THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1467 OF 2005 Dated:03.11.2009 Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Appellant And Malla Vykunta Rao and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.171 of 2001, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsannapeta by the judgment, dated 20.09.2004, led the State to file the appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. The factual background for the appeal is that the Sub Inspector of Police, Polaki filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that there were disputes, between Thulugu Bhaskara Rao and the accused, due to which, on 10.12.2001 at about 10.00 p.m., all the accused criminally trespassed into the land of Thulugu Bhaskara Rao and set fire to the paddy heaps. It was alleged that the accused took away three paddy bags and caused loss of Rs.10,000/- and the police registered Cr.No.74 of 2001 on the report of Bhaskara Rao. The Sub Inspector of Police got an observation report prepared before the mediators, examined the witnesses and arrested the accused. Three paddy bags were recovered in the thrashing floor of accused No.3, under a panchanama and hence, the prosecution sought for punishing the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 435 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused after they entered appearance before the trial Court and they pleaded not guilty when they were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges framed under Sections 447, 435 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were denied by them. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P4, D1 to D4 and M.O.1 during trial. The accused denied the allegations made against them, when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence evidence was produced by them. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the oral and documentary evidence in detail and on analyzing the various discrepancies in the evidence, more particularly of PWs.1 to 3, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial Court acquitted the accused. The appeal is based on the alleged weight given by the trial Court to minor discrepancies, which do not touch the root of the case and the judgment in question was contended to be full of conjectures and surmises without discussing the case of the prosecution in its correct perspective. Heard Sri K. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, and Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the accused. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:- The ill feelings between PW.1 and the accused were alleged by the prosecution itself, as having led to the incident and the strained relationship between the parties, makes it necessary to scrutinize the evidence with extra care and caution before acceptance. That apart, PW.1 was the de facto complainant and aggrieved, while PW.2 was his mother and PW.3 was a person working as a labourer under PWs.1 and 2. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 was therefore necessarily tainted with interestedness and though interestedness by itself is no indication of any falsity, it is well settled that it will be a safe rule of prudence to look for independent corroboration for such interested evidence. Out of three independent witnesses examined, PW.4 was not an eye witness and denied being examined by the police and giving Ex.D4 statement to the police. Apart from stating about PW.2 filing a case against the accused and others showing long standing enmity between the parties, PW.4 claimed that six paddy heaps were burnt, while PW.3 stated that only five paddy heaps were burnt. The other independent witness - PW.6 also stated about the previous disputes between PW.1 and accused regarding fisheries and though he claimed to have attested Ex.P3 mediators report, he admittedly did not remember, as to who was the scribe of the Ex.P3 - mediators report nor the contents of the report themselves. The Assistant Secretary of the Village examined as PW.5 claimed to have sent a report to the police through the Talayari, but his claim about PWs.1 and 2 owning only Ac.0.78 cents as opposed to the claim of PWs.1 and 2 that they own Ac.0.80 cents, makes it doubtful, as to whether the scene of offence, which was in the remaining Ac.0.02 cents, belonged to PWs.1 and 2 at all. While this was the independent evidence of the witnesses, the evidence of PW.7 – Sub Inspector of Police was clear about the delay in the First Information Report and he admitted that he did not receive any report from PW.5 through Talayari, contrary to the claims of PW.5. The Investigating Officer also admitted Exs.D1 to D4 - 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by him from the witnesses, which the respective witnesses denied and thus the interested version of PWs.1 to 3 does not appear to derive any strong support from the evidence of PWs.4 to 7. PW.1 admitted the origin of the disputes to be the disputes about leasehold rights for fishing in the Panchayat Tanks and it is also admitted that PWs.1 and 2 gave reports against the accused in 1999 and 2000 which even were not registered by the police. PW.2 – the mother of PW.1 also admitted about the previous disputes and so was PW.3. They did not even try to extinguish the flames according to PW.3 and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about their identifying the accused with the help of a torch light, which was brought by them, was squarely contradicted by the admission of PW.3 that they did not bring anything with them except a hand stick. The possibility of identifying the accused or any others, therefore, was in doubt and if by the use of a torch light, PWs.1 and 2 could identify accused Nos.1 to 5, there was no rational reason for their inability to identify some other persons, who were also with the accused in committing the offences. Strangely no other farmers or their workers were present in any of the neighbouring fields except PWs.1 to 3 in the filed of PWs.1 and 2 and the claim of PWs.1 and 2 about the other villagers numbering about 20 assisting them in their attempts to extinguish the fire becomes not credible, due to the very distance between the village and the scene of offence and also due to the positive claim of PW.3 about the absence of any attempts to put out the fire. While PW.3 did not even state, as to how he identified the accused, the witness admitted that earlier cases filed were referred by the police as false. Under the circumstances, the inconsistencies and improbabilities, arising out of the evidence of the prosecution, cannot be considered trivial or insignificant and the conclusions of the trial Court about the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt, cannot be considered unfounded or unreasonable. To reverse an acquittal, requires very strong and convincing reasons, which do not appear in the present case and consequently the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 3rd November 2009 KH