THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. R.C.No.1683 of 2004 Date: 26.04.2011 Between: Uppue Pamularao and 11 others .. Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C. No.1683 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioners are some of the accused, who were convicted by the learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet in C.C.No.207 of 2002. They are A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.12 and A.14. The trial Court found all of them guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- each with appropriate default sentence. A.2 and A.5 were further convicted for an offence u/s.325 r/w Section 34 IPC. A.2 was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of six months and fine of Rs.500/-. A.5 was sentenced to R.I. for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Appropriate default sentences were imposed in respect of the fine against the petitioners. Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.423 of 2003 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Through the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal. She confirmed the conviction and the sentences recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. 2. Sri Mohd. Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that inter alia, a case and a counter case were registered against the petitioners and the de facto complainant and the members of the family of the de facto complainant in C.C.No.207 of 2002 and C.C.No.204 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet. It is his claim that the learned trial Judge, who tried both the cases, acquitted all the accused in C.C.No.204 of 2002 and that the de facto complainant in C.C.No.204 of 2002, who is A.5 herein, preferred Criminal Revision Case (SR) No.2650 of 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the said Criminal Revision Case was admitted on 28.09.2005, albeit he is not able to state the number of criminal revision case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that he was instructed by the de facto complainant in C.C.No.204 of 2002 (A.5 herein) to withdraw the revision and that the learned counsel for the petitioners is going to withdraw the revision laid questioning the acquittal in C.C.No.204 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would appear that there was a compromise between the parties, lest there should not be any need for A.5 herein to withdraw the revision laid by him questioning the judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.204 of 2002. Be that as it may, the question is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused in the present case beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Out of 9 witnesses, PWs.1 to 5 are the members of the same family and are all injured witnesses. PWs.6 and 7 are independent alleged eyewitnesses for the incident. PW.8 is the Doctor who treated the injured. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted where the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is the evidence of interested witnesses and where no independent witnesses supported the claim of the injured witnesses. 6. PW.1 is the de facto complainant in this case. PW.2 is his father. PW.3 is his mother. PW.4 is the elder brother of PW.1. PW.5 is another brother of PW.1, who is elder to PW.1 as well as PW.4. Thus, PWs.2 and 3, who are the parents, and PWs.1, 4 and 5, who are their sons, are the basic witnesses in this case. All of them allegedly sustained injuries. 7. Before assailing the evidence of these witnesses, I may examine the evidence of independent witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution. PWs.6 and 7 are the residents of the same village Nudurupadu, to which village PWs.1 to 5 belong to. PW.6 deposed that there was a verbal altercation between A.5 and his wife on the one side and PWs.1 to 5 on the other side and that he later found PWs.1 and 2 on the ground with injuries. His evidence is cryptic. He did not state that he witnessed how PWs.1 to 5 or how PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries. He merely deposed that he noticed a verbal altercation between A.5 and his wife on the one side and PWs.1 to 5 on the other side. He also admitted that A.5 and his wife Lakshmi also fell on the ground with injuries. Thus the evidence of PW.6 is that he found PWs.1 and 2 as well as A.5 and his wife Lakshmi with injuries. He did not notice how any of them sustained injuries. The evidence of PW.6 thus is neither here nor there in establishing the guilt or the innocence of the accused. 8. PW.7 also claimed that there was a verbal altercation between A.5 and his wife (Lakshmi) on the one side and PWs.1 and 5 on the other side and that when he rushed to the scene of incident, he found PWs.1 and 2 lying on the ground floor with injuries. Indeed, PWs.6 and 7 deposed that the dispute related to laying of pipes blocking the drainage. In any event, the evidence of PW.7 is as good or as bad as the evidence of PW.6 is in not establishing the innocence or the guilt of any of the accused. The two witnesses PWs.6 and 7 did not speak anything about the incident proper as who bet whom, what weapons were used, what was the seat of the injuries and in what sequence the incident occurred. Thus, the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 is of no value in this case. 9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 thus deserves to be judged in the absence of any independent witnesses. Added to it is the factor of political enmity between PWs.1 to 5 on the one side and the