IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.609 OF 2003 Between: Smt. B. Thirupathamma ..... Appellant AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Sub-Inspector of Police, Dagadarthi Police Station 3. Bellamkonda Dasaiah & 17 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 26.11.2002, in C.C.No.268 of 1997, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur, whereunder and whereby, all the accused were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 427 read with 149 IPC. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal may be stated as follows. There are two groups at Kothapalli Kowrugunta Village and A18 is the group leader of one group, whereas one Ch.Venkateswarlu, Sarpanch, is the leader of another group. On 10.07.1997 at about 6.00 a.m., all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons with a common object of assaulting P.W.1 and in furtherance of their common object, the accused went upon P.W.1 while he was answering calls of nature at Sunnapubatti Tank bunk and beat him. It is also alleged that A1 and A2 beat P.W.1 with axes on his head, A3 and A4 beat P.W.1 with stick on left hand, left leg and on back of both the shoulders and P.W.1 raised cries. When P.Ws.2 and 3 went and intervened, A1 beat P.W.2 with a stick on her right leg, A3 beat P.W.3 with stick on her both legs and A1, A4, A10 and A18 beat P.W.3 with sticks, as a result, P.W.3 fell down. Thereafter, A1 beat P.W.5 with a stick on her left leg and again went to the cool drink shop of P.W.4 and damaged the bottles, boxes and caused loss of Rs.10,000/-. All the injured witnesses were taken to the Government Hospital. On receipt of the hospital intimation, the Sub-Inspector of Police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the case as Crime No.42 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 427 read with 149 IPC. The Investigating Officer observed the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses. After receipt of Wound Certificates, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dagadarthi Police Station, filed the charge sheet against the accused. 3. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 427 read with 149 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with reference to the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused except marking Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the de facto complainant. 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 147, 148, 324, 326 and 427 read with 149 IPC and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 who are eye witnesses, would clearly go to show that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and with common object of assaulting P.W.1, committed the offence; that thereafter, rioting took place in the house of P.W.1; that the accused also caused damage to the cool drink shop of P.W.4; that the witnesses have clearly identified all the accused who participated in the commission of offence; that further, the evidence of P.W.5 is corroborated with the medical evidence; that one of the injured sustained grievous injuries, and therefore, he prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. None appears for the respondents. Perused the judgment in record. 10. There cannot be any dispute that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless a perverse finding is given, or the findings are not based upon any evidence, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or admissible evidence was over looked, normally this Court will not interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 on the ground that they are highly interested witnesses. The law is well settled that mere interestedness is not a ground to discredit the testimony of interested witnesses, at best the evidence requires closeful scrutiny. Admittedly, there are two groups at Kothapalli Kowrugunta Village and one group is headed by A18 and another group is headed by the Sarpanch, Ch.Venkateswarlu. It is in the evidence that there were bitter ill feelings existing between the accused party and the prosecution party. There are also number of cases and counter cases filed by the police against both groups prior to the incident. P.W.1 was figured as an accused in several cases filed by the accused. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is necessary to look into the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 carefully and cautiously. The scene of occurrence is located near the Sunnapubatti tank bund. At the time of incident when P.W.1 was answering calls of nature, all the accused went there and attacked him. Thereafter, they allegedly ransacked the house of P.W.1 and later, they damaged the articles in the cool drink shop of P.W.4. In such circumstances, the prosecution is expected to adduce the evidence with regard to the actual place of the scene of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has not been examined. Only P.W.6, the panch witness was examined. 12. P.W.6 stated that on 10.07.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., he was summoned by Station House Officer, Dagadarthi Police Station and he went to the cool drink shop of P.W.4 and found broken cool drink bottles and the police seized the broken cool drink bottles and drafted scene of observation report. That Mediator’s report is not filed. The broken bottle pieces though seized by the police are not produced before the Court. They have not taken any photographs to show the damages made in the cool drink shop of P.W.4 or in the house of P.W.1. When the genesis and origin of occurrence is very much doubtful, the entire edifice of prosecution case and structure built there in is bound to collapse. 13. No doubt, as seen from the evidence of P.W.7-doctor, P.Ws.1 to 5 sustained injuries allegedly at the hands of the accused, but it must be shown that the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 5 were received at the hands of the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 would clearly go to show that A1, A2 and A4 beat him with sticks and with an axe and he received 3 injuries, whereas P.W.7 deposed that she found 5 injuries on P.W.1. According to P.W.2, A3, A4 and other accused beat her and she received injury on right leg and sustained two injuries, whereas P.W.7 deposed that she found only one injury which was on the lower end of right leg. Similarly, P.W.3 stated that A3 beat her with bamboo stick on both legs and further deposed that A1, A2, A10 and A18 beat her with sticks on waist and on legs and the evidence of P.W.3 would clearly go to show that 5 accused beat her, whereas P.W.7 deposed that she found 3 injuries on P.W.3. P.W.5 deposed that A1 beat her with stick on leg and sustained injury, whereas P.W.7 deposed that she found swelling on left leg. Therefore, in such circumstances, the eye witnesses account of beating them by the accused is not corroborated with the medical evidence. They are giving different versions with regard to the specific overt acts attributed against the accused as well as the time of offence. Therefore, considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 26.11.2002, in C.C.No.268 of 1997, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 27th October, 2009 KL