THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.907 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants against the judgment, dated 25-08-2003, passed by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. In all, six accused were put up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under Sections 148, 307 and 324 r/w 149 IPC, tried them for the alleged offences. 3. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P1 to P40 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent-State. Ex.D1 was marked. 4. The learned Judge acquitted A1, A4 to A6 for all the charges, but convicted A3 for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injury to P.W.1 by beating with cycle pump. He further convicted A2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injury to P.W.2 with iron rod. A2 and A3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, A2 and A3 preferred the present appeal. 5. The brief facts necessary for consideration in the present appeal, which are disclosed from the statement made by P.W.1 to P.W.17 the Sub-Inspector of Police (Ex.P1), may be stated as follows: All the accused are closely related and residents of Vijayawada. The prosecution party is residing in the opposite house of the accused. There was a dispute between both the families with regard to throwing of garbage material from the house of the prosecution party towards the house of the accused. It is stated that on a particular day, A1 and A2 entered the house of P.W.1 and beat him and his grand mother. It is also the version of the prosecution that the accused started going over the telephone booth of P.W.1 and used to throw cigarette buds in the telephone booth. Thus the relations between both the patties were very much strained on the date of the incident. Ultimately, on 03-08-1995 at about 9.30 a.m. while P.Ws.1 and 2 were returning from the temple the accused and some other persons attacked them on the road with iron rods, sticks and knives. A3 beat P.W.1 with an iron rod causing bleeding injuries. The remaining accused beat them indiscriminately with sticks and knives all over the body. P.W.3, who witnessed the incident, shifted the injured to the Government General hospital, Vijayawada. Thereafter, on receiving information P.W.17-Sub-Inspector of Police, Governorpet (Law & Order) police station rushed to the hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on the strength of the said statement registered a case in Cr.No.153 of 1995 of Governorpet police station. P.W.17 conducted the entire investigation and P.W.18- Inspector of police verified the investigation conducted by P.W.17 and filed charge sheet. 6. P.Ws.1 and 2, ofcourse, have spoken to the overt acts committed by A1 and A3 as per the prosecution story. There were also corresponding injuries noticed in the evidence of P.W.14-doctor and Exs.P37 and 38-injury certificates issued by him. 7. I have heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 8. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that admittedly there were injuries on the person of A2, A3 and A6, which fact had been spoken to by P.W.17-Investigating Officer. P.W.17 had categorically spoken to the fact of his proceeding to Bandar Locks center on receiving information about the accused-A2, A3 and A6 finding them there with injuries. Subsequently, A2 was admitted in the Government General hospital, Vijayawada and it is also a matter of record that on the report lodged by A2-1st appellant, in the Krishnalanka police station a case in Cr.No.135 of 1996 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered. 9. Therefore, there is a case and counter-case between the prosecution party and the accused, but were investigated by different Investigating Officers and charge sheets have been filed separately. Except P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the interested witnesses, the material witnesses in the present case did not support the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. The conviction, therefore, was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge only basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are the interested witnesses. 10. Another important fact which requires to be noticed is that it is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that A1, A4 to A6 indiscriminately beat them with knives all over the body, but if we peruse the evidence of P.W.14-doctor no such injuries are found on the person of P.Ws.1 to 3. The First Information Report in this case, which is registered basing on the statement of P.W.1 recorded by P.W.17-Sub-Inspector of police, was not produced. The present case and the counter-case were tried and disposed of by different Courts. There is no occasion for any of the Courts to arrive at a positive finding regarding the genesis of the incident so as to fix up the aggressor. Even though the wound certificates-A2, A3 and A6 were not produced, there is positive evidence of P.W.17- Investigating Officer that he found them with injuries and thereafter A2 was admitted in the Government General hospital, Viajaywada, P.Ws.1 to 3 have not at all explained as to how A2, A3 and A6 received injuries. It is therefore held that the prosecution in this present case suppressed the genesis of the incident and the story, which is projected by the prosecution, cannot be stated to be true and correct in view of the aforementioned facts. 11. This being the situation, I am of the considered view that it was not at all possible for the learned trial Court to fix up the aggressor and without fixing up the aggressor and without knowing the exact version as to how the incident had originated, it is not proper to record conviction against the appellants and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt to the appellants. 12. On the aforesaid analysis and reasoning, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the trial Court is set aside and the appellants are found not guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC. 13. In the result, Criminal Appeal is allowed. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 09th July, 2010 Tsy