HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1197 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment delivered by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, R.R. District in S.C. No. 36 of 2000, dated 20.5.2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A1 to A6 in the case of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 and 201 of IPC. The relevant facts which led to the filing of the present revision are stated as under: On 24.2.1998 at about 9.30 p.m., the defacto complainant, namely, K. Rajeshwari, lodged a complaint stating that her son, K. Sambasiva Rao( the deceased) had been missing since 14.2.1998 and she furnished the descriptive particulars of the deceased including the apparel that he wore at the relevant time. She suspected that one R.M. Rajaiah and his family members were behind the disappearance of her son because her deceased son and P.W.14, namely, N. Suvarna Jyothi, who is the daughter of the said Rajaiah fell in love with her son and there was a controversy in that regard. Basing on the complaint, the police registered the case in Crime No. 35/98 under the head ‘man missing’ and conducted necessary investigation of the case. Thereafter, the police took up and conducted the investigation of the case and apprehended A4 on 26.2.1998, who made a confession before the police to the effect that a body was burnt on the outskirts of Meerpet. Then he also showed the same place where the body was found in that condition. Thereafter, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased. On the completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 15 and got marked Exs. P1 to P29. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. While disbelieving the version of the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the said offences, whereas aggrieved by that, the defacto complainant has filed the present revision. Therefore, it is to be examined as to whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence with regard to the alleged offences and whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions and the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is sustainable or not. P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased deposed about the missing of her deceased son and she also deposed that on 14.2.1998, when her son was sleeping, A4 came to their house and invited him to attend dinner at Meerpet in the evening and at about 3.00 p.m. her son went out along with A4 but did not return and hence she lodged a report with the police, basing on which, the police registered the case in Crime No. 35/98 under the head ‘man missing’. However, two days thereafter, the police informed her about the death of her son and asked her to come to Meerpet to identify the dead body and when she went there, she was shown the place where burnt her son’s dead body. P.W.2, who is the brother of the deceased corroborated the version of P.W.1, whereas P.W.3, another brother of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.6, 7 and 10 are panch witnesses. P.W.9 is the photographer who photographed the scene of offence. P.Ws. 8, 11 and 15 are the police officials, who conducted the investigation of the case. Further, P.W.15, the investigating officer deposed about seizing of M.Os. 1 to 3 and about sending skull bones, burnt clothes, blood scrapings and one pass port size photo to forensic science laboratory for analysis. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the incident. Further, even though P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated that they were taken by the police to Meerpet and shown the place, P.W.11, the Investigating Officer specifically denied the same. With regards to the seizure of the material objects, M.Os. 1 to 7 also, there are contradictions in the version of the prosecution witnesses. Further, P.W.1 specifically stated that the father of P.w.14, Suvarna Jyothi shifted his residence to Meerpet due to the love affair between his daughter and the deceased, the prosecution did not examine the said Rajaiah. Even P.W.1 stated that at the time when her son left the house, he was wearing chocolate colour pant and grey colour shirt, but, according to Ex.P29, Forensic Science Laboratory report, the clothes which were sent for analysis were (1) a torn yellow colour cloth piece with burnt stains;(2) a torn yellow colour cloth piece with burnt stains; (3) A blue & white design synthetic cloth piece with zari border with burnt stains; (4) a torn white cut sleeved banian piece with burnt stains and (5) a torn black, blue and white striped cloth piece with burnt stains. Hence the clothes which the deceased said to be wearing at the time of the incident are not tallying with the ones sent for analysis. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no incriminating material against A1 to A6 in the case and the Court below has properly considered the evidence on record and rightly acquitted them of the offences alleged against them. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the Court below. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed while confirming the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court below in favour of A1 to A6 in the case. ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 21.7.2011 pnb