IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.331 of 2009 Between: The State of A.P. .. Appellant AND Akkim Janardhan .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.331 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.95 of 2007, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Punganur, dated 07.07.2007, by which the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.51 of 2006 against the accused alleging that on 07.10.2006 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused trespassed into the house of Pujari Padmavathamma when she was alone in the house and cooking food in the kitchen. He abused Padmavathamma in filthy language for tying cattle in front of his house and caught hold of her hand, dragged her into the street, tore her blouse, beat with a chappal on her head and back and fisted her on the back. Nagireddigari Krishnappa, Chinna Muneppagari Narasimhulu and Asadi Sreeramulu, passing by, rescued Padmavathamma and on the information of Padmavathamma to her husband Pujari Krishnappa, he took her to the Government Hospital, Punganur, for treatment. On the complaint of Padmavathamma, the crime was registered and investigated into by the Sub- Inspector of Police, who seized the torn blouse under police proceedings. The Sub-Inspector also drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence and the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Punganur, opined the injuries of Padmavathamma to be simple. The accused surrendered before the Magistrate’s Court and was enlarged on bail and, hence, the charge. 3. On appearance of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur, who took cognizance of the offences in P.R.C.No.25 of 2006, copies of the documents were furnished to him. The Court of Session, on committal of the case to it, made it over to the trial Court and the trial Court framed charges under Sections 448, 354 and 323 IPC against the accused, who pleaded not guilty. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”) and no defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring to the factual background, the rival contentions and the evidence for the prosecution. The trial Court noted that P.W.7 turned hostile and denied stating to the police as in Ex.P-2 and from the topography of the house of P.W.1, stated by P.W.7, nothing could be seen from the house of P.W.7 about any happenings at the house of P.W.1. The trial Court also noted that the abuses said to have been uttered by the accused, according to P.W.1, were not specified in Ex.P-1-Report or the statement of P.W.1 to the police. P.Ws.3 to 6 were also noted to have not stated about the specific abuses claimed by P.W.1. The trial Court also observed that if P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1, and her son left the house with food carriers, the alleged preparation of food by P.W.1 at the time of the incident is not believable. P.Ws.5 and 6 are admittedly related to P.W.2, while P.W.3 belongs to the caste of P.W.2. Apart from P.Ws.3 to 5, nobody else was claimed to have questioned the accused about beating P.W.1 and P.W.6, whose house is at a distance of 50 meters, is also not claimed to have intervened. P.W.6 was claimed to have been attracted to the scene due to the shouts of P.W.1, but still by the time she went there, the accused was claimed to be still beating P.W.1. The trial Court further noted that there was no specification of the identity of the persons who gathered there apart from P.Ws.3 to 7. P.W.3 to 5 were noted to be not neighbours to P.W.1, while the neighbours/eye witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The trial Court also noted that even before the alleged eye witnesses cited by the prosecution could have reached the scene, the immediate neighbours must have been the eye witnesses, who were not examined. The trial Court further observed that apart from probablised close relationship of P.W.2 with P.Ws.4 to 6, the houses of P.Ws.3 to 5 are at a distance of 150 meters from P.W.1’s house. If they were going to the bus stop, there was another way from the houses of P.Ws.3 to 5 and if the incident happened inside the house, as claimed by P.W.1, the narration of P.Ws.3 to 5 as if they witnessed the entire incident outside the house is not dependable. It was also noted that the two injuries noted by P.W.8 to have been found at the time of his examination of P.W.1 were not claimed to have been caused by any identified person. Even the complaint-Ex.P-1 was noted to have been given on 08.10.2006 at 2.30 p.m., while the incident was at about 7.30 a.m. on 07.10.2006 and P.W.8 treated P.W.1 at 11.53 p.m. on 07.10.2006. The delay was considered unexplained. The trial Court also further observed that the manner in which the statements of the witnesses were claimed to have been recorded by P.W.9 in contrast to the version of the witnesses was inconsistent and it was further noted that P.Ws.3 to 6 did not state about the blouse of P.W.1 being torn in the incident. Due to the admitted existence of disputes between the families of P.W.1 and the accused, the trial Court considered all the above circumstances to be entitling the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused was acquitted. 5. The State, which preferred the appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor, contends herein that the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 448, 354 and 323 IPC were made out by the prosecution evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, 8 and 9 proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is requested to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the appellant and Miss. M. Sesha Kumari, learned counsel representing Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether the alleged offences with which the accused was charged were proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. The evidence of P.W.1, the alleged victim, and her husband, P.W.2, is necessarily tainted with interestedness and it will be a rule of prudence to look for satisfactory corroboration of their claims from the other facts and circumstances on record. The incident which allegedly occurred about eight days prior to the alleged offences regarding the cattle of P.W.1 being tied in the lane opposite to her house was admittedly not reported to anybody and was not a matter of record. If the husband and both the sons of P.W.1 left for the temple and school respectively before the incident along with food carriers, what food was being still prepared by P.W.1 in the kitchen at the time of the incident was not explained. The specific words of abuse stated by P.W.1 in her evidence to have been