HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2212 OF 2004 Dated 28-02-2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ……..Appellant And: S.K. Nanne Khasim @ Chinna Khasim @ Sk. Sai and 32 others. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2212 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is at the instance of the State against the acquittal of the accused in S.C.No.74 of 2003 by the Assistant Sessions Judge at Gurazala on 06.11.2003. The case of the prosecution is that there were M.P.T.C elections on 12.7.2001 for Akurajupalli, Zinkalapalem etc., and in view of those elections there was some galata between Congress (I) people and Telugu Desam party people. The accused were supporters of Congress Party candidate for MPTC elections of Akurajupalli. Simultaneously there was MPTC elections for two more villages viz., Zinkalapalem or Turakapalem and Kothapalem villages. The rival party Muslims supported the Telugu Desam Party candidate belongs to Kothapalem who elected Telugu Desam party candidate unanimously with the help of Telugu Desam party people Zinkalapalem. The Zinkalapalem Muslims divided into two groups. On 12.7.2001 after completion of polling at Zinkalapalem, there was a quarrel between two groups of Muslims at about 9.00 p.m due to misunderstandings. Therefore, the quarrel was informed to Machavaram police station by some of the villagers. P.W.3 who is the Station House Officer deputed P.Ws.1 and 2 when they returned from polling duty to Zinkalapalem and they reached the village by 9.00 p.m., they found two groups quarreling with each other. P.Ws.1 and 2 disbursed them by making whistles. One of the two groups went away and the remaining group who are accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sticks and axes. While P.Ws.1 and 2 discharged their official duties beat with sticks and axes with a view to kill them and inflicted bleeding injuries. Meanwhile, P.Ws.4 to 6 and 11 intervened and pacified the quarrel. While P.Ws.1 and 2 returned, all the accused chased them with deadly weapons. Among the accused, A-1 beat P.W.1 with a stick on his head and inflicted bleeding injury. A.2 tried to axe P.W.2, and in the mean while P.W.1 intervened and resisted him. A.3 and 4 sprinkled chilly powder on the faces of P.Ws.1 and 2. The remaining accused chased P.Ws.1 and 2 to some distance. P.Ws.1 and 2 returned to police station and P.W.1 gave a report. Then the Sub Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station has registered the case in Crime No.47 of 2001 under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC of Machavaram police station on 12.7.2001 at about 10.30 p.m on the basis of the report of P.W.1 and issued FIR and took up the investigation. The Investigating Officer has sent the P.W.1 to Government hospital, Gurazala for treatment and he visited the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and prepared the scene of offence observation report. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.10 who treated P.W.1 issued wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature. The Investigating Officer arrested A.1 to A.4, A.6 to A.14, A.16 to A.22, A.24 to A.26, A.29 to A.35 on 20.7.2001 and sent them for remand. He also arrested A.5, A.23 and A.27 and sent them for remand. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against A-1 to A-35 under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC, against A-1 to A.6, 8 to 14, 16 to 35. Since the accused No.7 is died, the case against A.7 was abated and the case against A.15 was separated as he was absconding right from beginning. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, acquitted all the above accused for the offences under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC and under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. The main contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly establishes that the accused has attacked the P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused injuries to P.W.1 and they obstructed them in discharging their official duties. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused, on the other hand, pleaded that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is contrary to the Crime registered by the same police in Crime No.48 of 2001 against both the groups under Section 160 of IPC. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could able to establish the offences under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC? The learned Sessions Judge mainly disbelieving the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the scene of offence at the time mentioned by them in view of the registering the Crime No.48 of 2001 at the instance of P.Ws.1 and 2. He also disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3 with regard to deputing P.Ws.1 and 2 to Zinkalapalem village and also the P.W.1 lodging the complaint against 21 persons without knowing their names. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police constables who are deputed to Zinkalapalem village by P.W.3 on receipt of the information about the Galata taking place at Zinkalapalem village between the two groups. According to P.Ws.1 and 2 they returned to Machavaram police station at 8.00 or 8.30 p.m after attending their election duty at Kothaganesunipadu and Mallavolu and they reached Zinkalapalem at 9.00 p.m and the incident was taken place when they are trying to disburse two groups from the place by pacifying them and the accused during the course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C has produced Ex.D.1 certified copy of charge sheet filed in C.C.No.373 of 2001 in Crime No.48 of 2001 and they were charge sheeted under Section 160 IPC and the said Crime was also registered at the instance of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the said Crime, it was mentioned that the incident has taken place at 7.00 p.m on 12.1.2007. But, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, they were at Zinkalapalem village at 9.00 p.m on that day. More over the said incident in Crime No.48 of 2001 took place prior to the alleged incident in this case. But, the same was registered subsequent to the registration of the crime in the present case. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at Zinkalapalem village at that time as stated by them i.e., at 9.00 p.m is doubtful. According to P.W.1, he sustained bleeding injury but whereas Doctor P.W.10 has only stated that P.W.1 only sustained contusion injury and ruled out the oozing of the blood from the said injury. Therefore, the prosecution also could not able to establish that the P.W.1 sustained any grievous injury as alleged by them. More over, apart from P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.Ws.10 and 11, the other witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. As already observed above that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the village at the time of the alleged incident, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be relied upon in view of the registration of the Crime No.48 of 2001 which has taken place in the same village prior to the alleged incident. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the offences under Sections147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 149 IPC and the said finding of the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. ______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. Date:28.02.2011. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2212 OF 2004 Dated 28-02-2011 Gk.