The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Nagula Sailu,
2021 Latest Caselaw 518 Tel

           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.

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

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

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