G.Manikya Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4339 Tel

            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

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

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

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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1592 OF 2009

Date: 26.08.2022

kvs