THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1747 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: The acquittal of the accused in C.C.No.1510 of 2002 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, by the judgment dated 11.08.2005, led the State to file this appeal through the learned Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the accused was that on the night of 10/11.06.2002 at about 3 a.m., Padma Rao, staying in the disputed shop due to heavy work, found the accused and some others to be demolishing the shop from backside. Padma Rao, who, along with K.Mohan Raju and Praveen Kumar, his brothers, took the shop on lease for running ‘Jai Matha Associates’ doing business of Architects, Engineers and Specialists in Vastu, questioned the accused, who was demanding them to vacate the shop due to which they approached the Civil Court. The accused threatened to kill him and sent him away. When the brothers came back, they noticed the furniture, cash and documents to be missing and on the report of Mohan Raju, Crime No.470 of 2002 was registered by the police, who filed charge sheet under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {IPC} against the husband and wife. The accused were furnished with copies of documents on their entering appearance and they pleaded not guilty, when they were examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 {Cr.PC}. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 during trial and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, when they were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. They had no defence evidence. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment extracting the oral and documentary evidence produced before it and noting that there were civil disputes between P.Ws.1 to 3 and the accused and that P.Ws.1 to 3 succeeded in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also. The trial Court, further, noted that P.Ws.1 and 3, the brothers of P.W.2, were not direct witnesses to the alleged incident and P.W.2 alone was the direct witness allegedly present at the shop even at the mid night. The trial Court noted the improbabilities in the evidence and inconsistencies between P.Ws.1 to 3 and considered the evidence to be not satisfactory. Consequently, it acquitted the accused. The grounds of appeal mentioned that the solitary evidence of P.W.2 is sufficient to base a conviction in view of the trustworthiness of his version. Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents-accused, are heard. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of either or both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427 and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he did not mention the value of the damaged movables, did not seize the damaged articles and did not examine any neighbours to the shop in question to corroborate P.W.2 and his brothers. The investigation of P.W.5 about registering the crime under Ex.P4-First Information Report or examining the scene under Ex.P3-panchanama does not provide any details about any specific overt acts of either accused or about any articles found in the premises of the accused being recovered by P.Ws.1 to 3. Similarly, the evidence of the mediator for Ex.P3- panchanama for the scene of offence as P.W.4 about the pell-mell condition of the articles in the shop, the shutters of which were open, is no indication of any culpable circumstance, as, according to him, the police were already preparing panchanama by the time he went and he does not know any other details personally. That leaves only the interested and self-serving evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P1-report of P.W.1. As noted by the trial Court, P.Ws.1 and 3 were not the direct witnesses and their hearsay claims about the incident cannot be relied on as proof of any fact. While Ex.P2-certified copy of the judgment in C.M.A.No.236 of 2002 itself shows the existence of civil disputes between the parties since long and the consequential strained relationship, the alleged tracing of missing goods at the house of the accused, as claimed by P.Ws.1 to 3, was neither the version of the prosecution nor corroborated by any independent evidence including that of the Investigating Officer. The reconstruction of the demolished wall in the next morning itself, as claimed by P.W.1 is unnatural and the claim of P.Ws.2 and 3 is similar. While such interested evidence would require independent corroboration before acceptance as of Rule of Prudence, P.W.2, the sole eye witness, did not state about any threats to kill and he could not identify the other persons, who allegedly accompanied the accused and participated in the offences. As to which person caused which damage or committed which overt act was not clear from the evidence of P.W.2 and on the solitary testimony of the interested P.W.2, the trial Court could not have come to any conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the trial Court cannot be considered wrong in acquitting the accused and the judgment, on merits, cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 1st December 2009 RRB