CRLA/1314/2008 of The State of A.P., Vs Karanataka Chitti Babu, on 29 December 2011

JUDGMENT:

The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal ofaccused 1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code bythe judgment dated 08-12-2006 of the Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Banswada in C.C. No.199 of 1998.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Birkur filed chargesheet in crime No.71 of 1998 alleging that on 13-06-1998 at about2.30 P.M. when Narla Ramulu was in his land in S.Nos.30/3 and30/4, the accused and 4 others came and beat him with hands andsticks causing an injury on the left hand. Chakali Ramulu and Farooq Ali rescued him and the accused threatened him to leavethe field. On the report of Narla Ramulu, the crime was registeredand Ramulu was sent to Government hospital, Banswada fortreatment. The scene of offence panchanama was conductedbefore mediators and accused 1 to 8 were arrested on 16-06-1998and remanded to judicial custody. The sticks used in the incidentwere thrown away by them and could not be recovered. Hence,the charge.

3. On appearance of the accused before the Court afterthe offences were taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate,copies of documents were furnished to them. When charges wereframed, the accused pleaded not guilty and P.Ws.1 to 8 wereexamined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 and Ex.D.1 were marked during thetrial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstancesappearing in the evidence against them when they were examinedunder Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therewas no defence evidence. The trial Court rendered its judgmentdated 09-07-2002 finding accused 1 to 8 guilty of an offence punishableunder Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Codeand sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with defaultsentence of three months each. They were acquitted of thecharges under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. When the accused preferred criminal appeal No.47 of2002 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court), Nizamabad at Banswada, the same was allowed bythe judgment dated 21-01-2004 finding that the charges framed were defective resulting in miscarriage of justice during trial andconsequently, the matter was remanded for framing propercharges and for adducing fresh evidence.

5. After remand, charges were framed under Sections447, 324, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 5 wereexamined again and the earlier evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, theinvestigating officers, was adopted. Exs.P.1 to P.6, D.1 and D.2were marked. The accused 1 to 8 once again denied all theincriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence againstthem when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure and no defence evidence was produced.

6. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgmentfirstly noting that Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the order ofinjunction obtained by P.W.1 in O.S. No.14 of 1998, while Ex.P.3is the certified copy of police protection order granted by theCourt. The names of accused 1 to 8 were admitted to have beennot mentioned in Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1 and P.W.2 was noted tobe working as a coolie under P.W.1 and being an interestedwitness cannot be relied on. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.3 wasalso not accepted, as he worked as servant under P.W.1. P.W.4,the mediator for the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P.4, was notrelied on, as the panchanama could not have been conducted at2.30 P.M. on

13-06-1998, at which time the offence was alleged to havehappened. The medical evidence of P.W.5 about the injuries foundon the person of P.W.1 was also referred to and the investigating officers were noted to be not uniform in their evidence. P.W.7 wasthe investigating officer who filed the charge-sheet. The trial Courtconcluded from the evidence that the overwriting in Ex.P.1, thedelay of 60 hours in submitting the first information report to theCourt, the pendency of civil dispute, the improbability of the sceneof offence panchanama, the unacceptability of P.Ws.2 and 3 andthe interestedness of P.W.1 were showing that the accused did notcommit any offence or at least that such an offence was notproved beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The consequent acquittal led the State to file theappeal through the learned public prosecutor contending that theingredients of the offences have been clearly made out by theevidence on record and when P.Ws.1 to 3 were eye witnesses,their evidence could not have been rejected. Hence, the acquittalis desired to be reversed.

8. The petition for condonation of delay in filing theappeal in Crl.A.M.P. No.1304 of 2008 was dismissed on 30-10-2008 against the 8[th] accused in view of the helplessness of thelearned public prosecutor to have the notice of the appeal servedon the 8[th] accused. The delay was condoned only in respect ofrespondents 1 to 7 herein and hence, the present consideration isconfined to respondents 1 to 7.

9. The earliest version in Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1 to thepolice specified five persons by name as the persons whoindulged in trespass and assault along with 7 others and theremaining 7 persons were not named or identified. The firstinformation report was allegedly registered within half an hour after

the incident and it could reach the Court only on 16-06-1998though it was registered on 13-06-1998. While accused 6 to 8 didnot find mention in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 copy of the order of injunctionand Ex.P.3 copy of police protection order show that none of theaccused were parties to O.S. No.14 of 1998 or the interlocutoryorders therein. Ex.P.4 scene of offence panchanama as noted bythe trial Court was as though at the same time as the occurrenceof the offence, the panchanama was conducted and significantlyEx.P.4 refers to the 1[st] accused and 7 others indulging in theoffence and not about 12 persons indulging in the offence asalleged in Ex.P.1. Four persons remained unidentified even afterinvestigation out of the 12 persons. The weapons of offence werenot recovered. The pendency of a civil suit concerning the landwas referred to even in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 wound certificate refersto three contusions which are simple injuries and the medicalofficer as P.W.5 stated about the other injury being fracture of leftwrist joint. Ex.P.1 did not refer to any such fracture whilementioning an injury on the left hand and P.W.5 admitted that if aperson falls from the field bund of an agricultural land, two of theinjuries may be possible. Even assuming that the medical officerfound some injuries on the person of P.W.1 probably sustained ator about the alleged time of the incident, the same cannot besufficient to attribute them to the overt acts of any of the accusedwithout the evidence establishing such link. The panch witnessP.W.4 admitted that he stated earlier before the Court that he wasworking under P.W.1 for more than three years. P.W.3 alsoadmitted that he has no knowledge about the civil disputesbetween P.W.1 and Reddy Krishna, while P.W.2 claimed to be knowing all the accused even prior to the incident and if so, therewas no reason for not naming them in Ex.P.1.

10. P.W.1 the alleged victim, admitted that he did notmention in Ex.P.1 about the names of accused 6 to 8 or about thepolice protection order or the injunction order. Reddy Krishna,who was the defendant in O.S. No.14 of 1998, was admitted to benot a party to this case and the final result of O.S. No.14 of 1998is not known. P.W.1 admitted that the main road is a busy roadwith heavy traffic of buses, lorries and cycles and if so, therecould have been independent witnesses for any such incident thanonly the workers under P.W.1. The trial Court had the advantageof observing the demeanour of the witnesses and though itconsidered P.W.1 to be worth acceptance, it did not findacceptable corroboration to his claims from the evidence ofP.Ws.2 to 4. The evidence of P.W.1 being self-serving andinterested, looking for satisfactory independent corroboration willbe a salutary rule of prudence and under the circumstances, if thetrial Court had given benefit of doubt to the accused for thereasons stated by it, which need not be replicated herein, thesame does not appear to be interfereable in this appeal, further inthe light of the circumstances referred to above. The appeal evenregarding accused 1 to 7 should, therefore, fail.

11. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

_____________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

Date: 29-12-2011

Svv