HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2490 of 2004 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant And 1. Lukka Venkata Narayana @ Narayana 2. Lukka Krishna 3. Lukka Nancharayya 4. Lukka Sankara Rao 5. Lukka Anjaneyulu ..Respondents/ Accused Nos.1 to 5 This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2490 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal against acquittal of A.1 to A.5/respondents 1 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 307/149, 324 and 324/149 I.P.C recorded by the lower Court by the impugned judgment. 2. The injured/P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers. A.1 to A.4 are brothers and A.5 is son of A.1. It is alleged that the offence took place on 14.01.2002 at about 02.00 p.m., when P.W.2 was returning from the fields, during which time the accused attacked P.W.2 with sticks and rod and caused grievous injuries to P.W.2 and that when P.W.1 rushed to the rescue of P.W.2, he was also beaten by the accused. As per the prosecution case, A.3 was armed with an iron rod and the other accused were armed with sticks. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found all the accused not guilty of the charges. During trial, P.Ws.4 to 6 turned hostile to the prosecution. In support of the incident, there is evidence of the injured/P.Ws.1 and 2 and another witness P.W.3 in front of whose house the offence took place. As per evidence of P.W.9-Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Gudivada to which place P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken after the offence, P.W.1 was having two small abrasions and two lacerated injuries vide Ex.P.7-wound certificate. Whereas P.W.2 was having swelling over scalp and bleeding from right nostril, as per Ex.P.6-wound certificate issued by the same doctor. P.W.2 was referred to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for further treatment. P.W.11 is the Radiologist. As per his evidence on X-ray taken on scalp of P.W.2 and as per Ex.P.10- opinion, there are fractures on P.Ws.2’s head. Therefore, P.W.9 gave final opinion to the effect that injury sustained by P.W.2 is grievous in nature. P.W.3 is Neuro Physician in Government General Hospital. He took C.T scan on scalp of P.W.2. As per his evidence and as per Ex.P.11– C.T scan report, there were multiple comminuted compound fractures of calcanum with depression in left high frontal region and small extra dural fracture haematomas of right parietal and left para central area, apart from other injuries. Opinion of P.W.11 is to the effect that injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death of the injured. 3. The question is who caused the said injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2 and in what manner. The lower Court after considering oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also circumstances surrounding the prosecution case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no dispute that A.1 and P.W.2 contested in panchayat elections for ward member. The prosecution could not prove immediate cause for the attack on P.W.2, except alleging that the offence took place due to political rivalry. It is not the prosecution case that there were any previous party disputes between the accused party and the prosecution party. Immediate genesis for this crime could not be established by the prosecution. When A.1 has won in the elections, there was no reason for the accused party to attack P.Ws.1 and 2 after the elections. The lower Court further pointed out that P.Ws.4 to 6 who belong to the same caste of the injured did not support the prosecution case. The accused belong to different caste. 4. The lower Court also pointed out discrepancies among the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to their individual overt acts. It is evidence of P.W.3 that the offence took place in front of his house and that he went to the scene by coming out of the house on hearing commotion. According to P.W.3, A.5 beat P.W.2 with M.O.1-stick on head and A.3 beat P.W.2 with iron rod on head, temple region and right eye and A.4 beat P.W.2 with stick on head, neck and on body and A.1 and A.2 also beat P.W.2 with sticks on his body. Except injuries on head, P.W.2 was not having any other injuries on his body. If there was any beating of P.W.2 with sticks and rod on other parts of his body than head, then there will be external injuries on P.W.2 on his body other than head. P.W.3 deposed that A.5 beat P.W.1 with stick on hand. P.W.1 is stated to have rushed to the spot when the accused party was beating P.W.2. In spite of P.W.3 deposing to single beating of P.W.1, Ex.P.7-medical certificate reveals four injuries on P.W.1, on left side of scalp, middle of scalp, right palm and left fore-arm. P.W.3 did not speak as to who caused other three injuries on P.W.1. 5. According to P.W.1, A.5 beat P.W.2 with bamboo stick on head, A.3 beat P.W.2 with iron rod on right temple region, right eye, right side of nose and A.1, A.2 and A.4 beat P.W.2 with sticks on head and all over the body. He further says that when he interfered, A.5 beat him with stick on his head and hands. On the other hand, P.W.2 deposed that A.1 instigated A.5 to beat him and that A.5 beat him with stick on head, A.3 beat him with iron rod on temple region, nose and right eye and that A.4 beat him with stick on head, neck and body and that other accused beat him with sticks all over his body. When overt acts spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3 are read along with medical evidence in this case, there is certainly an element of roping in innocent persons in this crime as they belong to family of the accused. In my opinion, A.1, A.2 and A.4 were un-necessarily roped in this case. Because of the said element of falsity in the prosecution case, there is every possibility of other two accused namely A.3 and A.5 to slip away from the case. There are no injuries corresponding to the overt acts spoken against A.1, A.2 and A.4. Three of the injuries of P.W.1 are not attributed to any of the accused. Further the investigating officer did not seize the alleged iron rod with which A.3 is said to have dealt blows on P.W.2. Only M.O.1-stick was seized from the scene. The medical evidence is also to the effect that injuries sustained by P.W.2 may occur due to fall or hit against a wall or pole. Having regard to the above state of evidence, the lower Court rightly gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted the accused. I do not find any reasons to come to the conclusion that the judgment of the lower Court is perverse or manifestly unjust. 6. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt.25.08.2011 Vjl