THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.801 of 2011 BETWEEEN: The State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Appellant AND 1. Geesala Sathakoti Srinivasu @ Nani & 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.801 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted A1 to A4 of the charges under Section 307/34 I.P.C. A2 is stated to have stabbed PWs 1 and 2 while A1, A3 and A4 holding them. Except the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are the injured, there is no other evidence to show who inflicted those injuries on them. PWs 3 to 6 did not witness the occurrence proper, but came to the scene subsequently and found the injured with the injuries and the accused running away from the scene. Admittedly, there are disputes between the two parties and the incident is said to have taken place when both the parties assembled for panchayat outside the temple. 2. Exs. D4 to D6 reveal that A1, A3 and A4 also sustained injuries in the incident. On the report given by the accused, the Police registered FIR (First Information Report) against PWs 1 to 4 with regard to injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction. Inspite of it, the prosecution did not lead any evidence to show what happened to the crime registered on the report given by the accused and what was the result of investigation. Fair investigation and fair prosecution require that there should be explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused during the course of the same transaction. The Investigating Officer in this case did not find as to who was the aggressor among the two parties who involved in the offence. The Public Prosecutor contends that injuries sustained by the accused are simple injuries. The Doctor opined that those injuries are possible if the person falls while running. There is no evidence to show that any of the accused fell while running away from the scene. All the injuries sustained by the accused are not possible by a single fall. In those circumstances, the lower Court was justified in finding the accused not guilty of the charges, because the investigation failed to name the accused as the aggressive party. There are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 08.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.801 of 2011 DATED: 08.06.2011 ysk