The State Of A.P. vs Chinthireddy Rajugari Raju Reddy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3815 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.288 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:

1. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents for

the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment in

S.C.No.27 of 2004 dated 19.06.2006 passed by the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2002, P.W.1

filed the complaint stating that there were disputes between A1

and A2. A1 and P.W.1 filed case and counter case. On

07.10.2002, P.Ws.1 to 5, who are accused in the case filed by the

1st respondent herein, went to Huzurabad to attend the Court.

P.Ws.1 started to Kannapur village on their Suzuki motor cycle

and when they reached Erukalagudem X road, they found

P.Ws.2 and 3 lying in pool of blood. On enquiry they stated that

while they were coming on motor cycle, A1 stopped them on the

road and then A2 to A4 came from bushes and attacked them

with sticks and iron rods and caused injuries and thrown them

beside the road, thinking that they might have died.

Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 were shifted to the Government

Hospital, Huzurabad for treatment. For the said reason, a

complaint was lodged which was registered as Cr.No.152 of 2002

under Section 307 of IPC and charge sheet was filed against the

respondents for the said charge.

3. Learned public prosecutor submits that the injured

themselves, who are P.Ws.2 and 3 deposed that A1 stopped their

vehicle at Erukalagudem X roads, thereafter A2 to A4 came out

from bushes and attacked them. In view of consistent evidence of

injured, acquitting the respondents by the trial court is

erroneous.

4. The trial court found the accused not guilty for the following

reasons; i) There are political differences and disputes between

the respondents herein and P.Ws.1 to 5; ii) P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely

related; iii) there are no independent witnesses examined to state

that the respondents had attacked and injured P.Ws.1 and 2. (iv)

seized Material Objects i.e., M.Os.1 to 3 are sticks and no other

weapons were found and sticks were recovered from open place,

as such, the said recoveries cannot be accepted. (v) The case of

the prosecution is that P.W.2's clothes were stained with blood.

However, there was no seizure of the clothes. P.W.8, the Doctor

gave inconsistent evidence regarding the injuries received. (vi)The

accused/respondents did not attend court on the date of alleged

incident, as such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that the

respondents 1 to 4 appeared in the court is incorrect. (vii)The

injuries are in consonance with accidental fall from the bike.

5. The conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge are based on

record. He dealt with every aspect of injuries, disputes between

the parties and the improbable version given by the witnesses.

The very genesis of the case is that the respondents herein went

to the Court on the said date of incident. However there is no

proof. P.Ws.4 and 5 are examined in the present case are accused

in the said case filed by the 1st respondent/accused herein as

complainant as such interested witnesses.

6. 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 accused

has a judgment of acquittal in his favour. A judgment of

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

7. When two views are possible, the view which is favourable to

the accused has to be considered and more so, in a case of

acquittal, when there are no glaring infirmities in the finding of

the trial court, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with.

8. In view of the consistent finding of the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, on the basis of records, it cannot be said that

the findings are erroneous only because different view could be

taken on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, this Court

cannot interfere with the findings of the trial court. The reasons

for acquitting the respondents are also reasonable. For the said

reasons, the appeal filed by the State fails.

9. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.288 of 2008

Date: 21.07.2022.

kvs