THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.311 OF 2006 DATED: 08-07-2010 Between 1.V.Chalamaiah and another …Petitioners-A1 and A2 And State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. …Respondent-Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.311 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 15-02-2006, in Crl.A.No.40 of 2004, on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, in confirming the convictions of the petitioners-A1 and A2 of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 IPC and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for three months for each of the offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC and 5 of E.S. Act, as recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Allagadda, vide judgment, dated 09-03-2004, in S.C.No.75 of 2000, 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 25-10-1998 at 10.30 A.M., at Bugga Vanka cross way, while Gurrala Muni Reddy and others were going in a jeep, A1 to A9 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with country made bombs and attacked Muni Reddy and other throwing the bombs and due to explosion of bombs, Hussain and Narsi Reddy sustained injuries in the jeep. On a complaint, police registered a case and investigated into. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, issued sanction orders to prosecute the accused under Explosive Substances Act. Hence, the charge. 3. The case against A3 was abated as he reported dead. 4. When charges under Sections 148, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC and 3 and 5 of E.S. Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 besides case property, M.Os.1 to 5. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. 7. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced A1,A2 and A4 to undergo R.I. for one year of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default to undergo S.I. for three months for each offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Section 5 of E.S. Act. Further, A5 to A7 were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year of the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for three months for each offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 149 IPC and 5 of E.S. Act. A1, A2, A4 to A9 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 of E.S. Act. Further A8 and A9 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, 307 r/w 149 IPC. Further A5 to A9 were also acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and A1, A2 and A4 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC. On appeal, the appellate Court, while setting side the convictions and sentences recorded against the other accused, confirmed the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present revision has been preferred. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the findings of the appellate Court are legal, proper and correct? 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-A1 and A2 contended that having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 in respect of participation of A4 to A9, both the Courts below ought to have given same benefit of doubt to the petitioners, that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 8 is interested and they are partisan witnesses, that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 ad 8 is insufferable, that the Court cannot take a part of testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 8 so as to base a conviction, that Section 5 of E.S. Act has no application in view of the fact that no explosive substance material was admittedly seized from the possession of the petitioners and hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioners. 10. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the presence and participation of the petitioners are established, that a part of testimony is acceptable, which is permissible under law, that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are improper, illegal or incorrect or admissible evidence was overlooked or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. It is also equally well settled that this Court cannot sit as if in an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. But, however, to test whether the findings are correct or not, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 8. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 is that A1 to A3, A5 to A9 and some others came behind Babul trees and attacked the prosecution witnesses and further A5 to A9 chased his son Muni Reddy and others and hurled bombs, whereas the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that all the accused came behind the trees and A5 to A7 chased P.Ws. 1 and 3 and others. Therefore, as seen from the evidence, it is clear that all the accused participated in the commission of offence. There is no dispute that a part of testimony of a witness can be accepted and remaining part can be rejected, if it is found to be improbable and unbelievable because the latin maxim falsus in uno and falsus in omnibus (false in one thing and false in everything) has no application to the Criminal Law in India. The Court can separate the grain from the chap and such part of testimony, which inspires confidence that can be taken into consideration for the purpose of convicting the accused and such part of testimony of a witness is found to be unreliable, the same can be rejected. But, when truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up and it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood, the only course left open to the Court is to reject the evidence of a witness in toto. As seen from the evidence of these witnesses, the truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up and it is not possible to separate the truth from falsehood. They have categorically stated that all the accused came behind the Babul tress and some of the accused hurled bombs and some of the accused caused juries. Therefore, the presence and participation of A1 and A2 is doubtful. The trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of these witnesses so as to base a conviction against A3 to A7. The appellate Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the petitioners. Both the Courts have not recorded any reasons for accepting a part of testimony of a witness and rejecting the remaining part of testimony. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioners, which has been extended to A4 to A7. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The petitioners-A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 IPC and 5 of E.S. Act and accordingly, they are acquitted. Bail bonds of the petitioners-A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioners-A1 and A2 shall be returned to them. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:08-07-2010 Hsd