THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2007 15-10-2014 BETWEEN:
Gurindagunta Anasuya …..Appellant/complainant AND Velidandla Padma And others.
…..Respondents/accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 28.06.2006 passed in C.C.No.615 of 2003 by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Vijayawada, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the complainant is the family friend and family doctor of the accused. On 17.10.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant went to the house of the accused at Vijayawada. The complainant was on the way to Delhi to attend Indian Medical Association Conference, scheduled to be held from 20.10.2000 and also to celebrate Deevali festival at her nephew’s house. At that time, the complainant was carrying an amount of Rs.26,000/- and gold jewellery weighing about 45 sovereigns and the same were kept in leather bag and the same was kept in her suit case. On the night i.e., 17.10.2000, the complainant stayed in the house of the accused. On 18.10.2000, before leaving the house of the accused, the complainant opened the suit case and took out Rs.400/-, out of Rs.26,000/- from the bag separately to meet the expenses on the way to Delhi and at that time, the gold ornaments were intact. The complainant kept the suit case in front room and went to toilet, and after returning, she noticed the suit case half opened and she did not suspect any foul play and as such, she did not check up the contents in the suit case and closed it tightly. Immediately, the complainant took the second accused along with her to Delhi for giving company to her and as such, both of them went to Railway Station carrying luggage and boarded Kerala Express to New Delhi.
On the way, in the train, the complainant did not open the suit case.
They reached Faridabad at 3.30 p.m., on 19.10.2000 and after reaching her nephew’s house, she opened the suit case and found the cash and jewellery missing along with bag. She immediately telephoned to A.3 and A.1 at Vijayawada and requested them to check for missing jewellery and cash.
A.1 gave irresponsible and provocative reply. Immediately, the complainant told the same to A.2 and took her and proceeded to Delhi and then returned to Vijayawada to the house of accused. The complainant questioned the accused about her jewellery and cash. The accused did not give proper reply.
The complainant told them that she will lodge a complaint to the police and tried to go to the police station to give report. On that, A.1 to A.3 begged the complainant not to lodge any report to the P.S., assuring the complainant that the person, who has stolen the jewellery and cash would return the stolen property. Believing their promise, the complainant waited till 24.10.2000, but in vain. The complainant went to the P.S., and reported the matter orally and on 23.10.2000, Sub Inspector of Police along with Head Constable, visited the house of the accused and made enquiries by questioning the accused.
On 30/31.10.2000, the complainant drafted a written report stating that the offence and gave particulars of gold and cash and on such complaint, a case is registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 379 IPC and 411 IPC, and the matter was investigated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and no documentary evidence was adduced. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds:
(1) The evidence of P.W.1 is not cogent and convincing.
(2) P.Ws.2 to 4 are not eye witnesses for the offence and they are only circumstantial witnesses.
(3) The properties are not recovered from the possession of the accused.
It is also observed by the learned trial Judge that the evidence of P.W.1 is based only a strong suspicion since she deposed that she saw the jewels while she was staying in the house of the accused and subsequently when the bag was opened in Delhi, after traveling in the train, she found that the said jewels were missing. Except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Mere suspicion, whatever strong in nature, cannot be a ground to connect the accused with the crime. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the accused have not committed any offence and as such, the accused are liable to be acquitted.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents herein. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.10.2014 pln