HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2009
1. The appeal is filed by the defacto complainant/appellant
questioning the acquittal of the second respondent. The 2nd
respondent was tried for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. However, after recording the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy found the 2nd respondent not guilty of the offences vide judgment in SC No.196 of 2006 dated 19.02.2008.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent/accused and the appellant/defacto complainant (G.Manikya Reddy), P.W.2 are brothers. On 12.02.2006, the 2nd respondent called for panchayat before the elders. P.W.2 along with his two children were sitting in the office of the 2nd respondent in Sairatna Complex along with Anji Reddy, Buchi Reddy and Krishna Reddy. The 2nd respondent entered into the office and shouted that he would kill P.W.2 and then he would be the owner of the entire property and by saying so, he tried 2 to stab him with a iron rod. P.W.3 who is the son-in-law of P.W.2 intervened and when he tried to rescue P.W.2, the 2nd respondent hit him in stomach. P.W.2's daughters, P.Ws.4 and 5, who were also present, were beaten by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the accused ran away and P.W.2 gave complaint with the police. Later, P.W.8 treated P.Ws.4 and 5.
3. The learned Sessions Judge found that the 2nd respondent is not guilty of the offences for the following reasons:
i) P.Ws.2 to 5 deposed before the Court that the 2nd respondent tried to throttle P.W.2 with an intention to kill him. However, there is no such statement made in Ex.P4 complaint which was given after six hours of the incident.
ii) The prosecution produced Ex.P9 medical record of P.W.3 to prove that he was in-patient. However, the treating Doctor was not examined. PW3 identified only the signature on the medical record Ex.P9. The medical record discloses that P.W.3 was in the hospital. However, the Investigating Officer 3 recorded the statement of P.W.3 in the hospital on the same day, which is not possible.
iii) P.Ws.4 to 6 went to Raghavendra Hospital to have first aid, for which Exs.P1 to P3 medico legal certificates were produced. However, P.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that all medico legal cases have to be informed to the concerned police station, but no such information was given and there are no OP numbers which are mentioned in Exs.P1 to P3. Further, P.W.1, the Doctor did not identify P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 that he has examined them and treated them.
iv) Though, one independent witness L.W.5, Krishna Reddy was summoned, he did not turn up to give evidence before the Court in spite of NBWs being issued, the prosecution did not take any steps to produce the said Krishna Reddy.
v) Though several names of independent witnesses such as Sanjeev Reddy, Upender Rao, Krighna Reddy, Gopal Reddy, Buchi Reddy, his mother, Anitha,, Pushpamma, B.Krishna Reddy, K.Bal Reddy, Dattamma and Radhakrishnama who 4 acted as elders to dispute, none of them who are independent witnesses were examined before the Court.
vi) The investigating officer in this case was not examined to ascertain the correctness of the complaint and treatment taken by the witnesses.
4. The learned Sessions Judge had come to the conclusions on the basis of the evidence and none of the conclusions recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are found to be unreasonable, for which reason, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even greater significance where the 1 (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688 5 accused has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be established on record of the Court.
6. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to examine the Investigating Officer. The treating Doctors did not identify the victims and the medical record produced was not proved. In the said circumstances, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.08.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1592 OF 2009 Date: 26.08.2022 kvs