THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2445 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1 The Public Prosecutor filed this appeal questioning acquittal of the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 of the offences punishable under sections 448, 354, 324, 428 and 506 IPC. 2 P.W.1 is wife of P.W.3. P.W.2 is son of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.4 is mother of P.W.3. P.W.5 is brother of P.W.3. P.W.2 was running auto. It is alleged that the accused focused torch light on the face of P.W.2, threw lighted matchstick on his face and cut top of his auto with a blade. It is stated to be the root cause for this offence. It is alleged that on 24.01.2001 at about 9.00 AM A.1 to A.3 trespassed into house of P.Ws.1 to 4 and attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 with stout sticks and that they have outraged the modesty of P.W.1 by catching hold of her tuft of hair and dragging her outside the house and that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries in that incident. On the other hand, the accused while denying the allegations herein, contended that it was the prosecution party who attacked them and caused injuries to them. 3 The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11; and at the same time the accused examined D.Ws.1 and 2 who are doctor and police officer, in order to prove the accused sustaining injures and giving report against the prosecution party for the incident. Though both the cases are alleged to have arisen out of the same transaction, no steps are taken for simultaneous trial of both the cases by one and the same court. 4 P.Ws.6 and 7 are independent witnesses who are said to have separated the injured from the accused. But P.Ws.6 and 7 turned hostile to the prosecution. There is only evidence of PWs.1 to 5 who are family members in support of the prosecution case. The lower Court disbelieved the presence of P.W.5 at the time of offence on the ground that none of P.Ws.1 to 4 spoke about his presence in the house at the time of the offence. The lower Court also did not place any reliance on evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and disbelieved their evidence. In the report given by PW.1 to the police, it is his case that they were beaten by the accused with stout sticks; whereas during trial, P.Ws.1 to 5 deposed that P.Ws.1 and 2 were beaten by the accused with cycle air pump. The weapon with which P.Ws.1 and 2 were said to have been beaten, is not consistent. Neither stout sticks nor cycle air pump were seized by the investigating officer during investigation. The prosecution witnesses did not make any attempt to explain the counter case and injuries sustained by the accused as per Ex.D.2 wound certificate. When a case and counter arise out of the same transaction, it is for the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same transaction, unless those injuries are simple and superficial. Having regard to the above state of evidence in this case, I am of the opinion that the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of the accused. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said finding recorded by the lower Court. 5 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. -------------------------------------------- SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date:12.08.2011 Kvsn