THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 508 of 2010
JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment, dated 17.03.2008 passed in Special S.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge under the SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)
(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2005 at about 5.00 P.M., when P.W.1-R.Madhav Rao was in the house of P.W.3- K.Shankar, the respondent/accused came to the house of P.W.3 and tried to kill P.W.1 with the help of an axe and when P.W.3 and P.W.4-Korla Rukma Bai tried to rescue P.W.1 from the hands of the respondent/accused, he took out a knife, threatened P.W.1 to kill and abused him in filthy language by referring his case.
On appearance of the accused, charges under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 and 2. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondent/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of the respondent/accused Exs.D1 to D6 were marked.
The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused for the offences with which he was charged and accordingly, acquitted the accused.
Heard both sides.
It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such, which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, to be characterized as perverse. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are 3 possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
From a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that P.Ws.1 to 5 are the interested witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence, is not at all helpful to the prosecution case that the respondent/accused came to the place of incident armed with knife and axe and tried to kill P.W.1 and also abused P.W.2 by referring his caste name. The version of P.W.2 under Ex.D3 is quite contrary to the evidence given by him before the Court as he stated in his cross-examination that he does not know what had happened in the house of P.W.3 on the date of incident. Further, from a perusal of the evidence on record, it is clear that there are disputes between P.W.1 on one hand and the person, who contested as Sarpanch in the Panchayat elections, on the other and that the respondent/accused belongs to the group of the defeated candidate. Since the present case is an offshoot of the disputes between the parties, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to hold that the respondent/accused is guilty of the offences with which he was charged. The trial Court having taken into consideration various factors proceeded not to rely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the evidence of 4 PW 1. I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the reasons assigned by the trial Court in discarding the evidence of PW 1.
In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused. The trial Court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondent/accused. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 23.02.2021 Gsn/gkv