IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO : 256 OF 2010 Between: The State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor ..... PETITIONER AND Gudi Bapu Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT : The State is the appellant. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.5.2009 made in C.C.No. 618 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, whereby the respondent herein who was tried for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC was acquitted. Brief facts of the case are that there are disputes between the family of the respondent and the family of the de-facto complainant. De-facto complainant was examined as PW-1 with regard to ownership of the land and when the buffalo belonging to de-facto complainant was grazing in his lands on 1.11.2003, the accused picked up a quarrel, beat him with a stone on his right fore arm and also beat him with stick on his both hands and caused grievous injuries. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant proceeded to the Kodimial Police Station and gave a report. On the basis of the same, a case in Crime No. 113 of 2003 was registered against the respondent herein. After investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodimial filed charge sheet. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and also got exhibited documents P1 to P-3. However, as stated supra, as the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, was not convinced with the said evidence, recorded acquittal and hence, this appeal. Heard. The alleged offence, according to PW-1 and even according to the FIR, has taken place on 1.11.2003, but the FIR was registered only on 15.11.2003 i.e., after a period of about 14 days. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the said abnormal delay of 14 days. Further, admittedly, there are disputes between the family of the de- facto complainant and the family of the respondent/accused. The doctor, who treated PW-1 was examined as PW-3 and he issued wound certificate and the same was marked as Ex. P-2. However, in the wound certificate, the name of the injured person (de-facto complainant) is not mentioned. In the absence of any proof that the said wound certificate relates to PW-1, it is not safe to accept the same in evidence. For the above reasons, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the acquittal recorded by the Court below is perfectly justified and no interference is called for. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dt. 29.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CD copies