THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.566 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal, at the instance of the State, against the judgment, dated 04.06.2003, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in S.C.No.267 of 2001, whereby the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that two months prior to 22.09.2000, the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from PWs.1 and 2 as hand loan. Thereafter, on the demands made by PWs.1 and 2, the accused quarreled with them and at last repaid the said loan amount five days prior to 22.09.2000. On 22.09.2000, when PW.1 went to his work to attend his second shift which would be over by 10.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of PWs.1 and 2 at 10.00 p.m. and found that PW.2 was alone in the house and demanded her for payment of Rs.15,000/-. When PW.2 refused to pay the said amount, the accused slapped her on her left cheek and when she questioned him, he picked up a pestle and beat on her head. Then the injured-PW.2 raised cries and fell in a chair unconscious. Thereafter, the accused left the place by leaving his chappals. By hearing the cries of the injured, PW.3 and his wife Shaik Hasiyabee came out of their house and found the accused going away in a hurried manner and, thereafter, one Miryala Raja Rao and PW.4-Narra Yellaiah also came there and found the injured with injuries. Subsequently, PW.1 came to his house at 10.30 p.m. and shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Khammam, and at 0010 hours, he went to Khanapur police station and lodged a complaint. PW.9 has registered a case in Crime No.162 of 2000, visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and another, seized the blood stained plastering pieces, control plastering pieces and wooden pestle and sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory analysed the said material objects and sent a report stating that blood was detected on blood stained plastering pieces and wooden pestle and that the blood found on wooden pestle was human origin, but could not detect the group of blood. The doctor, who examined the injured, opined that the injured sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury. The injured-PW.2 was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for further treatment. The accused was arrested on 23.09.2000 at 1200 hours and, after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 4. In order to establish the said charge, the prosecution examined nine witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 to 4 5. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, by taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the state has preferred the present appeal. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 307 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 7. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued that when there are no direct eyewitnesses to the incident, the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses has to be relied upon to arrive at conclusion that the accused has caused the injuries on the head of the injured, but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the evidence of Pws.3 and 7, who stated to have found the accused going out of the house of the injured immediately after the incident in a hurried manner. 8. According to the prosecution, on 22.09.2000, when PW.1 went to attend his work in the second shift, the accused entered into his house at 10.00 p.m. and found PW.2, the wife of PW.1, alone in the house and demanded her to pay Rs.15,000/-. On her refusal, the accused slapped her on her left cheek and when she questioned him, he beat her with a pestle on her head, due to which she immediately became unconscious. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that PW.1 came to his house at 10.30 p.m., shifted the injured to the hospital and lodged a complaint at 0010 hours at Khanapur police station. PW.2 admitted in her evidence that she became unconscious immediately after the incident and that she could not speak for one month 20 days after the incident. Ex.P1 does not disclose about the person who has informed PW.1 about the incident and it only refers that some unknown offender had entered the house and caused injuries to PW.2. In support of the version that the prosecution could able to establish the offence against the accused, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon the evidence of PW.7, who is the son of the accused and who was present at the time of incident and has spoken about the incident. But, as observed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, PW.7 was added subsequently as a witness and if really PW.7 was present at the time of incident, he would have informed PW.1 about the person who beat the injured-PW.2, but Ex.P1 does not disclose that PW.7 informed PW.1 about the incident or that the accused has beat the injured. Therefore, the Court below has rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW.7 with regard to his witnessing the incident. 9. The next contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that PW.3, the circumstantial witness, has spoken about the accused coming out of the house of PW.2 immediately after the incident in a hurried manner. 10. According to the prosecution, on hearing the cries of the injured, PW.3 and his wife has gone to the house of the injured and found the accused going away in a hurried manner. PW.3 has stated that on hearing the cries of the injured, himself and his wife has gone to the house of the injured and found the injured sitting in a chair with profused bleeding. But, in the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that his house is at a distance of 45 feet from the house of PW.1 and that if one stands in front of his house, he cannot see the person standing in front of the house of PW.1 and that there were no street lights in front of his house and also in front of the house of PW.1. PW.3 further stated that on that night, when PW.1 returned from duty, he told him that he saw a person coming out of his house and that the people who gathered there were telling that somebody beat PW.2 and went away. PW.3 also stated that on the next day morning, PW.1 told him that the accused beat PW.2 and that the other persons at the bazar also told that the accused beat PW.2. Therefore, according to PW.3, there were no street lights in front of his house and also in front of the house of PW.1 and, as such, he could not identify the person standing in front of the house of PW.1 at the time of incident and that he did not tell PW.1 about the accused coming out of his house, but he only stated that on the next day morning, PW.1 has informed him that the accused beat his wife-PW.2. Therefore, it is clear that PW.3 has not identified the accused as the person who came out of the house of PW.1 at the time of incident and that there is no other evidence to establish that the accused has caused injuries to PW.2. Even though the prosecution could establish that the injured-PW.2 has sustained grievous injuries from the evidence of PWs.6 and 8, they could not establish that the accused is the person who is responsible for causing the injuries to PW.2 with an intention to cause her death. Thus, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 307 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the said finding does not warrant any interference of this Court. 11. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD 10.06.2011 v v