THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1292 OF 2005 Between: Ponnala Mallaiah S/o Gopal … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents ORDER: The de-facto complainant PW-1 laid this revision seeking to set aside the acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar on 19.5.2005 against A1 and A2 (respondents 2 and 3 herein) in C.C.No. 215 of 2004. Accused 1 and 2 allegedly committed mischief and intimidated PWs 1 to 4 and others on the intervening night of 5/6-02-2004 at Gundi Village, thus committed the offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Considering that no case was made out against the accused, the learned trial Judge acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid by PW-1. The point for consideration is whether this revision against acquittal is sustainable? Smt. K. V. Rajasri, learned counsel for the accused placed reliance upon PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. VS. KAMIDI VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY[1]. In that case, the decision of the Supreme Court in VIMAL SINGH VS. KHUMAN SINGH [2] was referred to. A single Judge of this Court pointed out that only in the event of compiling reasons, the acquittal recorded by the trial Court can be set aside. It was observed that in the ordinary circumstances, a decision of acquittal recorded by the trial Court should not be reversed in due exercise of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. She also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in STATE OF A.P. REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD VS. RAMANCHA LAXMA REDDY[3]. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court again took a similar view placing reliance upon various decisions of the Supreme Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there are no compiling circumstances to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. She further pointed out that the judgment of the trial Court was not perverse and does not need to be reversed. I may briefly state the facts of the case at this stage. i) The accused are the residents of Gundi Village, Ramadugu Mandal. PWs 1 to 4 also belong to the same village. ii) The villagers constructed payal to deities Sammakka and Sarakka in the toddy tope of the Village. There was a Hundi at the temple. To safeguard the Hundi the villagers were sharing the watching during night time. On the intervening night of 5/6-2-2004, PWs 1 to 4 slept at the temple to safe guard the Hundi. iii) Munjala Ashok Aditya, who is no more, was one of the devotees of Sammakka and Sarakka. After midnight, A1 and A2 went to the temple site in a drunken state. They questioned the propriety of the erection of Shilaphalakam ( a plaque) by former Sarpanch by name Apuri Raja Goud, Gopalraopet. A1 destroyed the foundation stone of the plaque and A2 threw away the pieces of the destructed plaque in the tank water. When PWs 1 to 4 tried to protest against the conduct of A1 and A2, the Accused threatened PWs 1 to 4 with dire consequences. iv) PWs 1 to 4 consequently kept quite. On 7.2.2004, at about 10.30 PM, Munjala Ashok Aditya went to the Police Station and lodged Ex. P2 report. Ex. P-3, FIR was consequently issued. Thereafter, the accused were arrested. Sri. M. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant-PW-1 strenuously contended that the prosecution established the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal of the accused by the learned trial Judge was on a perverse appreciation of evidence. It may be noticed that A1 was Sarpanch of the Village for about 15 years. It would appear that A1 has been a member of MPTC and his wife is the present Sarpanch of the Village. One Manjula and 5 others contested for the post of Sarpanch. The wife of A1 by name Saroja was ultimately elected. It is evident that there are political rivalry between the accused on the one side and PWs 1 to 4 on the other side in connection with the MPTC elections as well as the elections of the Sarpanch. Added to it, there is no consistency in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 regarding the circumstances in which the incident occurred. Ex P-2 is the complaint lodged by the Munjala Ashok Aditya. As many as five persons attested the same. There are corrections in the names of attesters with reference to the first name. Again there are corrections below the signature of the de-facto complainant. More over, it is the case of late Ashok Aditya that the accused destroyed the plaque and threw the same in Jampanna Vagu. While so, in his evidence, PW-1 deposed that the plaque was thrown away by A2 after it was destroyed in the Gundam water (perhaps a tank). However, PW-1 deposed that it is A2 who threw the plaque in Gundam water, whereas from Ex. P-2, it looks as if both the accused threw away the destroyed pieces of the plaque in Jampanna Vogu. PW-2, one of the eyewitnesses did not speak about the throwing of the destroyed pieces by the accused. He merely deposed that the plaque was destroyed by the accused. PW-3 deposed that after the plaque was destroyed, the pieces were thrown into Koneru (a Tank). PW-4 finally deposed that the pieces of the destroyed plaque were thrown in Jampanna Vogu. Out of PWs 1 to 4, it is only PW-4 who agreed with Ex.P-2 that both the accused threw the destroyed pieces in Jampanna Vogu. The rest of the witnesses gave different versions as to how the destroyed plaque was disposed of by the accused. As already pointed out, there is enmity between the accused on the one side and PWs 1 to 4 on the other side on account of elections. Added to it, while the incident occurred after midnight of 6.2.2004, the complaint was lodged as late as by 10.30 PM on 7.2.2004. There was a delay of about 20 hours in lodging Ex. P-2 complaint. No convincing explanation was offered for the delay by the prosecution. I agree that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution story. However, where PWs 1 to 4 are enmical towards accused, the non-explanation of delay in lodging the complaint becomes fatal to the prosecution. Added to it, there are contradictions as to how the destroyed plaque (Shilaphalakam) was disposed of by the accused after destroying the same. In view of these contradictions, I consider that the trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I see no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The offences under Sections 427 and 506 IPC certainly are not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the judgment of the trial court is not perverse, the same is not liable to be set-aside in the present revision. This Criminal Revision Case is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 27.08.2011 KA [1] 2010 (3) ALT (CRL.) 253 (A.P) [2] AIR 1998 SC 3380 [3] 2010 (3) ALT (CRL.) 374 (DB) (AP)