IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.681 of 2008 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Nusullapalli Srinivasa Rao @ Srinivasulu .. Respondent JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.419 of 2002 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, dated 15-12-2006, by which the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station filed the charge sheet in Crime No.20 of 2002, alleging that the accused took a hand loan of Rs.20,000/- from Somepalli Venkata Swamy for agricultural expenses and did not repay in spite of repeated demands. On 09-05-2002, Somepalli Venkata Swamy met the accused at Dornala and demanded payment and the accused took Venkata Swamy in an auto to Jammi Dornala on the pretext of making payment and when they were proceeding on foot from Jammi Dornala cross roads at about 10.30 A.M., the accused pushed Venkata Swamy into Nallavagu near the culvert and beat with a stone on the head indiscriminately with intent to kill him and caused bleeding injuries. He also attempted to strangulate Venkata Swamy with hands and some how Venkata Swamy escaped towards village and survived. The accused beat him with a stick on the back even while escaping and Venkata Swamy went to the police station with the assistance of Nusullapalli Prasad, Nusullapalli Rajulaiah and Nusullapalli Peda Venkata Ramaiah. On his statement, the crime was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who forwarded Venkata Swamy to the hospital. The Sub- Inspector of police recorded the statements of the witnesses, examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of it and seized the blood stained clothes from Venkata Swamy. The Forensic Science Laboratory opined that the blood on the clothes was of human origin and the medical officer, Pedda Dornala opined Venkata Swamy to have sustained simple injuries. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for the relevant offences. The accused was furnished with copies of documents on his appearance before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur in PRC.No.61 of 2002 which was taken cognizance and the case was committed to the Court of Session, which made it over to the trial Court. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code after examining the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty. During trial, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 and 2 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 and no defence evidence was produced. Nusullapalli Peda Venkata Ramaiah cited as LW.4 was given up by the prosecution. The impugned judgment was rendered opining that there was no independent witness apart from the injured PW.1 himself and the circumstantial witnesses-PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and denied making any statements before the police as in Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively. The claim of the prosecution that PWs.2 and 3 were examined by PW.5, when they accompanied PW.1 to the police station was thus denied and the evidence of the medical officer as PW.4 about finding some injuries on the person of PW.1 is no indication of the accused causing such injuries. The trial Court also found that the examination of the scene of offence by PW.5 and his preparation of Ex.P.6-rough sketch were also uncorroborated with no observation report being drafted in the presence of any mediators. The discrepancy about the scene of offence between PW.1 and PW.5 was also noted and the testimony of PW.1 was opined to be not sufficient to form the sole basis to conclude the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the accused was acquitted. The State challenges the said acquittal through the learned Public Prosecutor in this appeal contending that the trustworthy evidence of the injured-PW.1 could not have been overlooked due to the failure of the investigating officer to seize the material objects before mediators or to examine the scene of offence before mediators. There was no chance for anybody else being a witness to the incident and hence, the accused could not have been acquitted. Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor is heard and the accused is represented by Sri G.V.L. Murthy, learned counsel. The point for consideration is whether the acquittal of the accused is liable to be reversed? The statement of PW.1 in Ex.P.1 was the earliest version which did not disclose the loan taken by the accused from PW.1 to be evidenced by any document. Ex.P.1 alleged PW.1 to have been pushed down from Nallavagu bridge after which the accused injured him with stone on the forehead, behind the head and on the right eye and the accused was also claimed to have strangulated the neck of PW.1 and to have given two blows with stick on the back. PW.1 was claimed to have been brought to the police station in a tractor by PWs.2 and 3 and Nusullapalli Peda Venkata Ramaiah. Thus, it is clear that there was no eye witness to the incident except the injured himself and the First Information Report reached the Magistrate only on the next day by post. The rough sketch-Ex.P.6 prepared by PW.5 did not exactly indicate the scene of offence to be the bridge on Nallavagu and Ex.P.4-wound certificate stating the injuries to have been caused due to a quarrel did not indicate by whom. The five injuries found as per Ex.P.4- wound certificate were noted to be simple and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in Ex.P.7 was about human blood being found on the shirt and banian sent for analysis. PW.1 in his evidence again referred to being taken in an auto towards Jammi Dornala as stated in the charge sheet, but the earliest version in Ex.P.1 made no reference to such travel by an auto and the auto driver himself was not examined during investigation. PW.1 did not state in his chief-examination about the scene of offence being Nallavagu bridge specifically and while Ex.P.1 is as though the accused attacked PW.1 with only one stone, PW.1 claimed that the accused had thrown big stones on him resulting in injuries. Similarly, the beating on the back was stated to be with a stick in Ex.P.1, while it was stated to be with sticks in the evidence. PW.1 stated about only PWs.2 and 3 seeing and taking him to the police station and made no reference to Nusullapalli Peda Venkata Ramaiah (LW.4), who was given up and who was referred to even in Ex.P.1. PW.1 also claimed that 5 or 6 others also travelled in the auto, none of whom were named or examined and PW.1 admitted that he does not know the number of the auto or the driver of the auto. He does not remember when he lent the amount to the accused and though he claimed that the accused executed a promissory note, he did not produce the said promissory note. The claim of PW.1 that the accused snatched away the promissory note on the date of the offence was admittedly not stated by him to the police and if the accused was not armed with stick when they were travelling together in the auto as admitted by PW.1, from where he did get the stick to beat him is unexplained and the alleged admission of PW.1 in the Government Hospital, Kurnool is uncorroborated. PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and the medical officer as PW.4 did not state as to what object would have been the cause for infliction of five injuries. The very nature of the injuries found by PW.4 as per Ex.P.4 is not suggestive of any intention or knowledge of an attempt to cause death and the investigating officer as PW.5 reiterated what he has done during the investigation, but he did not get any observation report before mediators drafted at the scene and he was unable to locate the auto or its driver. He stated the scene to be on the bridge itself not exactly tallying with PW.1 and he admitted that he did not verify the promissory note said to have been executed by the accused. On such evidence, the interested and uncorroborated testimony of PW.1 alone could not have formed the basis of any conclusion of guilt of the accused for any offence. However strong the suspicion that arises from the medical officer finding the injuries on the person of PW.1 may be, the same cannot be equated to the involvement of the accused in causing such injuries being proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court does not appear to be open to interference herein. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-11-2011 Ksn