IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1268 of 2008 Between: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Kamapati Muthaiah and 12 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is against the acquittal of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 148, 452, 325, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the judgment dated 09- 04-2007 in S.C.No.322 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nadigudem police station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.40 of 2003, alleging that on 16-06-2003 at 2.00 P.M. Kampati Venkanna gave a complaint to Nadigudem police, alleging that on the night of 15-06-2003 at about 9.30 P.M. he, his wife-Narsamma, and daughter-Prameela were attacked in their house by the persons belonging to Telugu Desam Party with sticks and knives due to previous grudges. He claimed that A-1 stabbed him on the left side of chest with a knife, while A-2 beat with a stick on his head, A-3 stabbed on his left shoulder with a knife and when his wife Narsamma interfered, A-4 beat her with a stick on the right shoulder. A-3 beat Prameela on the left collar bone with the handle of an axe. A-5, A-6 and A-9 to A-13 and some others attacked and beat them. Jillepally Venkanna was also attacked by the same group and was beaten at his house causing injuries on the head, right hand and both the shoulders. His wife Lingamma was also injured on the right side of forehead and the attack was an attempt to kill all of them. The complaint was registered as Crime No.40 of 2003 and H.C.937 recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized their blood stained clothes under a Panchanama before Kothapally Gopaiah and Kothapally Venkanna. The injured-five persons were sent to Government Hospital, Nadigudem for treatment and scene of offence Panchanamas were conducted by H.C.937 before Kampati Pedda Ramaiah and Kothapally Lingaiah. The blood stained knife was seized at the house of Kampati Venkanna and two blood stained lumps of earth were seized at the house of Jillepally Venkanna. Dr. D. Champanaik examined the five injured and the injured themselves went to the hospital of Dr. U. Srinivasa Reddy for expert treatment. K. Venkanna, who was seriously injured was shifted to Cure Emergency Hospital, Khammam for expert treatment and the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, recorded the Dying Declaration of Kampati Venkanna on a requisition from the said hospital. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala conducted further investigation and on arresting the accused 1 to 13, recorded the confessional statements of accused 1 to 8, 10 and 13 before Gundepuri Kotaiah and Pasupuleti Janardhan, mediators. A knife from A-1, six sticks from A-2 to A-6 and A-13 and two iron rods from A-7 and A-8 were recovered in pursuance of the confessions and A- 10 was stated to have left the knife at the house of Kampati Venkanna. Two injured were opined to have suffered grievous injuries and three injured suffered three simple injuries and in view of the factions in Siripuram village with Kasani Venkateswarlu leading Telugu Desam Party to which the accused belonged and Pasupuleti Janardhan leading Congress (I) party to which the injured belonged, it was found during investigation that there was an earlier similar crime in Crime No.32 of 2003 and there was an incident on 15-06- 2003 concerning the quarrels between the 8th accused and his first wife. Hence, the charge. On the appearance of the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, who took cognizance of the offences in PRC.No.19 of 2004, the accused were furnished with copies of documents. On committal to the Court of Session, the case was made over to the trial Court. On appearance of the accused before it, charges under Sections 148, 452, 307, 324 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. During trial, PWs.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.28, M.Os.1 to 12, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. No other defence evidence was produced by the accused, who denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the prosecution case in great detail as well as the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides. The trial Court found that Ex.P.1-the earliest version is not free from doubt in the absence of proof of who wrote it on whose narration. The scrupulous description of the alleged overt acts of the accused in Ex.P.1 made it doubtful and the injuries of PWs.1 to 5 as stated by the medical evidence were not corroborated by the version in Ex.P.1. Exs.P.20 to P.24 wound certificates issued by PW.18 and the evidence of the injured-PWs.1 to 5 are totally discrepant including not only the injuries, but also the manner in which they were taken to the hospital and they were treated by different doctors. The trial Court also found that PW.16’s father and the elder brother of PW.1 were very close and he did not produce the concerned Medico Legal Case register allegedly maintained and used by the hospital. PW.18 and PW.16-the doctors were inconsistent and the conflicting claims between the injured and the medical evidence and the medical evidence and the investigating officer throw a grave doubt on this story. The trial Court also found that there were erasures and corrections concerning the date in the wound certificates and the requisitions. The trial Court approaching the evidence with extra care and caution under such circumstances, found the version of PW.6 to be artificial and not straight away acceptable as he is also the cousin of PW.1. The trial Court also found that PWs.7 to 9 and 12 to 14, the independent witnesses, turned hostile and the Panchanamas said to have been conducted during investigation also, hence, became doubtful. The other persons who are allegedly involved in the attack were not identified or named and implication of the accused falsely due to the factious disputes was not ruled out. Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt against any accused was found to be absent and the accused were acquitted on merits. The State challenged the said acquittal in this appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor contending that the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences have been made out by the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 6 and minor contradictions could not have falsified the injuries found on the persons of PWs.1 to 4. The injured witnesses or their family members would not have implicated innocent persons and not the real culprits and hence, the acquittal of the accused was requested to be reversed. Heard Sri K. Venkateswararao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/appellant and Sri Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/accused. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt? The independent witnesses-PWs.7 to 9 denied any knowledge about the alleged incident or their giving statements to the police as in Exs.P.2 to P.4. The evidence of PWs.10 and 11 about the seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 from the injured throws no light on the complicity of any accused and PWs.12 and 13 denied the conduct of Ex.P.5-scene of offence Panchanama or Ex.P.6-statement to the police respectively. PW.14 also did not corroborate the conduct of scene of offence Panchanama in his presence and there was no other independent witness apart from PWs.7 to 14. PW.15 initially stated that he was never called by the police for the purpose of any Panchanama though he stated again about the confessions and recoveries in his presence. He was suggested to be belonging to Congress (I) group and his description of the alleged confessions and recoveries did not sound natural. PW.16, the private medical practitioner, who claimed to have seen PWs.1 to 5 at about 4.00 A.M., on 16-06-2003 at his Nursing Home, stated about only the injuries of PW.1 specifically but not about the injuries of PWs.2 to 5. He admitted that the elder brother of PW.1 was close to his father who is a leader of Communist Party and he was not able to produce the concerned medico legal register alleging its misplacement. PW.17, the private medical practitioner, claimed to have seen PW.1 on 19-06-2003 and to have noted a grievous injury and three simple injuries, which might have been caused with sticks. PW.1 was brought to PW.17 by the person who was alleged to be the leader of Congress (I) faction. PW.18, the medical officer, who examined PWs.1 to 4 on 16-06-2003 stated that the injured already took treatment at a private hospital and he admitted that he did not mention about PW.1 telling him about his being beaten by known persons on 15-06-2003 at 9.30 P.M. He also admitted that he did not mention that the injuries appeared to be fresh. PW.19, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the crime when he was working as Head Constable stated that the date of medical requisitions were corrected putting a whitener and did not explain how such a correction became necessary. The witness, as already stated, was not corroborated by the independent witnesses examined about his conducting the relevant Panchanamas. PW.20, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted a further investigation was not able to give the details of the place where the alleged confessions were recorded and the recoveries were effected. He also admitted that sticks like M.Os.5 to 9 and 12 will be available in the villages and the alleged confessions and recoveries relating to the incident of 16-06-2003 on 24-06-2003 do not appear natural as if the accused kept the weapons of offence in their custody to be readily given to him after confessing their guilt. PW.21 did nothing than collecting the medical certificates and filing the charge sheet against the accused. PW.6, who was stated to be an eye-witness for the incident at the house of PW.1, did not follow the injured PW.1 in spite of being his neighbour and he does not even know who shifted PW.1 injured to the hospital. He did not attempt to intervene to save PW.1 and he stated to be the cousin brother of PW.1. He admitted that except himself, all other listed witnesses belong to the Congress (I) Party. That leaves the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and the evidence of the five witnesses-the injured and the wife of PW.4 is necessarily tainted with interestedness requiring adoption of the accepted rule of prudence that such interested evidence cannot be accepted at face value