THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1331 of 2005 Date: 19.09.2011 Between: Yenethula Sangameswara Rao and another … Petitioners AND Suravarapu Appalanaidu and 11 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C. No.1331 of 2005 ORDER: The revision is laid against the order of acquittal of all the 11 accused before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. PW.1 is the de facto complainant. PW.2 is his younger brother. Both of them are said to be injured witnesses. PWs.1 and 2 preferred present revision assailing the judgment of acquittal of all the 11 accused. 2. PW.1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 against the accused for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After examining the material on record, the learned trial Judge held that case was not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused. Hence, the present revision. 3. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 307 and 307 r/w Sec.149 IPC against various accused. The case of the prosecution is that the incident occurred on 29.12.2003 in Shalantri villge, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District. A.5’s agricultural lands are situate near the agricultural lands of PW.1. On 28.12.2003 while A.5 was watering his sugar cane fields, on account of negligence on the part of A.5, water entered on to the lands of PW.1 and completely submerged the black-gram crop at the fields of PW.1. PW.4 witnessed the same. He informed PW.1 about the incident during the early hours of 29.12.2003. 4. PW.1 along with PW.2 went to the fields of A.5 at about 6 a.m. on 29.12.2003 i.e., the next day after the date of submersion of the crop of PW.1. PWs.1 and 2 questioned A.5 at about 6 a.m. on 29.12.2003 about his negligence. PWs.1 and 2 later returned to their house. 5. At about 7 a.m. on the same day while PWs.1 and 2 were at the thrashing floor of PW.1 beside his house, the accused came in a consortium and attacked PWs.1 and 2. The accused caused grievous injuries to PW.1 and simple injuries to PW.2. PWs.1 and 2 became frightened. They rushed to the house of PW.1 and closed the doors of the house. The accused used their spears and broke open the doors of the house of PW.1. In the meanwhile, mediators intervened and separated the rival groups. Thereafter, PW.1 lodged a police complaint under Ex.P.1. This seems to be the basic story of the prosecution. 6. Smt. N. Anula, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also erred in appreciating the medical evidence. She contended that the case was established beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that the very offence u/s.307 IPC was made out which is patent from the medical evidence that PW.1 sustained grievous injuries and PW.2 sustained simple injuries as evidenced by Exs.P.6 and 7 wound certificates. 7. Smt. Barkha, learned counsel representing the accused, on the other hand, contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was inconsistent with the medical evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Inter alia, she claimed that PW.1 was inimically disposed towards the accused on account of earlier litigation and quarrels between the two groups and that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was not the evidence of independent witnesses but was the evidence of interested witnesses. She finally urged that the scope of revision in a case of revision against acquittal is limited and that the de facto complainant should establish the case beyond reasonable doubt for the reversal of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 8. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that PW.9, the Investigating Officer in this case, filed a case against PWs.1 and 2 and others in Crime No.63 of 2003 on the ground of alleged beating of one Ammannamma. Ammannamma is no other than the sister of A.5. Thus, it is the case of the learned counsel for the accused that there have been quarrels and misunderstandings between A.5 and other accused on the one side and PWs.1 and 2 on the other side. It is her contention that in view of the continued enmity between the two groups, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shall be examined with circumspection. I agree with the learned counsel for the accused. Where admittedly on an earlier occasion the sister of A.5 lodged a complaint against PWs.1 and 2 and a case consequently was laid by the concerned police against PWs.1 and 2, patently, PWs.1 and 2 have become interested witnesses, apart from the victims and injured witnesses. 9. The learned counsel for the accused also drew my attention to the inconsistency regarding the scene of offence and pointed out that Brahmins Street of Shalantri village was shown to be the scene of offence in the complaint lodged by Ammannamma. It seems to be the scene of offence in the present case also. The actual scene of offence was thrashing floor at the house of PW.1. While so, Ex.P.3 mediators report discloses that brick pieces under MO.13 was seized from the Brahmin Street and not from the thrashing floor of the house of PW.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution failed to establish the scene of offence, in view of the inconsistency between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.P.3 and the evidence of PW.9. It is certainly a circumstance against the veracity of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 where PWs.1 and 2 are inimically disposed towards the accused and more particularly towards A.5. 10. It is the case of PWs.1 and 2 that they got Ex.P.1 prepared by a passer-by student. PWs.1 and 2 are not able to mention the name of the scribe of Ex.P.1 complaint. Again, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is doubtful where they were not able to mention the name of the scribe of Ex.P.1. The incident occurred in a small village. I, therefore, consider that everybody would be knowing everybody else in the village. Still PWs.1 and 2 failed to mention the name of the scribe of Ex.P.1. Once again, in the light of their enmity with the accused, the failure of PWs.1 and 2 to mention the name of the scribe of Ex.P.1 assumes suspicion. 11. It may be recalled that PWs.1 and 2 deposed that when PWs.1 and 2 were attacked at the thrashing floor of PW.1 and when PWs.1 and 2 ran into the house of PW.1 and bolted the door of the house, the accused attacked and damaged the door of the house. It would appear that the door has been found to be not in a damaged condition and the evidence did not agree as to the damage alleged by PWs.1 and 2. 12. Finally, the trial Court recorded the inconsistency between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the medical evidence (vide para 21 of the judgment of the trial Court). Where there is enmity between PWs.1 and 2 on the one side and A.5 on the other side, so many inconsistencies such as non agreement of the scene of offence and inconsistency in the medical evidence and the failure to mention the name of the author of the complaint should throw reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of the case of the prosecution. I agree in these circumstances that benefit of doubt should accrue to the accused. 13. The judgment of the trial Court is fairly reasonable and certainly does not warrant any interference by the invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. I, consequently, see no merits in this revision. 14. The Criminal Revision Case is, therefore, devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 19.09.2011 Isn