IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.459 of 2008 Between: State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Vundella Vungaiah & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.459 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”), by the judgment, dated 15.04.2006, in C.C.No.93 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri. 2. The Station House Officer, Veligandla Police Station, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.13 of 2004 against the four accused alleging that on 24.05.2004 at 5.00 p.m. when Murikipudi Abraham went to his field, he found the first accused removing the fencing around the field. When questioned, the first accused, stating that he removed the fencing to enable his sheep to graze in the land of Abraham, abused him in foul language and kicked him with his right leg. When Abraham fell down, the first accused beat him with a stick on the right ribs and pressed on the right side of the chest with his leg catching hold of his neck. The second and third accused were claimed to be present at that time and all the four accused were stated to have threatened Abraham not to give any complaint to the police. On 25.05.2004, Abraham was brought to the Community Health Centre, Kanigiri, by Mudda Visranthamma for treatment and the Medical Officer, on treatment, issued a wound certificate stating that the grievous injuries might have been caused with a blunt object. A.S.I.906 of Kanigiri Police Station recorded the statement of Abraham at the Community Health Centre, Kanigiri, and registered the crime. The incident was witnessed by Mudda Chinna Anthoni, Mudda Visranthamma and Atluri Meereen Kumar. The investigation disclosed that there was no abuse in the name of the caste and, hence, the alleged offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), was deleted and the accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. On the offences being taken cognizance and the accused appearing before the Court and being furnished with the copies of the documents, charges under Sections 506 and 326 IPC against the first accused and a charge under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the second and third accused were framed for which the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-10 were marked by the prosecution during trial and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”). No defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that the daughter of the injured P.W.1 and the grand son of P.W.1, examined as P.W.6 and P.W.8, were only hearsay witnesses, while the independent witnesses examined did not support the prosecution version. The injured P.W.1, who stated about the first accused abusing him in filthy language, the second accused beating him with stick on the right thigh and chest and the third accused beating him, admitted the previous disputes between them and, therefore, the trial Court did not rule out the possibility of a case being foisted against the accused taking advantage of the injuries received by P.W.1 due to fall. The trial Court also took adverse note of the finding during investigation about the absence of committal of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the guilt of the accused was considered not proved beyond reasonable doubt and all the four accused were acquitted. 5. The State, through the learned Public Prosecutor, preferred the present appeal contending that the evidence of P.W.1, the injured, should have been appreciated to find the accused guilty even if the independent witnesses did not corroborate the case of the prosecution. The State, therefore, desired the acquittal to be reversed. 6. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri V. Jithender Rao, learned counsel for the accused/respondents 1 to 4 are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether there is any strong ground for interfering with the acquittal of the accused on merits by the trial Court. 8. The injured P.W.1 claimed about the earlier disputes relating to the death of two she buffaloes of his brother resulting in a Panchayat, but there was no corroborating evidence in respect of the same. The said allegation that people of ‘Reddy’ community had even decided not to allow Christians to come to their gardens, etc., indicates absolutely strained relationship which formed the background for the alleged incident and which requires satisfactory independent corroboration before accepting the interested and self-serving evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 alleged that during the incident, the first accused abused him in filthy language, while the second accused beat him with a stick on the right thigh and on the left side of the chest and the third accused intervened while the first and second accused were beating him. However, the earliest version in Ex.P-1-statement to the Police was about the first accused getting angry on being questioned about the removal of the fencing in the land of P.W.1 and about the first accused abusing P.W.1, beating him with a stick, kicking with his leg and catching his neck. The second and third accused were merely stated to be present at that time and no overt acts were attributed to them during the course of the incident except claiming that accused 2 to 4 also abused and threatened P.W.1 and his daughter and grand son. The version in the evidence of P.W.1 is, therefore, totally inconsistent with the earliest version and the claim that he was unconscious after the incident, was not the claim in the earliest version or corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.1 admitted during cross-examination that no persons were present when the accused were actually beating him showing that there could not have been any corroboration by any other eye witness for that incident and when P.W.1 positively stated that his daughter and grand son came after the incident, there could have been no scope for them to corroborate P.W.1. P.Ws.2 to 5 and P.W.7, the independent witnesses cited by the prosecution, turned hostile and claimed no knowledge about the alleged incident. P.W.6 went to the fields only to take P.W.1 to the hospital and P.W.8, who claimed to have seen the first and second accused beating P.W.1 could not have been true in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 himself. Even otherwise, he only stated about the first accused kicking P.W.1 and he did not state anything about the alleged overt acts of the second and third accused as claimed by P.W.1. P.W.9 only heard about the alleged beating of P.W.1 and the Investigating Officer as P.W.10 had himself stated that the crime was registered on his rushing to the Community Health Centre, Kanigiri, on receiving a hospital intimation and thus, it is clear that P.W.1 himself or his family members did not even give a report to the police immediately after the alleged incident. The Medical Officer as P.W.11 was of the opinion that there was a possibility of the fracture injury being caused by a fall on a hard surface and the Investigating Officer as P.W.12 deposed that the case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was not made out according to the material collected during the investigation. At any rate, the evidence does not refer to the fourth accused at all against whom the trial Court also did not frame any charge and under the circumstances, if the trial Court had concluded that there was absolutely no evidence to prove the guilt of any of the accused, the conclusion cannot be considered to be incorrect in any manner. The acquittal of the accused, therefore, cannot be interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24th November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.459 of 2008 Date: 24th November, 2011 KL