IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL (SR) No.17160 OF 2005 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Sudha Ankireddi ..... Accused/Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa, vide Judgment, dated 10.02.2005, in C.C.No.23 of 2004, of the charge under Section 324 IPC. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: Four days prior to 01.12.2003, One Jayaramireddy of Bareddipalli village was attending groundnut business and P.W.1 used to follow him and attending weighing of groundnuts and they also weighed the groundnuts, but they did not weigh the groundnuts of the accused. Some of the merchants left the gunny bag bundles in the thrashing floor of the accused and one of the gunny bags was committed theft. The accused suspected the fidelity of P.W.1 and on 04.12.2003 at about 6.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was returning from the thrashing floor duly droving the bull to home, the accused who kept in the mind about the missing of one gunny bag and with an intention to hurt P.W.1, attacked P.W.1 with stout stick on the head and caused injuries. Knowing about the incident, the parents of P.W.1 rushed to the incident and found P.W.1 with injuries. They shifted him to Government Hospital, Kadapa, where statement of P.W.1 was recorded by the police. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. When the charge under Section 324 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted him. Hence this appeal by the State. 7. Counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to infer that the accused violently caused injury on his head and therefore, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the charge under Section 324 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. The entire case rests upon the solitary evidence of P.W.1. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, did not support the case of the prosecution. 10. P.W.2, who is the father of P.W.1, stated that while he was present in his house, his son P.W.1 was bringing a bull to their house, and at that time, he heard some cries and he came out and found P.W.1 lying on the ground with injuries on his head. Then he shifted P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Kadapa. The doctor, who examined and treated P.W.1, is not examined to show that the injury sustained by P.W.1 come within meaning of hurt under Section 324 IPC. According to P.W.1, the incident took place on 04.12.2003 at about 6.00 p.m. in front of the house of one Chakali Abbigadu. On the date of incident, the accused followed and scolded P.W.1 as he committed theft of gunny bag bundles sometime back and he accused picked up the cart-peg, came from his behind and beat him. Then P.W.1 fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Therefore, even according to the version of P.W.1, the assailant beat P.W.1 from behind, as a result, he fell down. Therefore, there was no occasion for P.W.1 to see the assailant. Perhaps, that is the reason why P.W.1 himself admitted in the cross-examination that some unknown person beat him on his head. Therefore, in the first instance, the injury was not proved by the prosecution and in the second instance, the injury was not shown to be caused by the accused. 11. Further, there is inconsistency with regard to scene of occurrence. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the incident took place in front of the house of one Chakali Abbigadu, whereas, the Investigating Officer stated that the scene of occurrence is near Machanur cross road and the exact scene of occurrence is in front of M.P.P.Elementary School. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is not safe to place any implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 so as to base conviction of the accused. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 also does not indicate that it is the accused who caused injury on his head. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence in right perspective, acquitted the accused. There are no compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the order of the acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 10.02.2005, in C.C.No.23 of 2004, on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 7th August, 2009 KL/HSD