The State Of Telangana vs Lunavath Dasu And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2952 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 158 of 2020


JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning

the acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad (for short 'Assistant Sessions Judge) vide

judgment dated 16.04.2019 in S.C.No.872 of 2012 acquitting

the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable

under Sections 307, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in the month of

July, 2012, P.W.1 went to his native place Jayagirithanda on

casual leave from Jammu & Kashmir and he gave a complaint

to Commandant that his land which is his ancestral property,

was encroached by the respondents 1 to 4. The Commandant

addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Police and

Collector. After enquiry, it was found that the 1st

respondent/A1 purchased the land to an extent of Acs.2.06

gts in Sy.No.56/A, 56/C from PW1's father, but the name of

respondent No.1/A1 was not entered in revenue records.

Further, the 1st respondent/A1 had no right to purchase the

land from his father, as such the MRO advised the 1st

respondent/A1 to handover the possession of the land to the

defacto complainant/P.W.1.

3. On 12.08.2012, a panchayath took place before the

elders, wherein it was alleged that the agreement of sale

executed by PW1's father in favor of A-1 was a forged

document and accordingly, a complaint was given by P.W.1 on

13.08.2012. On the next day, i.e., on 14.08.2012, the

Inspector of Police called P.W1 and asked him to resolve the

dispute. On 17.08.2012 around 6.00 p.m when P.W.1 was

returning from his agricultural fields, the 3rd respondent/A3

abused him in filthy language and when questioned, the 3rd

respondent/A3 sprinkled chilli powder into his eyes, the

respondents 1, 2, and 4/A1, A2 and A4 armed with axe, rod

and stick beat P.W.1 indiscriminately, for which reason, he

sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital. Again a

complaint was filed complaining about the attack and

Cr.No.102/2012 was registered against the respondents 1 to

4/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 307,

324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation,

police filed charge sheet against the four Respondents.

4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and also marked

Exs.P1 to P14. In defence, the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4

examined D.Ws.1 to 3.

5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has acquitted the

respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 for the following reasons: i) the

entire chief examination of P.W1 is complete omission with

respect to the complaint and statement made before the police;

ii) the seizure of M.Os.1 to 3 were not proved that they were

seized from the possession of the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4;

iii) the alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.4 to 7 have turned hostile;

iv) the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is contradictory with regard to

the injuries received; v) the alleged agreement of sale executed

in favour of 1st respondent/A1 was not seized during

investigation; vi) the treatment of P.W.1 is contradictory, since

P.W.1 stated that he was treated by P.W.15, however, he

states that he was shifted to military hospital and treated as

inpatient for two weeks, but no one from the said military

hospital are examined to prove the claim of P.W.1 nor any

documents filed.

6. Admittedly, there are disputes regarding the land in

between the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 and P.Ws.1 to 3. The

evidence of eye witnesses is crucial to prove the assault.

Admittedly, the witnesses P.Ws.4 to 7, who are allegedly eye

witnesses, have turned hostile to the prosecution case.

Similarly, the testimony of P.W.1 regarding the attack and his

treatment are not convincing.

7. The case of the respondents/accused is one of total

denial. The burden is on the prosecution to prove their case

beyond reasonable doubt. The solitary testimony of P.W.1

which is shaky and totally self-contradictory cannot be made

basis to draw an inference against the accused that they

attacked P.W.1. As found by the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge, the version of P.W.1 regarding the purchase, complaint

given to the Commandant and subsequent enquiry were found

to be incorrect and admitted by P.W.1 himself. Admittedly,

Ex.P1 was not scribed by P.W.1 and the scribe of the said

complaint is not examined. P.W.1 himself admitted that he

did not state that he had approached the Collector and

Superintendent of Police to enquire into the matter and when

the District Collector and Superintendent of Police were

satisfied with the claim of P.W.1, then MRO was asked to

enquire into the issue. The very statement of P.W.1 that he

was treated at Military Hospital is belied on his own admission

that he had not produced any document to show that he took

treatment at Military Hospital.

8. In the said facts and circumstances when the alleged eye

witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and the

evidence of P.W.1 is self-contradictory and has not filed proof

of his treatment in Military Hospital, the benefit of doubt, in

fact, was given to the respondents/A1 to A4, which cannot be

found fault with.

9. In view of the failure of the prosecution to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and the reasons stated by the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge for recording acquittal being

reasonable, the judgment of Assistant Sessions Court does

not warrant for any interference.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal filed by the State is

dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.6.2022 tk/kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.158 OF 2020

Date:21.06.2022

tk/kvs