THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.548 OF 2004 DATED 23rd NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN : The Public Prosecutor .. Appellant-Prosecution and E.Ramesh Reddy & others ..Respondents-accused THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.548 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellant- Prosecution challenging the acquittal of the respondents-accused in Sessions Case No.73 of 2001 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagtial, by judgment dated 21.03.2003. Case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Medipalli Police Station, on receiving information of a secret meeting of CPIML PWG under ground cadre extremists of Metpally Dalam, rushed to the place along with his staff and found five persons at Kakulagutta at about 11.00 a.m., and interrogated them in the presence of two mediators. Further he also seized 5 detonators, 10 gelatine sticks from A.1, 4 detonators and 9 gelatines from A.2, 4 detonators and 5 gelatine sticks from A.3, 4 detonators and 8 gelatines from A.4 and 3 detonators and 5 gelatine sticks from A.5. He registered a case in Crime No.19 of 1998 and after completion of entire investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 8 (1) (2) of A.P.P.S. Act and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act. In order to prove its case, Prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating evidence put to them, which is available in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. They also did not chose to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in their support. After carefully going through the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge delivered the impugned judgment. This Court perused the entire records including the evidence adduced by the Prosecution and also heard the arguments of both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that even though the recovery witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the Police officials, can be considered for convicting the accused and there is no necessity of independent witnesses to be examined that too when recovery is made in the forest. The learned Sessions Judge after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused considering the fact that PWs 1 and 2, who are the witnesses to the recovery of the explosive substances, not supported the case and other three witnesses being the official witnesses the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it is not safe to convict the accused basing on their evidence. Apart from the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court is also of the view that the Prosecution failed to examine the witnesses to substantiate issuance of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority, but the sanction proceeding was marked through the investigation officer. Further, the properties recovered as per the prosecution are detonators and gelatine sticks. No witness was examined on behalf of the Prosecution to prove that the recovered properties are explosive substances. In the absence of such evidence and also in view of the discrepancies in the evidence adduced by PWs 3 to 5, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. As such, the present appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 23.11.2010 sur