THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 411 of 2006. JUDGEMENT This appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 20.12.2004 in Crl. A.No. 16 of 2003 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada whereby the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents of the offences under Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.7.2000 at about 2.30 p.m. when Pw.2 (V.Govinda Rao) was present in his Flat in an Apartment at Machavaram, all the accused went to the Apartment and asked him to come down and when he came down, they kidnapped him and took him in an Auto to the office of one Pandu and when Pw.2 resisted while he was being taken in the Auto, the accused beat him and at the office of Pandu the accused asked Pw.2 to close down his business and when he refused, the accused again beat him and forcibly took him to a Car mechanic shed and let him off. On the complaint lodged by Pw.1, the Police, Machavaram registered a case in Cr.No. 268 of 2000 under Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences, before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada which was taken on file as C.C.No. 1609 of 2000. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs: P.1 to P.3. The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence brought on record against the accused, acquitted A.3 to A.5 of the alleged offences and convicted A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year each for each of the offences under Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/, 1000/- and 2000/- each for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to suffer SI for two months, one month and two months each, by the Judgement dt. 3.2.2003. Aggrieved by the Judgement of the learned Magistrate, A.1 and A.2 filed Crl.A.No. 16 of 2003 before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, who after re-appreciating the evidence, set aside the Judgement of the learned Magistrate and acquitted the Appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the present appeal. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that though there is sufficient evidence warranting conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 365, 323 and 506 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge erroneously allowed the appeal and acquitted them. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that Pw.1 is the de facto complainant, Pw.2 is the victim, Pw.3 is the wife of Pw.2 and Pw.4 is an eye witness to the incident and their evidence is consistent with regard to the alleged offences and warrants conviction of the respondents and even then the learned Sessions Judge erroneously allowed the appeal and in the circumstances, he prays to allow the appeal. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Sessions Judge gave a finding that Pws 1 to 4 are interested witnesses and therefore the trial court ought not to have believed their evidence in finding A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 365 IPC and that the learned Sessions Judge also gave a finding that there is no medical evidence to show that Pw.2 sustained any bodily injury and therefore A.1 and A.2 ought not to have been convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The learned Counsel for the respondents also contended that the learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other and the trial court erroneously convicted A.1 and A.2. The learned Counsel for the respondents also contended that the prosecution did not record the statement of Pandu to whose office Pw.2 was taken immediately after he was kidnapped and that the prosecution also did not record the statement of the owner of Car mechanic shed in support of the allegation that when Pw.2 refused to close down his business, the accused again beat him and took him to a Car mechanic shed. The learned Counsel for the respondents also contended that Pw.5 who was said to be an independent eye-witness to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile. The learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that the learned Sessions Judge considering all the aspects of the matter rightly allowed the appeal and the same need not be interfered in this appeal. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have perused the material on record. In this case, Pw.1 is the complainant and he stated in his evidence that he learnt that Pw.2 (victim) was kidnapped and manhandled by the accused and then he gave report Ex:P.1 to the police. Pw.2 stated in his evidence that the alleged incident took place at 2.30 p.m. and Pw.1 gave report to the police at 3.00 p.m. and the police asked him at 6 .00 p.m. to give another report and accordingly he gave report to the police. But the said report given by Pw.1 did not see the light of the day and as rightly recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, report Ex:P.1 is hit by Section 160 Cr.P.C. Pw.2 stated in his evidence that he was confined by the accused but there is no other evidence to support his evidence. Pw.2 admitted in his cross-examination that Pws 3 and 4 are related to him. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, Pws 1 to 4 are interested witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge also rightly recorded a finding that in the absence of any evidence in support of the evidence of Pw.2, the offence under Section 365 IPC is not proved. Regarding the offence under Section 506 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that either Pw.2 or Pws 3 and 4 did not say anything regarding the threats alleged to be given to Pw.2, which finding is based on evidence and in the absence of any threats alleged to be given to Pw.2 by the accused, the offence under Section 506 IPC is not proved. Regarding the charge under Section 323 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that though Pws 1 to 4 have stated in their evidence that the accused manhandled Pw.2, no medical evidence is adduced in support of their evidence and therefore the learned Sessions Judge held that the offence under Section 323 IPC is also not proved. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge while finding the accused/respondents not guilty of the offences with which they are charged is sound, cogent and convincing and the same need not be interfered in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ______________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 25.6.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 411 of 2006. Dt. 25.6.2010.