THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 of 2003 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1510 OF 2005 ORDER: The Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2003 is directed against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.197 of 1999 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram on 09.08.2002. The Criminal Revision Case No.1510 of 2005 is directed against the acquittal of accused in S.C.No.303 of 1994 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram on 09.08.2002. The S.C.No.197 of 1999 arises out of the private complaint filed by the appellant herein against accused Nos.1 to 5. The S.C.No.303 of 1994 arises out of the charge sheet filed by the police on the complaint given by the revision petitioner against accused Nos.1 to 3. Both the cases arise out of the same incident that occurred on 24.09.1992 at 7.45 P.M. and the allegations made against the accused in both the cases are one and the same. Therefore, the evidence recorded in S.C.No.197 of 1999 is being taken up for disposal of these matters. The allegations made against the accused are that the complainant is a tenant in the house of accused No.2 on monthly rent of Rs.500/- and at the time of entering into the tenancy agreement, the complainant paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- to accused No.2 and occupied the house of accused No.2 in the month of January, 1992. In the month of March 1992, accused No.2 started demanding the complainant to vacate the premises, when the complainant requested the accused No.2 to return the advance of Rs.5,000/-, accused No.2 refused to return the same but insisted for vacating the house. As the complainant refused to vacate the premises, accused No.2 exerted pressure on the complainant through police and obtained a letter from the complainant to the effect that the complainant was prepared to vacate the premises on or before 07.09.1992. The complainant has made representations to the Director General of Police and Superintendent of police against the action of the police. The complainant also filed R.C.C.No.4 of 1992 before Rent Controller, Tadepalligudem for fixing the fair rent of the premises. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are the close associates and they conspired with the then Circle Inspector of Police Y.Sukumar and chalked out a plan to do away with the complainant and in pursuance of their common intention on 24.09.1992 at about 7.45 P.M. while the complainant was coming to his house on his spark Motor Cycle bearing No. ABW 1084 and when he reached the Satyavathi Nagar Centre, accused Nos.1 to 5 came in a white Ambassador car armed with lethal weapons such as knives, axes, iron rods, sticks and terrorized the complainant. Accused No.1 caught hold of the left hand of the complainant with his right hand and pushed him and accused No.2 pushed him violently with his two hands, accused Nos.3, 4, and 5 dragged the complainant violently. After the complainant fell down on the floor, they pushed the complainant into the back seat of the car and started beating him and drove the car towards Kunchanapalli village and threatening him with dire consequences that if he failed to vacate the house by next day evening, his entire family will be smashed and asked him to remove the clothes and beat him and having observed that he became unconscious, left him and went away. On the next day morning one Mente Poul rescued the complainant and took him to his residence, from there he was shifted to Government hospital, Tadepalligudem, where he took treatment for the injuries sustained by him. When the complainant was taken into the car, P.W.2 son of the complainant has lodged the complaint with the police and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the complainant/appellant having not satisfied with the investigation done by the police filed the private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 5, which was taken as S.C.No.197 of 1999 by the Sessions Court on committal. The charge sheet filed by the police against accused Nos.1 to 3 was taken as S.C.No.303 of 1994 by the Sessions Court and both the cases were tried by Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram separately. In S.C.No.197 of 1999 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charges Under Sections 307, 364, 324, 506 (2), 341 and 342 read with 34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 5. In S.C.No.303 of 1994 the charges under Sections 364 and 324 read with 34 IPC were framed against accused Nos.1 to 3. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. In S.C.No.197 of 1999 the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and in S.C.No.303 of 1994, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined. All the witnesses are one and the same in both the cases except examining the investigating officer in S.C.No.303 of 1994. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence acquitted the accused in both the cases. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed the present appeal and revision. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Sections 307, 364, 324, 506 (2), 341 and 342 read with 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: According to the prosecution on 24.09.1992 at about 7.45 P.M. when P.W.1 was coming to his house on his Spartk motor cycle, accused Nos.1 to 3 stopped him and they are armed with deadly weapons such as knives, axes, iron rods and sticks and thrown him down and thereby dragged him into the car and beat him and took him to Kunchanapalli village and dropped him there in the coconut garden and left the place. To establish the incident of kidnapping of complainant by the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The independent witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 have turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.1, who is the complainant, has stated about the incident, that when he reached the Satyavathi Nagar Centre, the accused came there in Ambassador car armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, steel axes, knife and small sticks and accused No.1 caught hold of his left hand and accused No.2 pushed him from his back side, then he fell down on the road from his moped, and all the accused beat him with iron rods and hands and took him