THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2009. DATED: 14-09-2009. Between: State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. … Appellant/complainant and Jillepalli Venkanna …Respondent/accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1173 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal by the State under Section 378 (3) and (1) Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short’ ‘IPC’) passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet, vide judgment, dated 30-04- 2008, in S.C.No.524 of 2007. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 17-02-2007 at about 3 P.M., while P.W.2 was coming to the house along with goats after grazing, the accused and two of his followers attacked him, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries. On receipt of information from Yellaiah and Bixam, P.W.1-wife of P.W.2 rushed to the scene of occurrence i.e., near the field of Narayana and shifted her husband to the Government hospital. She lodged a complaint with the police, who registered a case and observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators. Basing on the confessional statement of the accused, police effected certain seizures and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. 3. When a charge under Section 307 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20 besides case property M.Os.1 to 4. 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 and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly, acquitted him. Hence, this appeal by the State. 7. Heard, the counsel representing the learned public prosecutor and perused the judgment. 8. Now, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 9. Though P.W.1 set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1-complaint, admittedly she was not an eyewitness to the incident. On coming to know about the incident from P.W.6 and Bixam, she rushed to the scene of occurrence. P.W.2 is the injured witness. He also did not state about his assailant. According to him, he was beaten at about 4.30 P.M. in the forest by somebody and he lost consciousness. 10. P.W.3 is the son of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He stated that he rushed to the scene of occurrence on coming to know about the incident. Similarly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. 11. P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. He categorically stated that he did not go to the field of P.W.7 and witnessed the incident. 12. P.W.5 was examined to speak about the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused. He also did not support the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.6 stated that while he was passing through the scene of occurrence, he noticed P.W.2 with injuries. Then he informed P.W.1 about the condition of her husband. 14. P.W.7 also did not state that the accused caused injuries to P.W.2. 15. P.W.8 is one of the mediators who was present when the police seized blood stained clothes of P.W.2. There is no dispute about P.W.2 sustaining six lacerated injuries. 16. P.W.10 who is the mediator for arrest of the accused did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.11 who is another mediator also did not support the case of the prosecution. 17. P.W.12 is the Doctor who examined P.W.2 and issued Ex.P15 medical certificate. 18. P.Ws. 13 and 14 are the Investigating officers who investigated into the case. They also speak about the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.4-axe in pursuance of his confessional statement. 19. As almost all the witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1 to 5 and 7 were resiling from their earlier statements made to police as in Exs.P2 to P7 respectively. They were treated hostile by the prosecution. Even after cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused with the crime. Except the fact that P.W.2 received multiple injuries on the neck, shoulder, chest, chin and right ear, there is no evidence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found the accused not guilty of the charge under Section 307 IPC and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 30-04-2008, in S.C.No.524 of 2007, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Suryapet. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 14-09-2009 Hsd