uttered by the accused were not specified earlier and the claim of P.W.1 about the intervention of P.Ws.3 to 5 appeared from her very narration to be at the fag end of the incident. The said persons could not have witnessed the incident since inception and while P.W.1 claimed to have taken treatment at the Government Hospital, Punganur for one day, the evidence of P.W.8 does not suggest her being treated as an inpatient for a day. P.W.1 admitted that the happenings in the kitchen were not visible from outside the house due to which nobody else could have witnessed the alleged happenings inside the house and the details given by P.W.1 during her cross-examination about the topography of the locality may suggest that but for their allegedly going to the bus stand that way, P.Ws.3 to 5 could not have been natural witnesses for the alleged occurrence. If P.Ws.3 to 5 were witnesses by chance, the necessity becomes all the more compulsive to look for independent corroboration. If to go to the Government Hospital, Punganur, one has to cross Punganur Police Station, as admitted by P.W.1, why Ex.P-1- Report was not given till the next day is unexplained. 9. P.W.2 was a hearsay witness so far as the incident is concerned and his attempt to explain the delay in giving the report to the police by stating that she received treatment at the hospital till about 9.00 a.m. the next morning and then he took her to their house and went to the Police Station was not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8-the Medical Officer. P.W.2 tried to claim ignorance about the need to give a complaint to the police before going to the Government Hospital, Punganur. 10. P.W.3, who claimed to have intervened and separated the accused and P.W.1 when the accused was beating P.W.1 with a chappal, tried to claim that the happenings in the house also can be seen by standing at the main gate of the house contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 admittedly belongs to the caste of P.Ws.1 and 2. 11. P.W.4 only saw the accused trying to beat P.W.1 with his hand and not with a chappal and if P.Ws.3 to 5 were going together, the beating of P.W.1 with a chappal could not have missed the view of P.W.4. P.W.4 also admitted belonging to the caste of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence improbablises his denial of any relationship with P.Ws.1 and 2. 12. P.W.5 claimed only to have seen P.W.1 and the accused shouting at each other and making a galata and the accused pushing P.W.1. He claimed that it was later that the accused beat P.W.1 on her head and back with a chappal on which P.W.1 fell down. The details of the incident, as narrated by P.Ws.3 and 4, to have been witnessed by them are, thus, different from what was claimed by P.W.5. P.W.5 is the first cousin of P.W.2 and his claim of not being on talking terms with P.W.1 is uncorroborated. P.W.5 also described the topography of the area in a way as to suggest many others to be the immediate neighbours of P.W.1, but not P.Ws.3 to 5. 13. P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.2’s younger brother and she was also attracted to the house of P.W.1 on hearing her shouts. Her version about the accused catching hold of the blouse of P.W.1 from the back and beating her on the head and back with chappal and fisting her on the back and P.Ws.3 to 5 coming there in the meanwhile on their way to bus stand was not suggestive of the possibility of P.Ws.3 to 5 witnessing the earlier overt acts of the accused. P.W.6 again stated during cross-examination that the houses of P.Ws.3 to 5 are situated at long distances from the house of P.W.1 and that there is also another way from the houses of P.Ws.3 to 5 to go to the bus stand without going on the road abutting the house of P.W.1. This version further makes the acceptability of the version of P.Ws.3 to 5, chance witnesses, more doubtful. 14. P.W.7 only claimed to have heard about the incident and denied stating to the police as in Ex.P-2 as an eye witness. He stated that P.Ws.1 to 5 are related to each other, discrediting the denials of P.W.1 to 5 in this regard and no specific reason or motive was attributed to P.W.7 to depose falsehood. 15. The Medical Officer, as P.W.8, stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not tell him about the person who caused the injuries, while stating that they were caused by a known person and there was no reason for not disclosing the identity of the accused by P.W.1. The Medical Officer examined P.W.1 at 11.53 p.m. on 07.10.2006, while the incident allegedly happened on 07.10.2006 at 7.30 a.m. P.W.8 was very positive that the injuries must have been caused only about four or five hours prior to his examination i.e., in between 6.53 p.m. and 7.53 p.m. and the independent evidence of the doctor throws further doubts on the alleged manner in which the injuries were received by P.W.1. Though it was a medico legal case, P.W.8 did not claim to have forwarded any information to the concerned police and P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, could not state the names of the neighbouring owners or residents. He admitted about the omission in Ex.P-1, the earliest version, about P.W.1 receiving any injuries and P.W.9, with reference to the statements of the witnesses recorded by him, admitted various omissions and contradictions elicited during the cross-examination of the witnesses. He does not know whether P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.2’s brother, which may make even his claims of a detailed investigation, doubtful and the First Information Report along with Ex.P-1 reached the Magistrate only at 10.30 a.m. on 09.10.2006. The accused claimed during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the dispute due to his refusal to sell the intervening site between their houses and other disputes between them since long. In view of the strained relationship between the families of the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2, it becomes all the more necessary not to accept the prosecution version unless fully consistent and totally reliable. The trial Court, which had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witnesses in person, had refused to place reliance on their version in the face of glaring material contradictions and unnaturalities specified by it in the impugned judgment. There appear no strong and convincing reasons in view of the various circumstances stated above to interfere with such conclusion of the absence of proof of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22nd November, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.331 of 2009 Date: 22nd November, 2011 KL