THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.358 of 2006 BETWEEEN: Mutchintala Venkateswarlu … Appellant AND 1. Yaramala Kotireddy & 5 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.358 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The appellant filed private complaint before the Magistrate alleging offence under Section 307 I.P.C. against A1 to A5 for beating his wife PW2. After committal, the lower Court tried the case in which the complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined PWs 2 to 4 and marked Ex.P1 on his behalf. After considering the material on record, the lower Court found A1 to A5 not guilty of the charge under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted A1 to A5. 2. In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that even though PWs 4 and 5 turned hostile to the prosecution, there is evidence of PWs 1 to 3, which is sufficient for recording conviction and that the lower Court erred in not accepting evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and not convicting the accused. 3. PW1 is husband of PW2. PW3 is their son. The offence is stated to have taken place on 17.07.2000. It is stated in Ex.P1 that though PW1 gave report to the Police on the incident, the Police did not take proper action against the accused and simply filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. against A1 only. But, charge sheet filed by the Penuballi Police against A1 for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. relates to attack on PW1 at Bosu Bomma centre of Muthagudem Village. Where as, the offence herein is stated to have occurred at the residential house of PWs 1 to 3 located in S.No.191 of the village. The Police case refers another transaction than the transaction herein. 4. In his evidence, PW1 stated as if A1 alone beat his wife PW2 at the time of verifying of boundaries by the Village Assistant and Surveyor. He did not speak to A2 to A5 participating in the offence and beating PW2. Neither the Village Assistant nor the Surveyor is examined. PW2 deposed that while she was at the house, two surveyors and one advocate from Thiruvur by name Nagabhushanam, came to the house and that A1 beat her on face due to which she fell on ground and A2 to A5 also came and beat her and that then her husband PW1 came and went to Police Station. In cross-examination, she deposed that in her sworn statement, she stated that the surveyors and advocate from Thiruvur, witnessed the incident when she was beaten by A1. None of the said two surveyors and advocate from Thiruvur was examined. PW3 deposed in Examination-in-Chief itself that in the absence of himself and in the absence of PW1, A1 to A5 beat PW2 and that immediately, they went to the spot and to the Police Station. When PWs 1 and 3 were not present at the time of the incident, they are not competent witnesses to speak to the offence proper. There is only evidence of PW2 about A1 and A2 to A5 beating her. There is no corroboration by way of medical evidence to show that PW2 suffered any injuries. PW2 did not specify as to which of the accused beat on which part of her body causing which type of injuries. In the absence of any such evidence and in the absence of medical evidence, the lower Court rightly found A1 to A5 not guilty of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. 5. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated:16.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.358 of 2006 DATED:16.11.2011 ysk