THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 of 2010 DATE: 25TH JANUARY 2010 Between: The State of A.P. rep by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. And another. …Appellant / Petitioner AND Gopasani Sreenivasulu And others …Respondents / Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.247 of 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 02.09.2008, made in S.C.No.397 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali, whereunder and whereby, the respondents/accused were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and were accordingly acquitted 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows. On 15.06.2007, at about 10.00 P.M., while P.W.1 was proceeding to his village on his motorcycle, all the accused intercepted his motorcycle near Venkateswaraswamy Padalu and tried to kill him. P.W.1 managed to escape from the hands of the accused and ran into forest in the darkness. P.W.1 informed the incident to P.W.2 – his friend, on his mobile. P.W.1 also informed about the incident to his parents through his mobile, who reached the place of incident. On the strength of the report of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1, P.W.6 registered a case against the accused in Crime No.84 of 2007 under Section 307 I.P.C., examined the witness, visited the scene of offence, seized Ex.P.2 – R.C.Card and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.5. P.W.7 – Sub Inspector of Police verified the investigation made by P.W.6, arrested the accused and sent them for remand and filed charge-sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 307 I.P.C., was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No evidence was adduced except marking Ex.D.1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that the necessary ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. are not made out against the accused and accordingly, acquitted all the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is preferred by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 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.W.1 would clearly go to show that all the accused intercepted the motorcycle of P.W.1 and tried to kill him and therefore, charge under Section 307 I.P.C. has been made out on all the accused and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though the Appellate Court has got full power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. Admittedly, P.W.2 and P.W.5, came to the scene of occurrence, after coming to know about the incident from P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable. Thus, entire case rests on the solitary testimony of P.W.1 who is the witness to the incident. When prosecution relied upon the evidence of solitary witness, it must be unperversive, true, trustworthy and reliable. If the evidence of P.W.1 is put in the category of wholly reliable, then there is no legal bar to base a conviction even without corroboration. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not sustain any injuries. No doubt, it is not a condition precedent that the victim should sustain injuries on his person from the accused. It is suffice to say that the accused, with an intention or knowledge, made an attempt to commit murder of P.W.1. On the other hand, prior to the incident, P.W.1 was maintaining a Casette Recorder shop and was carrying on that business whereas, after the incident, he appointed A-1 in the same business and left the village. That means, there must be some business rivalry between P.W.1 and A-1. At the time of the incident, P.W.1 has not sustained any injuries whereas A-1 sustained serious injuries. This fact was even admitted by P.W.1. A-1 was not sent for any examination. Except stating that the accused intercepted his bike and threatened to kill him, there are no specific overtacts attributed to the accused. It is not the case of P.W.1 that all the accused were carrying deadly weapons and with an intention to kill him, gave a blow with the knowledge that such a blow will likely to cause death. 11. On the other hand, immediately when P.W.1 was intercepted, he left his bike and ran into the forest area. In the earlier statement, P.W.1 stated that the accused tried to intercept him, beat him on his legs and hands and due to fear, he ran into the forest area. But in the cross-examination, he stated that none of the accused beat him with hands or even touched his body. No explanation is forthcoming as to how A-1 sustained serious injuries. Therefore, the prosecution has suppressed the material facts of the incident and tried to project a new case, so as to suit the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted all the accused. The said order of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 02.09.2008 made in S.C.No.397 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kavali. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU January 25, 2010 Bvv