THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 of 2011 BETWEEEN: 1. Salijamala Venkataiah & another. … Appellants AND 1. J.Ramesh & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Though the sessions case is pending in the lower Court against eleven accused persons, the case was split up by the lower Court against the respondent/A7 who was working as Circle Inspector of Prohibition and Excise. The case was instituted as a private complaint by PWs 1 and 2. It is alleged that A7 along with other accused and other officials raided on the house of PWs 1 and 2 during night time, broke open doors of the house, beat PW1 and other inmates of the house and misbehaved with PW2, who is wife of PW1 and also daughter of PWs 1 and 2, by pulling their sarees etc. and took away several gold ornaments worth lakhs of rupees. The charges leveled against the respondent/accused in the lower Court were under Sections 454, 427, 323, 324, 354, 395, 147, 149 I.P.C. There is no dispute that on the date of incident, PW1 was arrested by the accused party and was sent to the Magistrate for remand in Crime No.201/1996-97 of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Giddalur. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that there are photographs as well as videograph relating to breaking of doors of PW1’s house and disturbance of articles inside the house. It is not a live videograph taken during the course of the incident. When there was obstruction from arresting PW1 during that night, it cannot be said that the law-enforcing agency shall not resort to coercive methods while enforcing law. It is contended that there is consistent version of all the witnesses with regard to the incident which took place during the course of the transaction. The lower Court considered the entire evidence let in by the prosecution and did not place reliance on such evidence as it was parrot like. When thirty to forty officials and staff rounded house of PWs 1 and 2 in order to arrest PW1 and sensing obstruction for his arrest, the question of any of the accused much less A7 committing offences under Sections 395 and 354 I.P.C. may not arise at all. The allegations are highly improbable and are highly exaggerated. The lower Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and recorded acquittal of A7. 2. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 08.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.747 of 2011 DATED: 08.06.2011 ysk