HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1091 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 against the judgment, dated 18.12.2004, rendered by the learned IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.477 of 2003. 2. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 were prosecuted in C.C.No.333 of 2002 on the file of the VI Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence, convicted the petitioners and sentenced A.1 to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 509 IPC and further sentenced A.2 to A.4 to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, while acquitting all the accused of the offence under Section 506 IPC, by judgment dated 10.12.2003. Questioning the same, the accused filed Crl.A.No.477 of 2003 on the file of the IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, and after re- appreciating both the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal, by acquitting A.1 of the offence under Section 509 IPC and converting the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him by the trial Court for the offence under Section 324 IPC into fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, while confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against A.2 to A.4 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, vide judgment dated 18.12.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred this revision. 3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 25.08.2002 at about 11.30 p.m. the she-buffalo of P.W.1 removed the knot of rope and went upon the she-buffalo of A.1, for which A.1 came upon P.W.1, abused her in most vulgar language insulting her modesty and also beat on her right leg and chest. When the daughter of P.W.1, a dumb woman, tried to rescue P.W.1, he also beat her with a stick on her thighs. P.W.1 informed the same to the police and later went to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, for treatment. On 26.08.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. when she returned home again A.1 to A.4 came upon them and A.1 beat on her right hand and the remaining accused also assaulted her dumb daughter. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that there is an inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint. 6. The occurrence took place on 25.08.2002 and the complaint was lodged on 29.08.2002. Whereas, it is the case of P.W.1 that on 25.08.2002 she went to the police station and stated the facts to the writer of the police station and he prepared a report and obtained her signature therein and it was marked as Ex.P.1 and on the next day her daughter also presented a written report to the police. A perusal of the record clearly shows that Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1 for the occurrence on 25.08.2002 and also for the occurrence on 26.08.2002 and the same was registered by the police on 29.08.2002. It clearly indicates that the complaint lodged by the daughter of P.W.1 was totally suppressed. Further, it is not clearly stated by the prosecution as to what happened to the subsequent complaint lodged by the daughter of P.W.1 on 26.08.2002. The delay in lodging the complaint itself is not a ground to throw away the case of the prosecution. But at the same time, if the delay is not properly explained and the delay caused prejudice to the accused, it has to be considered by this Court by appreciating other evidence available on record. On perusal of the record and also the evidence of the doctor, the contents in Ex.P.1 and the injuries are not tallying with each other. Further, there is a case and a counter case filed by the parties against each other. 7. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that when the original incident is not properly placed before the Court and the same is suppressed by the prosecution, it is highly unsafe to convict the accused. Hence, the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners- accused by the learned VI Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C.No.333 of 2002, by judgment dated10.12.2003, as confirmed by the learned IX Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, in Crl.A.No.477 of 2003, by judgment dated 18.12.2004, are hereby set aside. The petitioners-accused are found not guilty of the offences for which they were charged and accordingly they are acquitted of the same. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1091 of 2005 (Allowed) 27th January, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1091 of 2005 Dated: 27.01.2011 BETWEEN: Gujjula Mallikarjuna Reddy and others … Petitioners/ Accused AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: