THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1376 of 2004 Dated:17th June, 2010 Mineni Gopal ….Petitioner/PW.1 and 1. Vanga Deva Karunakar Reddy & Ors. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1376 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 11.11.2003 passed in Sessions Case No.223 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nandyal, Kurnool District, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found A1 Vanga Deva Karunakar Reddy, A2 Vanga Venkatarami Reddy, A3 Vanga Chandra Sekhar Reddy, A4 Konda Mahanandeeswara Reddy, A5 Katta Rami Reddy and A6 Kolli Nagi Reddy not guilty of the offences under Sections 307 and 307 r/w.34 IPC and acquitted them accordingly. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is: On 30.05.2000 at about 12.00 Noon, A1 to A6, in pursuance of their common intention to do away the life of PW.1 M.Gopal, attacked him with axes and sticks in paddy fields near Pradhama Nandi Temple of Nandyal Town and caused bleeding injuries to him. PW.2 M.Venubabu witnessed the incident. PW.1 was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal, in a tractor. PW.9 D. Mohiddin, Head Constable, II Town P.S., Nandyal P.S., received Ex.P12 hospital intimation from the Government Hospital, with regard to admission of PW.1 in the hospital. He went to the Government Hospital, Nandyal and recorded the statement of PW.1, which has been exhibited as Ex.P1. He sent Ex.P1 statement along with Ex.P12 hospital intimation to Nandyal III Town P.S. on the point of jurisdiction. PW.10 D.Venkataiah, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town P.S., Nandyal, received Ex.P12 and Ex.P1 from Nandyal II Town P.S. and registered a case in Crime No.71 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 r/w.34 IPC and issued Ex.P13 FIR. By the time he went to the Government Hospital, Nandyal, to record the statement of PW.1, PW.1 had been shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Therefore, he went to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and examined PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their statements. He secured the presence of mediators and seized MO.1 blood stained shirt under the cover of Ex.P11 panchanama. On 13.05.2000 he visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch, which has been exhibited as Ex.P14. He examined PW.4, PW.5 and PW.7 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW.11 S.Khadar Vali, Sub-Inspector of Police, III Town P.S., Nandyal, took-up further investigation and arrested A1 to A6 near ILTD Company, Nandyal, on 09.06.2000 at about 9.30 A.M. and sent them for remand. On 10.06.2000 he sent letter to the S.D.P.O., Nandyal, seeking permission for deleting the names of Krupa Reddy, Umamaheswara Reddy and Konda Nagi Reddy from the array of the accused. After receiving permission from SDPO, he deleted their names from the array of the accused. After completion of investigation, he laid charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal. 3. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C.No.61 of 2000 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Kurnool, as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, took the case on file as Sessions Case No.223 of 2001 and made over the same to the Court of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, for disposal according to law. 5. On appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, framed charges under Section 307 IPC against A1 to A4 and under Section 307 r/w.34 IPC against A5 and A6. He read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and proved 15 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and exhibited one material object as MO.1. The plea of the accused was one of total denial of the case. The accused marked 10 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10 on their behalf. 7. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused and found them not guilty and acquitted them accordingly for the offence under Section 307 IPC and under Section 307 r/w.34 IPC, by judgment dated 11.11.2003. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the petitioner/PW.1, who is the de facto complainant. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/de facto complainant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6/accused. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/de facto complainant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record and thereby erred in recording acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6/accused for the offence under Sections 307 IPC and 307 r/w.34 IPC. A further submission has been made that the petitioner, who has been examined as PW.1, is an injured witness and his testimony is amply corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore, the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6/accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 307 r/w.34 IPC is liable to be set aside and instead they are liable to be convicted of the same. 10. In a revision against the acquittal, the revisional Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is therefore, to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is possible, the revisional Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. 