THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No. 427 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case arises out of judgment dated 14.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2004 in C.C.No.210 of 2004 passed by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, was confirmed. 2. That on 12.4.2004 at 11.00 p.m. PWs 1 and 2- Police constables were on duty. While they were on patrolling duty between 1st line and 11th line of Arundelpet, Guntur, found the petitioner-accused being in a drunken condition and making galata. When PWs 1 and 2 advised him to leave the place, he pounced upon them and assaulted them by catching hold of their shirts. That he was brought to the Police Station and Crime No.173/04 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 510 IPC was registered against him. Subsequently, charge sheet was also laid against him in the court of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 on its behalf. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. 4. The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence and other material brought on record, found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 353 and 510 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 353 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one day for the offence under section 510 IPC. 5. Assailing his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the petitioner-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidence of PWs 1 and 2- Police constables and also the evidence of PW.5 medical witness, who issued Ex.P.4 certificate to the effect that though the petitioner- accused consumed alcohol, he was not under its influence at the time of the alleged incident, and the evidence of PW.6- S.I. who registered the crime basing on Ex.P.5 F.I.R., came to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused assaulted PWs 1 and 2 and obstructed them from discharging their duty of closing the commercial establishments during the night. In fact, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the petitioner-accused was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge by dismissing the appeal. 6. Challenging the same, the accused filed this Criminal Revision Case on the following grounds: 7. That the lower appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence on record independently; that both the courts below failed to see that the evidence of prosecution witnesses did not make out a case under Sections 353 and 510 IPC; that PWs 1 and 2 were the complainants and interested witnesses besides being official witnesses, as such, both the courts below, ought not to have attached any importance to their testimony; that PWs 3 and 4 who are the only independent witnesses, did not support the prosecution case as they turned hostile and that both the courts below ought to have, at least, in the circumstances of the case, extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner-accused. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused reiterated the grounds of revision and further submitted that PWs 1 and 2 being the complainants and also police constables, the trial court ought not to have based conviction on their evidence. He also pointed out that the medical witness-PW5 who issued Ex.P.4 has testified that though the petitioner-accused had consumed alcohol at the time of incident, he was not under its influence. However, his testimony does not strike common sense and it also does not appear to stand reason that when a man is alleged to have consumed alcohol and assaulted police constables on duty, he must be presumed to be under the influence of alcohol. It is more so when it is the specific case of the prosecution as per Ex P.5 FIR. Hence, both the courts appear to have overlooked the same. In any situation, a case of this nature falls under one of the general exceptions under Chapter IV from Sections 76 to 106 IPC. Moreover, the learned counsel pointed out that PW.6 is the official witness who registered the crime. His evidence ought not to have been considered by both the courts below. In the circumstances, the learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is legally insufficient, warranting conviction of the revision petitioner-accused and as such, prayed that the revision case may be allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the lower appellate court. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner-accused and confirmed by the lower appellate court. 11. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the material on record, this revisional court is of the view that the trial court ought to have cautiously appreciated the evidence of PWs 1 ands 2 since they were the police personnel being constables on duty as well as being the complainants. Moreover, the evidence of PW.5- medical witness is also ambiguous. PW.6 is the S.I. who registered the crime. His evidence in the absence of other corroborating evidence is not sufficient to rescue the case of the prosecution. As such, it has got to be observed that both the courts below committed material irregularity in convicting and sentencing the revision petitioner-accused and also in confirming the said conviction and sentence. 12. As such, this revisional court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court i.e. I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, dated 14.3.2005 in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2004 is not tenable and the same is set-aside by allowing the Criminal Revision Case. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 16.4.2010 Stp