IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1756 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Veeraboina Venkateshwarlu & another ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 30.01.2009, in C.C.No.963 of 2007, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, whereunder and whereby both the accused were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and accordingly they were acquitted. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 16.07.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., while P.W.1 and her husband-P.W.2, were making the boundary for the wet field which is situated by the side of the wet lands of Accused No.1, situated at Marrigudem Village outskirts, both the accused came there and destroyed the boundary raised by P.Ws.1 and 2 and also they beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with stick and hands and caused injuries. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. The police registered a case. Both the injured were referred to the hospital. The police examined the scene of occurrence and prepared Crime Details Form, which is marked as Ex.P3. After receipt of Ex.P4-Wound Certificate of P.W.2 and completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there is a discrepancy between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does not inspire confidence and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the charge under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very clear that P.W.2 sustained injuries; that their evidence is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence of P.W.5; that there is no reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 to speak false against the accused, and therefore, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that the accused are presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a perverse finding is given, or the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, or admissible evidence was overlooked, normally this Court will not interfere with the impugned judgment. 10. The entire evidence rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The motive for the offence is that when P.Ws.1 and 2 were making the boundary for the wet field which is situated by the side of the wet lands of Accused No.1, situated at Marrigudem Village outskirts, both the accused came there and destroyed the boundary raised by P.Ws.1 and 2. When P.Ws.1 and 2 objected, both the accused beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with stick and hands and caused injuries. The Accused No.2 beat P.W.2 with a spade causing injuries on the right shoulder and back of the body of P.W.2. P.W.5 is the doctor who examined P.W.2 and found one abrasion on the right shoulder and another abrasion on the back of the body. 11. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused beat P.W.2 with a stick. Whereas in the evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that accused beat P.W.2 with a spade on his left hand palm, P.W.2 sustained bleeding injury. Whereas, P.W.3, who is an eye witness to the incident, stated that Accused No.1 beat P.W.2 with a stick of spade causing bleeding injury to his right palm. The trial Court has not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 because their evidence with regard to the actual incident was discrepant with regard to the material particulars. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that both the accused beat P.W.2 with a spade on the left hand palm, due to which P.W.2 sustained bleeding injury and they also hacked P.W.2 on his right leg. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that Accused No.2 alone beat P.W.2 with a spade on his right hand big toe and also on his left leg. Whereas, P.W.3 stated that Accused No.1 beat P.W.2 with a stick of spade causing bleeding injury to his right palm. Therefore, all these contractions would give raise to a suspicion with regard to the actual manner of incident as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. 13. Further more, the injuries as spoken by P.Ws.1 to 3 are not in corroboration with the medical evidence because P.W.5 found only one abrasion on the right shoulder and another abrasion on the back of his body, which has not been spoken to by any one of the witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly not placed any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. There are no substantial or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 30.01.2009, in C.C.No.963 of 2007, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. ________________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 7th December, 2009 KL