IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.A.NO.249 OF 2010. Date:11.02.2010 Between:- The State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Appellant/Petitioner And Chetteti Subbaiah and another .. Respondents/Accused JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(1)&(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 28.02.2009, made in Sessions Case No.152 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur whereunder and whereby, both the accused were found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘I.P.C.’ for brevity) and accordingly, acquitted. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: On 14-10-2002, P.W.1 is coming from his fields to the village. A-1 and A-2, with a common intention to kill him, attacked him and caused severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was taken to hospital for treatment. On intimation given by the doctor, police recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case. The police observed the scene of occurrence and prepared crime report. The weapons used in the commission of offence were seized. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When charges under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C., were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, they denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10, besides case property-M.Os.1 and 2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper?” 8. The learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination would clearly reveal that the accused were the assailants of P.W.1, and hence, she prays to set aside the order of acquittal. 9. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless there are compelling or substantial reasons viz., the findings are perverse, or contrary to law, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of the acquittal. 10. No doubt, when P.W.1 was examined in chief on one occasion, he sticked on to his earliest version to the effect that accused were assailants and they attempted to commit murder. But when he was cross examined at a later point of time, he gave a complete go-by to his earlier statement made in chief examination. There cannot be any dispute that both chief and cross examination including re-examination is the evidence. When he gave a go-by to his earlier statement made to the police, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. His statement recorded under 161(3) Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P-2. Similarly, P.Ws.2 and 3, who are said to be the eye witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, they were also declared hostile. The earlier statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 recorded by the police are recorded as Exs.P-3 and P-4. There cannot be any dispute that the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation cannot be used for any other purpose except for contradicting the witness in the manner, as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Simply because a witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, it does not mean his evidence would efface from the record. Such part of his testimony, which inspires confidence, can be taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence, if any, available on record. But even after the cross examination by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the involvement of the accused in causing injuries to P.W.1. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage confirming the judgment, dated 28.02.2009, made in Sessions Case No.152 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. _​_______________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 11th February, 2010 AMD