11. PW.1 and PW.2 are the material witnesses to speak of the incident. PW.2 did not support the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution declared him as hostile. Therefore, the entire case rests on the testimony of PW.1. 12. It is no doubt true that the conviction of an accused can be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness. However, in such a case, the Court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witness and that his testimony is free from blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration. The testimony of the witness must be one which inspires confidence and leaves no doubt in mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the witness. Where there is only a sole eyewitness of a crime, a conviction can be awarded provided the Court which hears such witness regards him as honest and truthful, but prudence requires corroboration in support of the testimony of the sole witness. 13. PW.1 is the injured. His earliest statement came to be recorded by PW.9 in Government Hospital, Nandyal on 30.05.2000 at 1.15 P.M. which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.71 of 2000. PW.1 implicated 9 persons as the assailants. But, the police after due investigation deleted the names of three persons, out of the 9, whose names have been spoken out by PW.1 in Ex.P1 statement, from the arrayed of the accused. The statement of PW.1 came to be recorded by the learned Magistrate, which has been exhibited as Ex.P15. After registering the crime, police recorded the statement of PW.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The trial Court examined the 3 statements of Pw.1 and found that they are incompatible and they contain lot of inconsistencies with each other. The trial Court pointed out the inconsistencies in paras.23 to 25 of the judgment, which read as hereunder: “23. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, his first report is Ex.P1, which was recorded by PW.9 in Government Hospital, Nandyal at 1.15 P.M. basing on which F.I.R. was registered, he named 9 persons as the assailants and he stated that Umamaheswara Reddi, Kolli Nagi Reddi, Vanga Rami Reddy and Konda Rami Reddi caught hold of him. But curiously their names are not found in the charge-sheet. PW.11, the S.I. of Police stated that they have not participated in the occurrence and hence he deleted their names in the charge-sheet after obtaining permission from S.D.P.O. In Ex.P1, PW.1 stated that A1 hacked with an axe on his head, Venkata Rami Reddy hacked him on his left shoulder. Mahanandi Reddi hacked him on his neck and Chanrasekhar Reddi hacked him on his left thigh with an axe causing bleeding injury. Krupakar Reddi hacked him on his let foot. This is the earliest version of PW.1. The time of offence is 12 Noon and he stated that if his brother intervened, he would have been killed by the accused. 24. Within 10 minutes thereafter, the Magistrate recorded the statement, in which, PW.1 stated that he was brought to the Hospital by neighbours and Police of II Town P.S. This portion is marked as Ex.D3. He also stated that A1 hacked him on his foot and Chandrasekhar Reddi and Venkata Rami Reddy bet on his left thigh and also hacked him on his left thigh and all the accused bet him with sticks and hacked him with axes. Kolli Nagi Reddy and Katta Rami Reddi also bet him with sticks and axed him. These two portions are marked as Exs.D1 and D2. This is the 2nd statement given by PW.1. 25.The next statement is, the statement recorded by police under S.161 (3) Cr.P.C. In this statement, he deleted the names of Krupakara Reddi, Kolli Nagi Reddy, Umamaheswara Reddi and Vanga Rami Reddi. But added Katta Rami Reddy. This statement, according to the Police was recorded on the same day at about 3.00 P.M. The time of offence as per the statement is at 12 Noon. The overt act mentioned is that A1 hacked on his head. Vanga Venkata Rami Reddi hacked him on his left shoulder, Chandra Sekhar Reddi hacked him on his left thigh and Konda Mahanandi Reddi hacked him on his neck and Katta Rami Reddi hacked him on his left foot and Kolli Nagi Reddi bet him on his left leg causing contusion. Finally, in his evidence before the Court, he improved his version and stated that A1 hacked him on his head and when he tried to ward-of the blow, it had fallen on his right wrist. A5 hacked him with an axe on his left foot. A6 bet him with a stick on his left thigh. He did not state the presence of Kolli Nagi Reddi and Vanga Rami Reddy. Therefore, there are number of contradictions, additions and improvements from time to time in the statement of PW.1.” It is evident from the material brought on record that there is no consistency in the evidence of Pw.1. Such is the testimony of PW.1, the trial Court is justified in not placing implicit reliance on his testimony and recording acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6/accused for the offences under Section 307 and 307 r/w.34 IPC. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th June, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1376 of 2004 Dated:17th June, 2010