IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1170 OF 2009 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Md. Nayeemuddin ..... Accused/Respondent The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed by the State against the judgment, dated 15.12.2006, in S.C.No.279 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir, whereunder and whereby, the sole accused was found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353 and 324 IPC, 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal appeal may be stated as follows: On 22.02.1991, P.W.2, who was a Constable of Yadagirigutta Police Station, was in Mufti dress at Yadagirigutta bus stand to keep a watch on the criminals and strangers of suspicious nature in connection with the Brahmotsovam of Lord Sri Laxmi Narsimha Swami, P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the constables and who were in uniform were also present there. At that time, P.W.1 came to the bus stand to find out whether constables were in the duty or not. At about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1 found P.W.2 chasing a civilian in the high school ground. When P.W.1 followed him, P.W.2 caught hold of the civilian who is no other than the accused. The accused with a view to escape from the clutches of P.W.2, bite on the wrist of P.W.2 and beat P.W.2 with the butt of a Tapancha in his hand. In the meanwhile, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went there to rescue P.W.2. Some persons gathered there. The accused started abusing the police constables and other civilians in filthy language and tried to fire the Tapancha, but it was not fired. Later, the accused took out a hand grenade from his waist and blasted the same. As a result, P.Ws.2 to 4 and others sustained injuries. P.Ws.1 to 4, 7 and 8 rushed to the accused and over powered the accused and took out the bag containing one more hand grenade and the Tapancha and also a belt containing 12 bullets and they have taken the accused to the police station. The accused was handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Yadagirigutta Police Station, who is examined as P.W.9. The Tapancha and the bullets and also hand grenade were also handed over to P.W.9. Basing on the report given by P.W.1 to P.W.9, a case was registered in Crime No.20 of 2001 under Sections 307, 353 and 324 IPC, 25(1) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and 4 and 6 of the TADA Act. P.W.9 took up the investigation, sent the injured persons who are P.Ws.2 to 4 and others to the Area Hospital, Bhongir, under requisition for examination and treatment. P.W.9 recorded the confession statement of the accused at the Police Station in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8, who are the mediators, and seized M.O.1-belt containing 13 bullets and M.O.2-Tapancha and one hand grenade under a confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The Circle Inspector of Police observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and later, the accused was arrested and he was sent to Court for judicial custody. The material objects were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the Forensic Science Laboratory gave a report on examination stating that they are the fire arms and ammunition. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the charges under Sections 307, 353 and 324 IPC, 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19, besides case properties M.Os.1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He 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 no evidence to show that the accused was the person who was caught hold by P.Ws.1 to 4, that the accused was not identified as the person who allegedly committed the offences and accordingly acquitted him. Hence, this criminal appeal 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 charges under Sections 307, 353 and 324 IPC, 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the necessary ingredients for the charges framed against the accused have been established; that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 would clearly go to show that the accused used the hand grenade which blasted causing injuries to the police personnel; that P.W.1 along with his staff and civilians over powered the accused and apprehended him and handed over the accused along with M.Os.1 and 2 to P.W.9; that it is clear case where the accused allegedly committed the offences and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. It is not in dispute that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the police constables who are the eye witnesses and P.W.5 is also an eye witness and they sustained injuries. They were examined by P.W.6-doctor. The doctor found certain injuries, but the doctor did not mention in Exs.P6 to P10, which are the wound certificates that those injuries are likely to be caused due to blast of bomb or due to hitting of splinters from the bomb. On the other hand, in all the wound certificates, it is clearly stated that those injuries were possible by beating with a blunt weapon. Therefore, the prosecution, in the first instance, failed to establish that P.Ws.1 to 5 sustained those injuries as a result of blasting of hand grenade. 10. Now it is to be seen whether the accused is the person who is in possession of M.Os.1 and 2 blasted the hand grenade. P.Ws.1 to 5 did not identify the accused as the person who blasted the hand grenade or as the person who is in possession of M.Os.1 and 2. Since P.Ws.1 to 5 are the injured eye witnesses to the alleged incident, it is expected from the prosecution that they sustained injuries as a result of blast of hand grenade by the accused. They have not identified the accused as the person who tried to kill P.Ws.1 to 5. Though the incident has been established by the prosecution witnesses 1 to 5, but their evidence does not show that the accused was the person who allegedly committed the offences. P.Ws.7 and 8 who are the witnesses for arrest of the accused and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution. Except identifying their signatures in the mediators report, their evidence would not disclose any incriminating fact against the accused. 11. The only evidence remains on record is the evidence of P.W.9. According to him, P.W.1 handed over the accused along with M.Os.1 and 2 and one hand grenade to him and he recorded Ex.P6-Panchanama with regard to the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and hand grenade. In his evidence, he has not stated that the accused was the person who was handed over to him by P.W.1. P.W.9 has not identified before the trial Court that the accused was the person who was handed over to him by P.W.1. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused is perpetrator of the crime. 12. In the absence of any evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons so as to call for interference by this Court. Hence, the criminal appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 15.12.2006, in S.C.No.279 of 2000, on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongir. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 26th August, 2009 KL