accused on the other side. PW.7 deposed that all the accused belonged to Telugu Desam Party while PWs.1 to 5 belonged to Congress Party. This evidence of PW.7 is partly supported by PW.4 who deposed that the accused belonged to Telugu Desam Party. He curiously, however, deposed that he did not know whether his father (PW.2) is an active Congress Party worker or not. 10. PW.1 spoke in detail about the injuries caused to him by A.1, A.2, A.5 to A.8, A.10 and A.14. He did not attribute any overt acts to A.4, A.9 and A.11 who were also convicted along with A.1, A.2, A.5 to A.8, A.10 and A.14. PW1 even mentioned the seat of the injuries caused by the named accused against him. He however did not mention about the overt acts of any of the accused for the injuries caused to any of the witnesses amongst PWs.2 to 5. He merely stated that his parents who are PWs.2 and 3 and his brothers who are PWs.4 and 5 came to his rescue and that the accused beat his parents and brothers as well. 11. PW.2 did not speak about the overt acts of any of the accused against PW.1 although he claims that he witnessed the incident proper. He merely stated that A.4, A.5 and A.7 to A.9 beat him. He also deposed that the accused beat PWs.3 to 5 when they came to the rescue of PW.2. 12. PW.3 deposed that when the accused were attacking PW1, she and PW.2 went to the rescue of PW.1 along with others and that PWs.4 and 5 also came to the rescue of PW.1. She then deposed that A.7 to A.9 and A.11 beat her and that when PWs.4 and 5 came to her rescue the accused beat them also. It may be noticed that PW.3 did not speak about the accused beating her husband (PW.2). She speaks about the accused beating PW.1 as well as PWs.4 and 5, albeit she made general and sweeping accusation only against them that they beat PWs.1, 4 and 5, without specifying any overt act or mentioning the seat of the injury upon these witnesses. 13. PW.4 deposed that he tried to interfere when the accused beat PWs.1 to 3 and that A.2 and A.5 administered blows upon him at that time. Curiously, he did not speak about the accused attacking PW.5. Finally, PW.5 deposed that A.5, A.6 and A.12 beat him when PW.5 tried to rescue PWs.1 to 3 from the clutches of the accused. Although he did not speak in clear words, he, however, stated that PW.4 also sustained injuries in the hands of the accused. He did not speak anything about any overt act of the accused against any of the other injured amongst PWs.1 to 4. 14. While the prosecution examined as many as 5 injured witnesses, none of them corroborated the evidence of the other witnesses. Each of these witnesses spoke about the overt acts of the accused against the concerned witness only but did not speak about the overt acts of the accused against any of the other injured witnesses. I am afraid that where PWs.1 to 5 are members of the same family and where there is specific rivalry as well as conflict relating to water dispute between the family of PWs.1 to 5 on the one side and A.5 and the members of his family on the other side, the uncorroborated evidence of these witnesses would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused against any one of these accused. Added to it, is the factum that PWs.6 and 7 who are the independent witnesses did not corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. 15. My attention was drawn to another curious factor by the learned counsel for the petitioners. PW.3 deposed that Padma and Manga, who are the daughters-in-law of the family, went to the police station and lodged a complaint with the police and that police reached the scene of offence 15 minutes thereafter. This is not the story of PW.1. This also not the case of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer claimed that PWs.1 to 5 went to the police station and PW.1 lodged a complaint at the police station. Added to it, PW.9 admitted that by the time the accused went to the police station, A.5 was already at the police station with his own complaint. Thus, in sequence, it would appear that complaint of A.5 was prior to the complaint of PW.1. 16. In any event, where the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 did not corroborate each other and has not been corroborated by the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 and where there is definite enmity or ill-well between PWs.1 to 5 on the one side and A.5 and the members of his family on the other side, I am afraid that the uncorroborated evidence of PWs.1 to 5 would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, much less beyond reasonable doubt. 17. I am not able to agree with the finding reached by the learned trial Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Both of them failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of PWs.1 to 5. The judgment of the trial Court and the appellate Court are erroneous regarding the appreciation of the evidentiary value of PWs.1 to 5. The judgments of the trial Court and the appellate Court are, accordingly, liable to be set aside. 18. For the reasons set out above, the prosecution is found to have failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused, who are the petitioners herein, are found not guilty of the offences with which they are charged and were found guilty by the trial Court and the appellate Court and are acquitted of the same. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The fine amount, if already paid by the petitioners, shall be refunded to them. 19. The Criminal Revision Case, is accordingly, allowed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 26.04.2011 Isn