THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1837 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: A case in Crime No.54 of 1994 was registered against the petitioner by Cumbum Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 452, 353 and 506 I IPC. The said Police after investigation, filed a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.139 of 1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.P-1 and P-2. On behalf of defence, one Munnangi Samuel was examined as D.W-1 and Exs.D-1 to D-3 were marked. The learned Magistrate having considered the said evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences and accordingly, by his judgment, dated 16.03.1998, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 452 IPC and further, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506-I IPC. The learned Magistrate further observed that all the said sentences shall run concurrently. The said judgment was questioned by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No.17 of 1998 and the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, by the judgment, dated 11.12.2003, holding that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 506-I IP, acquitted him of the said charges, by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court for the said charges, however, found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC and accordingly, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial Court for the said offence. The same is questioned by the petitioner in this Revision. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - On 06.12.1994, on a report given by one Bysani Chenchu Subbarao, a case in Crime No.53 of 1994 was registered against the petitioner herein and five others and was investigated into. The petitioner on coming to know that a case was registered against him, grew wild and was waiting for an opportunity to assault Cumbum Police. While so, on 07.12.1994 at about 4.45 pm., when P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 were in the Police Station discussing the official duties, the petitioner criminally trespassed, abused P.W-1 in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences for showing him as an accused in Crime No.53 of 1994; that when P.W-1 stood up from the chair and attempted to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner caught hold of his shirt and pushed him back, and that, when P.W.2 and other constables intervened to rescue P.W-1, the petitioner struggled with him, during which, the wooden almyrah fell down and the records kept therein fell pell-mell. Thus, the petitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 353 and 506 IPC, in relation to which, a case in Crime No.54 of 1994 was registered against him on the report given by P.W-1 and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except P.Ws.2, 3 and 5-official witnesses the independent witness- P.W-4 did not support the prosecution case, in which, event, the Courts below ought to have given benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquitted him of the charges levelled against him. I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution examined the Head Constable of the Police Station as P.W-1. Two other Head Constables attached to the said Police Station were examined as P.Ws.2, 3 and the Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as P.W-5. One independent witness, who was an eye-witness to the said incident, was also examined as P.W-4. Unfortunately, the said independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution and as such, he was declared hostile. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of the official witnesses who are working in Cumbum Police Station. The instant case registered against the petitioner appears to be some what artificial. When the petitioner is figured as an accused in another crime, in my considered view, he cannot dare to go to Police Station to question the audacity of the Police to register a crime against him. Of course, it cannot be said that such an incident might not have taken place. But, for the reason that the entire evidence is that of the police officials who were present at the Police Station, in my considered view, the same has to be corroborated by some independent witness, which is very much missing in this case. Though the prosecution tried to elicit the said truth by examining P.W-4, for obvious reasons P.W-4 did not support the case of the prosecution. In those circumstances, this Court of view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the impugned judgments and consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges for which he was charged. __________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 18th November 2010 DR