THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2420 of 2008 Date: 24.6.2010 Between: Naguleti Prathap, S.B.I Colony, Puttur, Chittoor District and another. …………Petitioners/accused A4 & A5. And The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …………….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2420 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the accused-A4 & A5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in PRC.No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The brief facts of the case as disclosed from the contents of the charge sheet may be stated as follows: Deceased persons and the accused are all the residents of Pedda Harijanawada of Puttur and they belong to schedule caste. On 25.8.2007 at about 9.45 p.m., when 2nd respondent along with L.W.11 & L.W.6 asked A1 to A3 enquire about D1, A1 slapped 2nd respondent on his cheek. Again on the same day at about 10.00 p.m., his friends and D1 & D2 attacked the accused with sticks at cool drink shop near Brhamamgari Temple. The 2nd respondent along with D1 caught hold of the shirt of A1 and when questioned him as to why he assaulted him, A1 picked up a knife and stabbed on the left elbow of the 2nd respondent. A2 stabbed on the stomach of D1 with knife when he was held by A1 & A4. When D2 intervened, A1 stabbed him on the stomach. A3 & A5 instigated A1 &A2 to eliminate them and also beat them with hands. A1 also stabbed LW2-Kayam Subramanayam on chest and right elbow causing bleeding injuries. When people started rushing to the scene of offence, the accused ran away from the place of offence. The injured persons died on the way to the hospital. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. It is contended by the petitioners that false recitals were made in the charge sheet against the petitiotners-A4 & A5 that A2 stabbed on the stomach of D1, when D1 was held by A1 & A4 and that A3 & A5 instigated A1 & A2 to eliminate prosecution party and beat them. According to the petitioners, no witness was examined by the police referring to the specific charges attributed to the petitioners in the charge sheet. Thus the contention of the Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the overt acts attributed to A4 and A5 including the instigation of other accused to attack the prosecution party have not been spoken to by any witnesses more particularly none spoke against A5 regarding his instigating A1 & A2 to eliminate the prosecution party and because of these serious omissions, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings in PRC No.11 of 2008 against the petitioners-A4 & A5 are liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State would submit that the two persons were done to death and according to the prosecution version, the offence was committed in furtherance of common intention of all the accused, which is punishable with the aid of Section 34 IPC and therefore, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed. Adverting to the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State, I am of the view that even if the police did not record any overt acts spoken to by the witness against the petitioners-A4 & A5, there is no legal bar which prevents the witnesses to give evidence against A4 & A5 in the Court at the time of trial. The version of such witnesses has to be evaluated by the Court trying the offences by taking into consideration the various factors. It is therefore, quite premature to hold that prima facie there is no case against the petitioners-A4 & A5, which enables the Court to quash the proceedings against them. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A4 & A5 in PRC No.11 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur. Hence the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 24.06.2010 mrb