THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1537 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the sole accused in Sessions Case No.447 of 2002 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad by the Judgment dated 12.10.2004 led the State to file the present appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The prosecution was launched by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.R.Nagar Police Station in Crime No.638 of 2000 alleging that on 18.9.2000 he along with his staff and Mohd.Asad Khan were going near Mohammadia Mosque at which time they noticed the accused with a big sword in his hands attacking Mohd.Nayeem and Shaik Ismail trying to separate them. The accused was overpowered and apprehended and Shaik Ismail received a stab injury in his left hand during the incident. The dispute about Mohd.Nayeem not paying Rs.10/- in spite of the accused winning Carom game led to the dispute and after examining the witnesses, both Mohd.Nayeem and Shaik Ismail were sent to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. The weapon of offence was seized under a panchanama before mediators in pursuance of confession made by the accused and hence the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. 3. The Magistrate furnished copies of the documents to the accused on his appearance before him and committed the case to the court of session in PRC No.31 of 2002. The court of session framed charges to which the accused pleaded not guilty and PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked besides marking M.O.1. 4. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and he had no defence evidence. 5. The trial court rendered the impugned judgment extracting the factual background and evidence of the witnesses and finding on analysis of the evidence that the accused was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Consequently, it acquitted the accused of all the offences. 6. The grounds of appeal specify that the evidence of PW.1 was cogent and consistent and the accused could not be acquitted on surmises and conjectures without scanning the evidence properly. 7. Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri G.Shridhar, learned counsel representing Sri Nageswara Rao Pappu, learned counsel for the accused, are heard at length. 8. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for all or any of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. 9. PW.1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police in Commissioner’s Task Force who claimed to have witnessed the accused attacking PW.2 and PW.3 trying to prevent the stabbing of PW.2 by the accused. PW.1 reiterated the claim about his intervention and apprehension of the accused, PW.3 being injured during his attempts to separate the accused and PW.2 and PWs 2 and 3 being sent to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. He also claimed about seizure of M.O.1 sword under Ex.P.1 Panchanama before the mediators on the alleged confession of the accused and his finding the quarrel to be due to non payment of money to the accused for winning the carom game. 10. PW.2 Mohd.Nayeem also spoke about the altercation arising due to the dispute connected with the carom game and he spoke about the accused and himself quarrelling during which the accused tried to stab him and one Ghore, who intervened, receiving the stab injury on the fingers of his left hand. PW.2 also stated about elders intervening after about six months and their living as friends. The witness identified the M.O. which is knife, as weapon of offence. 11. PW.3 claimed to have suffered injury while trying to separate PW.2 and accused and he did not support his statement said to have been given earlier to the Police in corroboration of the prosecution story. He denied the injury being due to use of M.O.1 sword or having stated before Police as in Ex.P.3. 12. The evidence of PW.4- the Medical Officer is about examining PWs 2 and 3 and he did not find any external injury on the person of PW.2 while he only found a minor abrasion over the left palm on the person of PW.3. He admitted that the injury mentioned in Ex.P.4- medico legal report can be caused by a fall on a blunt surface. 13. PW.5 the alleged mediator for the confession and recovery Panchanama Ex.P.6 also turned hostile and denied seizure of M.O.1 sword in his presence from the possession of the accused on any statement from the accused. 14. PW.6- the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation, spoke about his registration of the crime under Ex.P.7 on receiving Ex.P.2 report of PW.1 and arresting the accused and examining the witnesses, etc. 15. Though PW.1 appeared to have been involved in the incident only while discharging the official duties, due to his being the complainant under Ex.P.2 report to the Police, he cannot be considered to be a totally disinterested and independent witness and it will be an acceptable rule of prudence to look for satisfactory corroboration for his case. Though it may be true that PWs 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution version due to the intervention of the elders who pacified the matter six months after the incident but the same is no ground to draw any presumption of guilt against the accused. Ghore, who allegedly intervened between PW.2 and the accused and who sustained stab injury on the left hand’s fingers and palm, was not before the court and PW.2 Nayeem did not specify about PW.3 being injured during the incident and PW.3, who turned hostile, never claimed about being injured due to any overtact of the accused. He stated that he was injured due to a fall during his attempt to separate PW.2 and the accused. 16. The very measurements of M.O.1 sword would make such a weapon being hidden in the pocket of the accused improbable as rightly observed by the trial court and the alleged recovery of M.O.1 sword under Ex.P.1 Panchanama becomes unacceptable at face value in view of the hostility of independent mediator examined as PW.5 who denied the contents of Ex.P.1 though he admitted his signature at Ex.P.6 and further non-examination of the other mediators. The evidence of investigating officer as PW.6 has no direct bearing on the truth or otherwise of the version and the evidence of PW.4- the medical officer does not exactly corroborate the manner in which the incident allegedly happened according to PW.1 with PW.4 not finding injuries on the person of PW.2 and finding only a minor abrasion over the left palm on the person of PW.3. The claims of PW.1 alone under such circumstances could not have been considered as proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 being what it is, the benefit of reasonable doubt was rightly given to the accused by the trial court. Thus, there are no reasons to interfere with the conclusions of the trial court. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. _________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 11.11.2009 Stp