THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4597 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in S.C. No.483 of 2006. During the time of trial, the petitioner filed an application stating that he is a minor. Hence, the case against the petitioner is split up and the trial proceeded against the other accused concerned, and a separate charge sheet was filed against the petitioner in C.C. No.45 of 2009 by the Bhupalpally Police before the IV Additional Magistrate for Juvenile, Warangal. 2. During the trial, all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The evidence of prosecution witnesses, incorporated by the learned trial Judge is as follows: “PW-1 is the wife of the deceased. PW-2 is the daughter of the deceased. It is the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that on the date of incident, the deceased went to attend to his second shift duty in SCCL, Bhupalpally, but he did not return to the house. It is the further evidence of PWs.1 and 2 while they were at their house at about 10.30 p.m. they heard cries outside and they rushed out of the house and saw the deceased was lying in a pool of blood. They further stated in their evidence that they along with others have tried to shift the deceased to the Government Hospital, Parkal, but on the way, the deceased died. PW-1 has stated in her evidence that they took the dead body of the deceased to Police Station on the same day night and she does not remember, who gave the complaint to the police. PW-1 is an illiterate, the additional P.P. has permitted to readover the contents of the complaint to PW-1 and after hearing the contents of the complaint, PW-1 has stated that she has given said complaint to the police, PWs.1 and 2 have stated that they were not examined by the police. At the request of the learned Addl.P.P., both PWs.1 and 2 were declared hostile. They have denied the suggestion made by the learned Addl. P.P. that they have stated before police as in Exs.P-1 and P-2 respectively. P.W3 was the tenant in the house of the deceased on the date of the incident. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on the date of the incident at about 10.30 P.M. when he was at his house P.W.2 came and called him, they went out side of the house and nobody were present and found the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and he was struggling for life. He categorically stated in his evidence that he does not know that who beat the deceased and reason for the incident. The evidence of P.W.3 is also hostile in nature and he denied the suggestion made by the learned Addl. P.P. that he has stated as in Ex.P-3 before police. P.W.4 is the resident of Bhupalpally. He categorically stated in his evidence that he does not know who killed the deceased and he was not examined by the police. The evidence of P.W.4 is also hostile in nature and he denied the suggestion made by the learned Addl.P.P. that he has stated before police as in Ex.P.4. P.W.5 is the neighbour of the deceased. P.W.5 also did not support the case of the prosecution and he simply stated in shi evidence that he did not see any incident and he was not examined by the police. P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that he has stated before police as in Ex.P.5. P.W.6 is resident of Bhupalpally and also and employee in SCC Limited. As per the version of the Prosecution, he is one of the panch witness for inquest panchanama. P.W.6 has stated in his evidence that the police obtained his signature on some papers. The only signature portion of P.W.6 in inquest panchanama was marked as Ex.P6. P.W.6 has denied the suggestion that he was present at the time of inquest panchanama and signed in inquest panchanama. P.W.7 is resident of Bhupalpally and owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 9 X 1916. P.W.7 has stated in his evidence that the accused never engaged his sumo and he did not go to Hyderabad along with the accused. The evidence of P.W.7 is also hostile in nature and he denied the suggestion made by the learned Addl.P.P. that he stated before police as in Ex.P.7. P.W.8 is resident of Bhupalpally and employee of SCCL. As per the version of the prosecution, he is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. P.W.8 has stated in his evidence that the police obtained his signatures on some papers and no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence. The only signature portion of P.W.8 in scene of offence panchanama was marked as Ex.P.8. P.W.9 is resident of Bhupalpally and an employee of SCCL, Bhupalpally. As per the version of the prosecution, P.W.9 is one of the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama of A.1. P.W.9 has stated in his evidence that the police has never apprehended any person and nothing was seized in his presence. The only signature portion of P.W.8 under confessional and recovery panchanama of A.1 was marked as Ex.P9. The evidence of P.W.9 is hostile in nature. P.W.10 is resident of Bhupalpally. According to the prosecution, he is another panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A.1. The evidence of P.W.10 is also hostile in nature. The only signature potion of P.W.10 is marked as Ex.P.11 in scene of offence panchanama. Since all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P. has given up the remaining L.Ws. As there is no incriminating evidence against A.1 to A.3 and A.5, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of A.1 to A.3 and A.5 for all the charges leveled against them. It is significant to note that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect A.1 to A.3 and A.5 with the incident happened in this case. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of A.1 to A.3 and A.5.” 3. From the above, it is made clear that none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and also they are not aware of any incident as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there would not be any purpose in proceeding against the petitioner in C.C. No.45 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Magistrate for Juvenile, Warangal. 4. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.454 of 2009 on the file of the IV Additional Magistrate for Juvenile, Warangal, are hereby quashed. 5. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this criminal petition, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO August 04, 2011. KTL