IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.NO.844 of 2004 Date:27.01.2011 Between:- Kotha Venkat Reddy .. Revision Petitioner A N D Chintapally Raji Reddy and others .. Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.101 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate – cum – Special Mobile Court, Karimnagar were found not guilty and were acquitted through the impugned judgment. Having aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant presented the present revision seeking for the conviction of the accused. 2. The accused allegedly committed the offences under Sections 447, 489 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. by entering on the lands of P.Ws 1 and 2 on 02.03.2001 at about 10.00 A.M. The accused, who are A.1 to A.5, pleaded not guilty for the accusations levelled against them under Sections 447, 489 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution examined four witnesses, out of whom P.Ws.1 and 2 are direct witnesses. P.W.3 is panch witness. P.W.4 is the Investigating officer. 4. The learned trial Judge held that no independent witness was examined to prove the incident. He consequently held that the accusations against the accused were disproved. The accused, therefore, were acquitted of the allegations levelled against them. 5. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the de facto complainant/revision petitioner contended that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He placed reliance upon State of U.P., Vs. Anil Singh[1]. In that case, the Supreme Court observed that it would not be correct to reject the version of the prosecution merely on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence were not examined and that the case cannot be rejected on the ground that the evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The Supreme Court, however, opined that if the case of the prosecution is made out otherwise on the evidence of the witnesses which is otherwise acceptable, their evidence cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no corroboration from independent witnesses.’ 6. In the present case, P.Ws.1 and 2 alone are direct witnesses. P.W.3 is not a direct witness. The question is whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would be sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. 7. P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the accused were the owners of the property situate in Survey Nos.450 to 454 of Choppadandi village. P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the accused were allotted shares in the property. The case of the prosecution is that the accused trespassed into the lands of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the ground that P.Ws.1 and 2 got more extent of land in the partition than the land allotted to the accused. Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 are definitely interested witnesses against the interest of the accused. 8. When such witnesses, who have a common axe to grind, have deposed, it is desirable to insist upon corroboration for such evidence. Added to it, there must be corroboration between P.Ws.1 and 2 inter se. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that on all material aspects, P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated with each other. I am afraid that this contention is not correct. Inter alia, P.W1 deposed that when the accused trespassed into the lands of P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused criminal intimidation, the accused threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences, if he lodged a complaint. P.W.2 is completely silent in this regard. Again P.W.1 claimed that initially he lodged a complaint with police and that police did not take any action on the complaint lodged by him, so much so, P.W.1 lodged a private complaint before the Court. On the other hand Ex.P.1 is the complaint lodged by P.W.1 to the police and not to the court. 10. Further, P.W.2, who is also said to be an affected party, did not lodge any complaint with the police nor did he refer to the complaint lodged by P.W.1 either to the police or to the court. Thus, there is no corroboration between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 themselves. 11. More important, when P.Ws.1 and 2, definitely are interested in bringing conviction against the accused, it would not be safe to record conviction on the strength of the evidence of such witnesses without corroboration from independent evidence. As there was no corroboration in their evidence, the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the accused considering that it would not be safe to convict the accused on the strength of the uncorroborated evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 12. Added to it, as already pointed out, the very evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborative of each other on various aspects. The finding of the trial court is, therefore, perfectly justified and does not need any interference. The revision is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. __________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J 27th January 2011 KSP [1] AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1998