IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.346 of 2008 Between: State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Paduchuri Lakshmi Narayana & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.346 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal of the accused of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”) by the judgment, dated 21.07.2006, in S.C.No.54 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole II Town Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.104 of 2005 alleging that the accused 1 and 2 and Neelisetty Chandrasekhar are residing in the same building in the ground floor and the first floor respectively and Potti Ravi and Kota Venkata Sambasiva Krishnudu came to the house of Neelisetty Chandrasekhar on the eve of Dasara festival with families. On 13.10.2005, Potti Ravi went to the World Trade Exhibition along with his son aged 2 years and while returning at about 10.00 p.m., he was obstructed by an old telephone wire tagged from the house of the first accused to the telephone pole on the street for drying clothes. Potti Ravi and his son fell due to the hurdle and Potti Ravi removed the telephone wire. Both the accused quarrelled with Potti Ravi in harsh language and beat him with hands and legs. When Potti Ravi raised cries, Chandrasekhar and Krishnudu and others came and questioned the accused. Then the second accused asked the first accused to bring the knife and the first accused brought the knife and stabbed Chandrasekhar, who was caught hold of by the second accused. A bleeding injury was caused in the stomach and when Krishnudu intervened, the first accused stabbed him in the stomach with the same knife. Chandrasekhar and Krishnudu were shifted to the Government Hospital, Ongole. On 14.10.2005 at 8.00 a.m., Potti Ravi gave a complaint to the police which was registered in Crime No.104 of 2005 and investigated into. The scene of offence was examined and a rough sketch was prepared and the accused were arrested and the knife was recovered under a Panchanama. The accused were remanded to judicial custody and later released on bail and, hence, the charge for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 3. On the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, taking cognizance of the offence and on the appearance of the accused, the accused were furnished with the copies of the documents. The case was committed to the Court of Session which made it over to the trial Court and a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-13 and M.O.1 were marked during trial. 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.”) and no defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the admitted facts about the residence of parties in the same building and the relationship between P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 8 on the one hand and the accused 1 and 2 on the other as well as P.Ws.5 to 8 being tenants of the same complex in separate portions. P.Ws.2 and 3 sustaining stab injuries at about the alleged time and their being treated at the Government Hospital and then at the Nursing Home of P.W.4 were also noted to be admitted and the injuries of P.Ws.2 and 3 were respectively noted to be simple and grievous as proved by the medical evidence. The trial Court referred to the report said to have been given by P.Ws.2 and 3 to the police before 11.30 p.m. on 13.10.2005 which was not placed before the Court and the medical intimation said to have been sent by P.W.11 to the police was also not placed before the Court. The statement of P.W.11 that P.Ws.2 and 3 informed her that they sustained the injuries at their house was considered as corroborating the defence and the delay in sending the First Information Report to the Magistrate also was taken adverse note of. The trial Court also observed that the police did not seize the blood stained clothes at the scene and it was further observed that the failure to seize the blood stained clothes of P.Ws.2 and 3 also creates grave doubts. P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 9 deposed as though P.W.1 was beaten with hands and legs, but no corresponding injuries on the persons of P.Ws.3 and 4 were found. The hostility of P.Ws.5 and 6 was also noted leaving only interested evidence for appreciation and though there were number of other neighbours who came to the scene, only interested witnesses were examined and the true independent witnesses examined turned hostile. The identification of the accused also was doubted and the brand new knife-M.O.1 was also disbelieved to be the weapon of offence. The trial Court consequently opined that there might have been some scuffle for unknown reasons due to which an inmate wielded a kitchen knife causing bleeding injuries to P.Ws.2 and 3 for which the accused are being implicated or it also might been an act by the accused in self-defence when P.Ws.1 to 3 and their family members on the relations entered the house of the accused to beat them. In any view, in the absence of any reason or motive, a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was opined to be not attracted and, hence, the accused were acquitted. 