot be accepted. In fact, this only prompted the court below to hold that the prosecution failed in bringing home the guilt of the respondents for the alleged offences. The said finding, in my considered view, appears to be correct and accordingly no interference is called for and thus these two cases are dismissed. -------------- 26.08.2010 Kvsn