IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYNINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1087 of 2008 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Shaik Mahaboob Basha @ Moulisab .. Respondent JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.317 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, by the judgment dated 30-12-2006 in respect of an oﬀence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy Town Police Station, ﬁled the charge sheet in Crime No.87 of 2005 alleging that on 28-10-2005 Kardas Karunakar was taken by the accused on his motor cycle towards Chityala road at Wanaparthy and stabbed with a knife intending to kill him. Karunakar escaped and when he fell down at the house of Rama Swamy Goud at Girukabavi, he was shifted to Wanaparhty Area Hospital with bleeding injuries on the neck, back, waist and other parts of the body. The father of the injured, Chennaiah, gave a report to the police on which a crime was registered and a requisition was given to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to record Dying Declaration of the injured. The accused was learnt to have been chased by the public and he was handed over to H.C. 338 by the Mosque people. On the way, an unlawful assembly pelted stones and injured the accused and the accused was taken to the police station and was referred to the Government Area Hospital, Wanaparthy for treatment. The confessional statement of the accused was recorded before mediators and near the scene of oﬀence, two empty and broken beer bottles were recovered at the instance of the accused before mediators. The blood stained clothes, a Hero Honda Passion motorbike and the weapon of oﬀence were recovered from the house of the accused at his instance before mediators. The Material Objects were sent for chemical analysis and the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Hence, the accused was prosecuted for the oﬀence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy, took cognizance of the oﬀence in PRC.No.9 of 2006 and the accused was furnished with the copies of documents when he entered appearance. On committal to the Court of Session, the case was made over to the trial Court, which framed a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which the accused pleaded not guilty. PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11, D.1 and D.2 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no other defence evidence was produced. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that the delay in sending First Information Report to the Magistrate was unexplained. The discrepancy between Ex.P.1 and PW.1 in spite of PW.1 being not an eye-witness was also noted. PW.3, the mother, accompanying PW.1 to the hospital was not stated by PW.1 and in any view, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is hearsay. The trial Court further noted that PW.2 did not state about PW.3 coming to the hospital and the evidence of PW.11-the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, about the condition of PW.2 when he visited the hospital makes the claim of any information from PW.2 to PW.1 doubtful. The trial Court further observed that the involvement of the accused in the alleged oﬀence is not appearing truthful in view of ill- feelings between the communities and the presence of several people including politicians at the hospital. PW.5, who claimed to have seen the accused taking PW.2 on his motorcycle, was not relied on in view of contradictions with PWs.1 to 3 and the admission that both PW.2 and the accused were under intoxication due to consumption of beer was also noted. Previous acquaintance between the accused and PW.2 was noted to be admitted and even the doctor, who treated PW.2, was not examined on the ground of his being ill. The injuries described in Ex.P.6 were noted not to correspond to the claims of PWs.1 to 3 and the possibility of PW.2 sustaining the injuries on a fall due to intoxication was not ruled out. The trial Court also noted that the seizure of the Material Objects was of no avail as PW.2 himself denied M.O.6 being the weapon of oﬀence with which he was injured. The accused was stated by PW.2 to have been hit on the fore head with a broken beer bottle, but no corresponding injury was proved from the evidence of PW.12 who examined the accused on the next day. The defence of the accused about political and personal enmity being the cause for foisting the case was also noted and referring to the other evidence and other circumstances, which threw further doubts, the trial Court concluded the prosecution to have failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. The acquittal is the subject of challenge in this appeal at the instance of the State through the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the ingredients of the oﬀence were made out through the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the accused could not have been acquitted on mere presumptions. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the accused-respondent is represented by Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel. The point for consideration is whether the judgment of acquittal is liable to be reversed on any strong and convincing grounds? The trial Court had the beneﬁt of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and the evidence of the injured-PW.2 and his parents PWs.1 and 3 is necessarily tainted with interestedness not open to acceptance at face value unless satisfactorily corroborated by any independent evidence. The trial Court found from the evidence to deviate from which there was no reason that the presence of PW.3 at the hospital along with PW.1 was doubtful. In any view, the version of PWs.1 and 3 about the involvement of the accused based on the alleged information by PW.2 is only hearsay and the emotional conﬂict between the two communities forming the background for the prosecution also makes faithful acceptance of the interested evidence of PW.2 not safe. The very events leading to the accused being chased, the accused taking shelter in a Mosque, the accused being assaulted even while being taken by the Head Constable and a number of people including politicians being present at the hospital show that the atmosphere was highly surcharged. The prosecution story and the evidence do not suggest any strong positive reason for the accused to indulge in the crime and the non-examination of the doctor, who treated PW.2 and PW.2 denying M.O.6 allegedly recovered from the accused being the weapon of oﬀence are two fatal ﬂaws vitiating the prosecution story. PW.5 witnessing the accused taking PW.2 on his motorcycle cannot be considered proof of subsequent happenings. The injuries stated by PWs.1 to 3 and the injuries found as per Ex.P.6 are greatly at variance and the evidence of PWs.4, 6 and 7 is only circumstantial. The reasons given by the trial Court for extending the beneﬁt of reasonable doubt to the accused cannot be considered unreasonable or improper under such circumstances and interference with a judgment of acquittal can only be on a clear indication of basic unsoundness in fact or in law in the reasoning of the trial Court, which is not present herein. The Criminal Appeal, therefore, has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-11-2011 Ksn