HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.581 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the order of acquittal dated 13.03.2003 in S.C.No.108 of 2002 on the file of the Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, finding the accused- respondents not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution alleged that the accused and P.W.2 injured in this case are rowdy sheeters. In the year 1978, P.W.2 killed one N. Ramachandrarao, who is no other than the father of A.4, and in the year 1990, P.W.2 killed the close associate of A.3. Therefore, A.3 and A.4 are waiting for an opportunity to take revenge against P.W.2 and hatched a plan to kill him. i) On 28.04.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 defacto complainant and P.W.2 were proceeding on a scooter and when they reached near North gate of Swaraj Talkies, the accused having observed their movement waylaid to kill P.W.2 at Bhavani cool drink shop. After seeing P.Ws.1 and P.W.2, A.3 and A.4 instigated A.1 and A.2 to kill P.W.2. Thereupon A.1 and A.2 came out of the cool drink shop and attacked P.W.2 with an intention to kill him and caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body indiscriminately. On hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 came to the scene of offence and L.W.5 Nevva Brahmam, L.W.6 Reddy Veera Sasnkara Rao, P.W.5 K.Ramakrishna, L.W.8 Goli Sivaramakrishna and L.W.9 Papana Kesavarao, neighbouring shop owners, witnessed the incident. ii) Basing on a report given by P.W.1, P.W.11 S.I. of Police registered Crime No.65 of 2001 for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation and receipt of necessary reports from the authorities concerned, laid charge sheet against the accused. The plea of the accused was of total denial. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution conducted trial by examining as many as 12 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined but Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked. 4. After evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against them, by judgment dated 13.03.2003. Questioning the same, the State preferred this appeal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the trial Court has utterly failed to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution properly, that merely because P.Ws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses, their evidence could not have been disbelieved, and that the evidence of P.W.1 injured person can be relied on for convicting the accused. Therefore, he prays to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and convict the accused. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents- accused contended that the trial Court is right in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 7. This court perused the entire record as well as the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, who are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, as they are interested witnesses and their evidence is not consistent and creditworthy. The learned trial Judge also rejected the evidence of P.W.5, who is also said to be an eye witness, as he did not support the case of the prosecution saying that he did not identify the persons who assaulted P.W.2. Further, the prosecution did not choose to examine L.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 9 to establish its case, though they were cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence and also independent witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 injured person can be relied upon. But, taking into consideration the fact that the trial Judge recorded the evidence of P.W.2 by gestures when he lost his capacity to speak, after the incident, his evidence cannot be believed and how the trial Judge recorded his evidence by gestures. In the absence of any clinching and corroborative evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 27th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.581 of 2004 (Dismissed) 27th December, 2010 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.581 of 2004 Dated:27.12.2010 BETWEEN: State, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant/ Complainant AND Kalidasu Satyanarayana @ Satyam and others …Respondents/ Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: