THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.A.M.P.NO.1730 OF 2010 & CRIMINAL APPEAL No.533 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 State is the appellant and this appeal with special leave petition is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.224 of 2004 dated 03.11.2008 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur whereby the accused i.e. respondent herein was tried and acquitted of the charge punishable under section 307 of IPC. 2 The case of the prosecution in brief is that there are ill feelings between the respondent herein and one Y. Sarathbabu in connection with the panchayat elections and the respondent is waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against the said Sarathbabu. While so on 18.02.2004 at 2.00 PM when Sarathbabu and others were returning from rice mill and when they reached near the house of said Sarathbabu the respondent picked up a quarrel with him and at that point of time, the respondent took out a knife from his waist and stabbed Sarathbabu on his right side waist and caused severe bleeding injuries. In that connection a case in Cr.No.7 of 2004 was registered and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet. After committal the learned Assistant Sessions Judge conducted the trial and during the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os. 1 to 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, having analysed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent is not guilty of the said offence and accordingly acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by his judgment dated 03.11.2008. Questioning the said judgment, the State preferred this appeal. 3 Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4 No doubt, so many witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. But the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. The medical officer who was examined as P.W.8 stated that as per his examination P.W.1 received incise wound 9 cm X 3 cm X depth (not known) over the waist lacerated to left side of the lumber spine. The said certificate is marked as Ex.P.3. Except that he has not stated anything. But, P.W.1 in his deposition stated that he was treated at Government hospital, Guntur. In the absence of any reference by the medical officer who was examined as P.W.8 it is not known how P.W.1 went to Government General Hospital to get the treatment. In fact, the doctors who treated P.W.1 at Guntur are not examined during the course of trial. Further, it is on record that P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely related to each other. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of P.W.1, P.Ws.4 and 5 are also close relatives of P.W.1. In the light of the said interestedness and the medical evidence, which totally falsifies the case of the prosecution, it is not safe to hold that the respondent is guilty of the said offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. In fact, this aspect was clearly dealt with by the court below in acquitting the respondent of the charge. 5 Hence, I see no merits in this appeal and accordingly the leave petition is dismissed and consequently the appeal is rejected. --------------- 20.10.2010 Kvsn