near the ambassador car, he raised cries, then accused No.1 closed his mouth and all the accused pushed him into the back seat of the ambassador car. Accused No.1 was driving the car and all the five accused took him towards Kunchanapalli forcibly. According to P.W.2, who is the son of P.W.1, on hearing the cries of his father, he found 5 accused dragging his father and taking him in ambassador car. The other witness P.W.5, who is the sister-in-law of P.W.1, has stated that she has seen the accused taking away P.W.1 in a car and the 2 sons and brother of P.W.1 followed the car to some extent. P.W.6, who is the another son of P.W.1, has stated that he saw the accused taking away his father in a car and his brother, P.W.2 followed the said car to some extent. P.W.7 elder brother of P.W.1 has also supported the version of P.W.2 with regard to his witnessing the accused kidnapping P.W.1 in a car. But P.Ws.6 and 7 do not speak about their following the car to some extent. Moreover, P.Ws.5, 6 and 7 witnessed the incident from the house of P.W.1, but as per the evidence of P.W.2, the said house is not visible from the place of incident i.e. Satyavathi Nagar Centre. The said factum of P.Ws.2, 5, 6 and 7 witnessing the said incident was not spoken by P.W.1. With regard to the threats made by the accused and injuries caused to P.W.1, except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to establish the same. Therefore, it has to be examined whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 can be relied upon to establish the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 admitted in the cross- examination that he might have changed nearly 5 or 6 house from 1972 to 1992 and Hanumanthapalli Satyanarayana filed O.S.193 of 1999 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, against him for recovery of arrears of rent and the same was decreed. Thereafter one Challa Subbayamma filed a case against him for vacating the house. P.W.2 also admitted about their changing number of houses during 1972 to 1992 in Tadepalligudem and also admitted about the filing of criminal case against his father by the landlord Hanumanthapalli Satyanarayana. Admittedly, there was dispute between P.W.1 and accused No.2 with regard to vacating the house taken on lease by P.W.1. P.W.5 also admitted that accused No.4 filed a criminal case against her and others. Therefore, it is evident that there is animosity between P.W.5 and accused No.4. P.W.6 also admitted in the cross-examination about the pendency of criminal cases and Civil Cases against P.W.1 and a criminal complaint was also filed against him on the complaint given by accused No.4. P.W.7 also admitted that accused No.4 has filed a criminal case against him along with the sons of P.W.1. Therefore, even prior to the incident there was animosity between the accused and the witnesses examined by the prosecution. With regard to sustaining injuries by P.W.1, he deposed that after he was pushed from his moped, all the accused beat him with iron rods and then took him into the car and on the way also he was beaten by the accused and after stopping at Kunchanapalli, they asked him to remove his clothes. Accused No.1 beat him with a small stick, accused No.5 beat him on his head with iron rod, accused No.4 caused an injury to his left eye with iron fork, accused No.3 beat him on his left side chest with iron rod. He sustained grievous injuries and accused No.5 also tried to stab him with knife and when he escaped he received knife injury on his left palm, accused No.3 hacked on left hand with knife, accused No.2 hacked him on his left side chest, accused No.3 beat him on his mouth with iron stick and he received bleeding injuries on his lip and when accused No.4 tried to hack his neck, he put his right hand and that he received severe bleeding injuries on his index finger, middle finger and ring finger. Accused No.3 caught hold of him and pushed him and threatened to kill him. When he became unconscious, they stopped the car and thrown him into the coconut garden and he was unconscious in the coconut garden for the entire night. At about 5.30 or 6.00 A.M. on the next day i.e. on 25.09.1992, P.W.3 rescued him and took him to his house. Therefore, according to P.W.1, he sustained grievous injuries in the hands of the accused. The Doctor, who treated the P.W.1, was examined as P.W.8. According to him, he examined the P.W.1 on 25.09.1992 at 8.00 P.M. and found the following injuries. 1. Contusion on centre of scalps 3” X 3” size bluish colour. 2. Contusion on frontal head 4” X 3” bluish colour. 3. Edimated both eye lids and eye brow on both sides. 4. Contusion 3” X 3” on right side of the chest. 5. Contusion 3” X 3” on left side of the chest bluish colour. 6. Lacerated injury upper lip of the mouth bleeding from the mouth. 7. Lacerated injury left side of the upper jaw. 8. Lacerated injury left palm 3” X 3” 1 1/4 into skin deep. 9. Lacerated injury left side of chest palmour surface also. 10. Contusion right little finger with laceration. Quary injury felengal joint. 11.Multiple abrasions on the back of the chest. According to him, the said injuries are simple in nature and might have caused by rough object or blunt weapon. If the version of P.W.1 is believed, he would have sustained grievous injuries, but the medical evidence clearly shows that there are only simple injuries. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by medical evidence with regard to injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to overt acts attributed against the accused cannot be believed. Moreover, there was animosity between the accused and P.W.1 and his family members even prior to the incident. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the interested evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 to establish the charges framed against the accused and the lower Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and found the accused are not guilty for the above said charges. The said findings recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge in both the cases do not warrant any interference by this court in the appeal as well as in the revision. In the result, the Criminal Appeal No.18 of 2003 and Criminal Revision Case No.1510 of 2005 are dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 21st October, 2011 Ksp