G.Suresh, vs The State , Station House Officer,
2021 Latest Caselaw 82 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                        Crl.R.C.No.1417 of 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order of

acquittal, in C.C.No.272 of 2005, dated 17.07.2008 by the Additional

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2005 at about

1.30 pm., when LW.2 was going to his house, A.1 to A.3 restrained LW.2

and beat him black and blue with a wooden pestle causing bleeding

injuries and fracture injuries. When the injured raised cries for help, LW.1

and LW.3 along with others rushed to the scene of offence and identified

the accused, who left the area on seeing the people rushing to the scene

of offence. Later, the injured was shifted to a hospital at Rajahmundry,

where he was provided first aid treatment. A complaint was registered

and investigation was taken up resulting in a charge under Section 326

read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. After due trial and after hearing both sides, the trial Judge

went into the evidence produced in the course of trial and upon

consideration of the said evidence, the trial Judge found inconsistencies

and lacunae in the evidence, resulting in an acquittal of the accused.

Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the present Criminal Revision

Case has been filed before this Court by PW.1, who is the son of the

injured person.

4. It appears that A.1 is the father, A.2 is the brother and A.3

is the mother of the injured person. A.1, who is the father of the injured,

is said to be about 80 years old.

                                     2                                 RRR,J
                                                        Crl.R.C.No.1417/2008

5. The eye witnesses to the incident are PWs.1 and 3 to 8.

However, PWs.4 to 6 did not give any evidence, which was in relation to

the occurrence of the actual incident. The trial Judge noted that PWs.1, 3

& 6 are related to each other. PWs.1 and 8 are sons of the injured while

PW.3 is wife and PW.7 is the brother-in-law of the injured. In view of the

close relationship of these witnesses with the injured person, the trial

Judge kept this fact in mind while considering the evidence given by

these witnesses.

6. The trial Judge, while considering the medical evidence in

the case, had noted the fact that the Doctor who examined the injured

had stated that there were injuries to the head of the injured. However,

medical evidence, such as scan reports, C.T. scan or ex-ray, which were

said to have been taken at that point of time, have not been produced

before the Court.

7. The learned Judge while pointing out the discrepancies in

the eye witness account, had held that the depositions of the eye

witnesses are not satisfactory, especially, in view of the differences

between the eye witness account, as to the nature and location of the

injuries on the injured, and the injuries found by the Doctor-PW.9, who

had issued the wound certificate.

8. As the medical version was not corroborating the evidence

of the eye witnesses, the trial Judge had opined that the accused were

entitled to benefit of doubt.

9. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the trial Judge should not have doubted the eye witness

account of the witnesses on the ground of their close relationship with the

injured. He further submitted that the discrepancies between the medical 3 RRR,J Crl.R.C.No.1417/2008

evidence relating to the nature and location of the injuries and the eye

witness accounts are minor in nature and would not be sufficient for the

trial Judge to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

10. I am afraid that I cannot accept the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the discrepancies between

the eye witness account and the medical evidence relating to the nature

and location of the injuries is substantial and as such cannot be brushed

aside. Further, the fact is that the witnesses, who spoke about the

incident, are closely related to the injured. Even though said evidence

cannot be discarded, the learned trial Judge correctly scrutinized the

evidence by applying very strict parameters.

11. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the

judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

7th January, 2020 Js.

                           4                            RRR,J
                                         Crl.R.C.No.1417/2008




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




               Crl.R.C.No.1417 of 2008




                  7th January, 2020
Js.