THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRL.A.No.1101 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.10.2007 recorded by the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal, against the respondents/accused in CRL.A.No.143 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The appellant is the State.
The case of the prosecution is that the fishermen of Kondair Village and Jinkalapally are having societies separately. Jinkalapally is hamlet of Kondair Village. The residents of Jinkalapally were not included in the society of Kondair Village Fishermen. There are two tanks called as Pedda Cheruvu and Lachamma Cheruvu and the Kondair society fishermen were enjoying fishing in the said tanks since long time. The fishermen of Jinkalapally requested the President of Kondair society to include at least 20 persons of Jinkalapally in the Kondair society, but he did not consider the same. On 08.05.2003 at about 10.00 hours when the accused were fishing in Lachamma tank, P.Ws.2, 5, 6, 11, 15 to 17 and others went to them and asked A-1 to give share to them in both the ponds for fishing, for which the accused denied and 2 subsequently the accused formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, picked up a quarrel with them and also caused injuries to P.Ws.2 to 19. On receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2003 and during the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, got the injured persons medical treatment, visited the scene of offence, conducted panchanama in the presence of the mediators and obtained the wound certificates and after completion of investigation and collecting all the material papers, the Sub Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.151 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur.
Since the accused have denied the charges framed by the trial Court, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23 to prove the guilt of the accused. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D1 to D-27 have been marked.
On considering the entire material available on record, the trial Court, vide judgment in C.C.No.151 of 2004, dated 23.10.2006, found A-1, A-3, A-7 and A-8 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C and 3 accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and further A-1, A-3 and A-8 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A-1, A-3, A-7 and A-8 preferred Crl.A.No.143 of 2006 and that the III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal, by judgment, dated 26.10.2007, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, acquitted A-1, A-3, A-7 and A-8 for the offences with which they were charged, as he found that the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Against the said judgment of acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.
Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
I have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Court below. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in one voice that on 08.05.2003 when they went to 4 Lachamma cheruvu, all the accused were fishing in the tank and that the accused assaulted them with sticks and stones. The individual overt acts of the accused were not mentioned in Ex.P1. The trial Court has not considered Exs.D1 to D-27, portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.1 to 17, which clearly speaks that P.Ws.1 to 17 have not furnished the names of all the 45 accused in their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and if all the 45 accused have attacked at a time, it could not be possible for witnesses to speak the individual overt acts of the accused or the place of injuries sustained by the other injured and as such the lower appellate Court has rightly held that non-consideration of Exs.D1 to D-27 by the trial Court has caused prejudice to the accused. Further, P.W.10, Salamma in her cross-examination admitted that they filed the case to get a share in the society of the accused. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same was comprising of omissions and improvements and it does not inspire confidence to accept its case against the respondents/accused in the alleged incident and it is a fit case where benefit of doubt shall be extended to them.
Having considered the submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the 5 respondents/accused and after perusing the judgment of the appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court is justified in recording the acquittal, as nothing is pointed out to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court. The appellate Court discussed the entire evidence in detail and came to a correct conclusion that the respondents/accused were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The evidence let in by the prosecution does not inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused and the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondents/accused. I find no reason or justification to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 20-04-2021 gkv/Gsn.