and requires satisfactory corroboration from independent evidence. PW.1 claimed about the overt acts of A-1, A-10, A-3 and A-2 against him, A-3 and A-4 against his wife-PW.2 and A-6 against his daughter PW.3. The other accused were claimed to have beaten PW.1 with rods and sticks indiscriminately and Ex.P.1 was claimed by him to be on his dictation. He claimed the blood stained clothes to have been seized by the police and his claim that he remained conscious to witness the assault on his wife and daughter and later lost his consciousness appears to be a claim of convenience. His statement that they waited in the village for about 2 or 3 hours till all the people gathered may indicate the scope for consultation, deliberation and concoction even in the First Information Report in the background of admitted factious disputes between the parties. PW.1 himself stated about the Member of Legislative Assembly visiting him at the hospital and his belonging to the Congress (I) Party, while the accused are important workers of Telugu Desam Party in the village to which party the Sarpanch also belonged. The evidence of PW.1 admits that Ex.P.1 did not mention about the attack by others than the named accused and he did not even know the name of the person, who scribed Ex.P.1 on his instructions. The attribution of specific overt acts in great precision in Ex.P.1 does not appear natural or convincing as rightly opined by the trail Court and if the assailants of Rambabu were not hiding in the house of PW.1, the accused had obviously no reason to attack and injure PWs.1 to 3. PW.2 claimed A-10, A-2 and A-3 to have injured PW.1, but her allegations against A-2 and A-3 switched roles in causing the injuries in respect of PW.1 and PW.3. She claimed the A-3 and A-4 to have beaten PW.3 and herself and made no reference to A-6 injuring PW.3 or A-3 injuring PW.2 as stated by PW.1. PW.2 also claimed about the unconscious state of PW.1, which was reversed only at the police station and her evidence is not as though PW.1 was conscious still PWs.2 and 3 were beaten. PW.3-the daughter of PWs.1 and 2, claimed about A-1 stabbing PW.1 on the left side of chest and further claimed that A-10 stabbed on the back and A-2 beat with a stick on the head. She stated about A-6 beating her and A-4 beating PW.2 and A-4 beating PW.2 as already stated, was not the version of PW.2. PW.3 could not state when their statements were recorded by the police that night and she gave no further details about the manner in which PW.1 gave a report to the police etc. PW.4 had not exactly corroborated PWs.1 to 3 about the overt acts of the accused when he claimed about the attack on him by A-4, A-5 and A-7 and other accused with iron rods and sticks. His claim that police themselves visited the village after one hour is not what PWs.1 to 3 claimed, and the injuries disclosed by the medical evidence on the person of PW.4 do not present such a grave attack as claimed by PW.4. The claim that they went to the Government Hospital, Nadigudem where the Government doctor refused to treat them and on refusal of the Government doctor to treat, they went to the clinic of PW.16 was not exactly the version of the prosecution and he does not know who gave the complaint in the village. PW.5, the wife of PW.4, did not observe who beat PW.4, while claiming that A-4 beat her with a stick on the forehead. PW.4 did not state about the overt act of A-4 to be a beating on the forehead of PW.5. PW.5 stated about her being taken to PW.16 straight contradicting PW.4 and without replicating the other minute details regarding the contradictions between PWs.1 to 5 stated at length in the impugned judgment, it is suffice to say that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is also not consistent between themselves or consistent with the medical evidence in respect of the overt acts of any accused and their consequences. At any rate, the others, who allegedly accompanied the accused and were part of the incidents, were not identified or prosecuted and even among the accused, it is only the named accused that were attributed with specific overt acts, while vague, general and omnibus allegations were made against all the accused about beating the injured witnesses. Given the nature of factious background for the entire incident, the interestedness of the witnesses, the hostility of PWs.7 to 9 and 12 to 14, the total absence of any corroboration for the prosecution version by the independent witnesses-PWs.7 to 15, the contradictions about the manner of treatment of the injured even between PWs.16 to 18-the doctors, and the fact that PWs.1 to 6 and other witnesses belonged to Congress (I) Party and the accused belonged to Telugu Desam Party between whom there were number of factious disputes make the conclusions of the trial Court about the facts and circumstances leading to entertainment of a grave doubt about the complicity of the accused to be not open to interference in the appeal. Proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be considered to have been satisfied in respect of any accused and this Court cannot be interfere with the acquittal of the accused under such circumstances. The Criminal Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-12-2011 Ksn