5. The State, through the learned Public Prosecutor, challenged the said acquittal in this appeal contending that the ingredients of the alleged offence have been made out by the evidence of the injured witnesses and eye witnesses corroborating each other and corroborated by Exs.P-2 and P-3-Wound Certificates, which could not have been disbelieved. Hence, the acquittal is requested to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Sri P. Nagender Reddy, learned counsel representing both the accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether there are any strong and convincing grounds to reverse the judgment of acquittal. 8. While the case of both the accused is one of total denial, the first accused claimed during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they went to the house of P.W.2 on hearing some galata and found P.Ws.2 and 3 to have been already injured by that time. The recovery of M.O.1-knife under Ex.P-7- Mediator’s report was on 15.10.2005 and the claim that the accused took out the alleged weapon of offence thrown near a tree near the railway gate is plainly unnatural and artificial. If the weapon had been thrown at such an open place immediately after the incident, as stated in Exs.P-6 and P-7, the knife lying intact at the same place till the police went there with the accused does not appear believable. The delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate and the discrepancies in the evidence suggesting the probability of an earlier report and an earlier medical intimation which was suppressed from the Court also make it necessary that the prosecution story should be scrutinized with extra care and caution. 9. P.W.12-the Investigating Officer denied receiving any medical intimation from Government Hospital contrary to the evidence of the doctor as P.W.11 and P.W.12 had even no knowledge if any first aid was given to the injured at the Government Hospital. While he was allegedly told by P.W.1 that the Duty Medical Officer advised them to go to a private hospital, P.W.11 stated that the injured left the hospital against medical advice. She positively stated that both P.Ws.2 and 3 informed her that they received injuries at their home throwing grave doubts on the incident happening at the place alleged by the prosecution and P.W.10, an independent witness and a tenant in the premises, turned hostile and denied stating to the police as in Ex.P-10. P.W.9, the Mediator for the alleged confessions and recoveries, was stating about the accused starting running on seeing the police jeep, police chasing and catching them and if both the accused were admittedly law abiding citizens prior to the incident, such a conduct also does not sound convincing. P.W.9 did not even remember who wrote the Panchanamas and his leaving his coolie work on that day and following the police for no reason also was not convincing. 10. P.W.8 is the younger brother of P.W.2 and P.W.7 admitted that it was dark and raining at the time making it doubtful whether P.Ws.7 and 8 are able to watch the alleged overt acts of the either accused. P.W.6 only knew that some one stabbed some one and denied stating to the police supporting the prosecution and though P.W.5 heard that P.Ws.2 and 3 sustained injuries, he denied witnessing the incident on stating to the police as in Ex.P-4. Apart from P.W.7, P.Ws.5 and 6 are the only independent witnesses examined by the prosecution and their hostility creates the necessity to scrutinize the interested evidence of the other witnesses with more circumspection. 11. P.W.4 who treated P.Ws.2 and 3 on their being brought to the Nursing Home at about 11.30 p.m. on 13.10.2005 was stating about the Sub-Inspector of Police being with the injured when they were admitted into the Hospital and a report having been already given earlier. P.W.2 and P.W.3, the injured, of course, deposed in tune with the prosecution story, but P.W.2 admitted that there was no enmity with anybody residing in the complex. The first accused, working as a teacher admittedly, had no past criminal record and if the accused stabbed P.Ws.2 and 3 inside the house of the accused, the assumption by the trial Court that the accused might have retaliated in self-defence cannot be considered to be baseless. P.W.1 who gave the report to the police is the son-in-law of P.W.2 and he had no acquaintance with the accused prior to the incident. The removal of an obstructing telephone wire kept on the way by him was claimed to have led to the incident and given the ordinary and natural course of human conduct, it is doubtful whether such a trivial matter would have enraged the accused 1 and 2, who were not alleged to be not law abiding citizens earlier, to indulge in an attempt to kill two others residing in the same complex. In spite of being beaten allegedly by the accused P.W.1 himself claimed to have suffered no injuries and though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 may raise strong suspicions about the possible involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, various other circumstances elicited above, may make any proof beyond reasonable doubt not possible. The trial Court had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses and its impressions about the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses can be interfered with only on very positive and sure grounds, which do not appear to be present here. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail. 12. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 9th December, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.346 of 2008 Date: 9th December, 2011 KL