IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1314 of 2008 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Petitioner AND Karnataka Chitti Babu and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal of accused 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment dated 08-12-2006 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Banswada in C.C. No.199 of 1998. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Birkur filed charge sheet in crime No.71 of 1998 alleging that on 13-06-1998 at about 2.30 P.M. when Narla Ramulu was in his land in S.Nos.30/3 and 30/4, the accused and 4 others came and beat him with hands and sticks causing an injury on the left hand. Chakali Ramulu and Farooq Ali rescued him and the accused threatened him to leave the field. On the report of Narla Ramulu, the crime was registered and Ramulu was sent to Government hospital, Banswada for treatment. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted before mediators and accused 1 to 8 were arrested on 16-06-1998 and remanded to judicial custody. The sticks used in the incident were thrown away by them and could not be recovered. Hence, the charge. 3. On appearance of the accused before the Court after the offences were taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, copies of documents were furnished to them. When charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Ex.D.1 were marked during the trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there was no defence evidence. The trial Court rendered its judgment dated 09-07-2002 finding accused 1 to 8 guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with default sentence of three months each. They were acquitted of the charges under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. When the accused preferred criminal appeal No.47 of 2002 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad at Banswada, the same was allowed by the judgment dated 21-01-2004 finding that the charges framed were defective resulting in miscarriage of justice during trial and consequently, the matter was remanded for framing proper charges and for adducing fresh evidence. 5. After remand, charges were framed under Sections 447, 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined again and the earlier evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, the investigating officers, was adopted. Exs.P.1 to P.6, D.1 and D.2 were marked. The accused 1 to 8 once again denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no defence evidence was produced. 6. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment firstly noting that Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the order of injunction obtained by P.W.1 in O.S. No.14 of 1998, while Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of police protection order granted by the Court. The names of accused 1 to 8 were admitted to have been not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1 and P.W.2 was noted to be working as a coolie under P.W.1 and being an interested witness cannot be relied on. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 was also not accepted, as he worked as servant under P.W.1. P.W.4, the mediator for the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4, was not relied on, as the panchanama could not have been conducted at 2.30 P.M. on 13-06-1998, at which time the offence was alleged to have happened. The medical evidence of P.W.5 about the injuries found on the person of P.W.1 was also referred to and the investigating officers were noted to be not uniform in their evidence. P.W.7 was the investigating officer who filed the charge-sheet. The trial Court concluded from the evidence that the overwriting in Ex.P.1, the delay of 60 hours in submitting the first information report to the Court, the pendency of civil dispute, the improbability of the scene of offence panchanama, the unacceptability of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the interestedness of P.W.1 were showing that the accused did not commit any offence or at least that such an offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The consequent acquittal led the State to file the appeal through the learned public prosecutor contending that the ingredients of the offences have been clearly made out by the evidence on record and when P.Ws.1 to 3 were eye witnesses, their evidence could not have been rejected. Hence, the acquittal is desired to be reversed. 8. The petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal in Crl.A.M.P. No.1304 of 2008 was dismissed on 30-10- 2008 against the 8th accused in view of the helplessness of the learned public prosecutor to have the notice of the appeal served on the 8th accused. The delay was condoned only in respect of respondents 1 to 7 herein and hence, the present consideration is confined to respondents 1 to 7. 9. The earliest version in Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1 to the police specified five persons by name as the persons who indulged in trespass and assault along with 7 others and the remaining 7 persons were not named or identified. The first information report was allegedly registered within half an hour after the incident and it could reach the Court only on 16-06-1998 though it was registered on 13-06-1998. While accused 6 to 8 did not find mention in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 copy of the order of injunction and Ex.P.3 copy of police protection order show that none of the accused were parties to O.S. No.14 of 1998 or the interlocutory orders therein. Ex.P.4 scene of offence panchanama as noted by the trial Court was as though at the same time as the occurrence of the offence, the panchanama was conducted and significantly Ex.P.4 refers to the 1st accused and 7 others indulging in the offence and not about 12 persons indulging in the offence as alleged in Ex.P.1. Four persons remained unidentified even after investigation out of the 12 persons. The weapons of offence were not recovered. The pendency of a civil suit concerning the land was referred to even in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 wound certificate refers to three contusions which are simple injuries and the medical officer as P.W.5 stated about the other injury being fracture of left wrist joint. Ex.P.1 did not refer to any such fracture while mentioning an injury on the left hand and P.W.5 admitted that if a person falls from the field bund of an agricultural land, two of the injuries may be possible. Even assuming that the medical officer found some injuries on the person of P.W.1 probably sustained at or about the alleged time of the incident, the same cannot be sufficient to attribute them to the overt acts of any of the accused without the evidence establishing such link. The panch witness P.W.4 admitted that he stated earlier before the Court that he was working under P.W.1 for more than three years. P.W.3 also admitted that he has no knowledge about the civil disputes between P.W.1 and Reddy Krishna, while P.W.2 claimed to be knowing all the accused even prior to the incident and if so, there was no reason for not naming them in Ex.P.1. 10. P.W.1 the alleged victim, admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 about the names of accused 6 to 8 or about the police protection order or the injunction order. Reddy Krishna, who was the defendant in O.S. No.14 of 1998, was admitted to be not a party to this case and the final result of O.S. No.14 of 1998 is not known. P.W.1 admitted that the main road is a busy road with heavy traffic of buses, lorries and cycles and if so, there could have been independent witnesses for any such incident than only the workers under P.W.1. The trial Court had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and though it considered P.W.1 to be worth acceptance, it did not find acceptable corroboration to his claims from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. The evidence of P.W.1 being self-serving and interested, looking for satisfactory independent corroboration will be a salutary rule of prudence and under the circumstances, if the trial Court had given benefit of doubt to the accused for the reasons stated by it, which need not be replicated herein, the same does not appear to be interfereable in this appeal, further in the light of the circumstances referred to above. The appeal even regarding accused 1 to 7 should, therefore, fail. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-12-2011 Svv