IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1695 OF 2006 Between:
Kavita Kota Satyavathi … Petitioner/Defacto complainant V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondent & A1 to A4 Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Addl.Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents/
A-1 to A-4 : Sri P.N. Murthy The court made the following : [Judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1695 OF 2006 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dt. 31/7/2006 in SC.No. 281 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, W e s t Godavari district, whereunder the respondents 2 to 5 herein are acquitted of the offences under section 354 and 323 IPC.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the defacto complainant i.e., PW-1 in SC.No. 281 of 2005 preferred the present Revision.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Revision are as follows:
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chebrole Police Station filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 5 herein alleging that on 18- 10-2003 all the accused with a common intention to assault PW-1 went to her house, dragged her out of the house, sprinkled chilly powder, beat her and kicked her in the abdomen, when her daughter came in rescue of PW-1, A-2 caught hold of tuft of PW-2 and kicked her, due to which blood came from her vagina. The other accused beat PWs 1 and 2 indiscriminately with sticks.
4. On these allegations, the trial Judge framed charges under section 323 and 354 IPC and conducted trial. During the trial PWs 1 to 10 are examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 are marked on behalf of prosecution.
5. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused not guilty for the offences charged against them and acquitted, aggrieved by which the present Revision is preferred.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The main contention of the Revision Petitioner is that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which is corroborated with documents Exs.P8 and P9 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused but the trial court without considering the same acquitted respondents 2 to 5 herein. It is further contended that both PWs 1 and 2 have categorically deposed about the overt acts of individual accused i.e., respondents 2 to 5 and that is sufficient to prove the offences under section 354 and 323 IPC.
8. Now the point for determination is whether the judgment of court below is correct, legal and proper ?
9. Point : Admittedly, there are property disputes between the Revision Petitioner and the family of A-1. From the evidence on record, it is clear that both of them have purchased adjacent property and a civil suit is also pending in respect of the disputes. Out of ten witnesses examined, PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses. According to prosecution, all these witnesses are eye- witnesses to the incident but they have not supported the prosecution case and they are treated hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the State. During cross-examination, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements, nothing could be elicited to show that they are won over by the accused persons and speaking falsehood to help them. PW7 is also treated as hostile, who is said to be another eye- witness. His 161 Cr.P.C. Statement is marked as Ex.P-6 and nothing could be elicited from him during cross-examination to show that he was won over by the accused. PW-8 admitted in the cross- examination that there are no signs of any incident as per the scene observation report Ex.P7. From the evidence, it is also clear that the respondents 2 to 5 herein also gave a complaint against the Revision Petitioner alleging that they were attacked and a separate crime is registered on the report given by accused persons. Admittedly both cases are not tried together and the learned trial Judge observed in his judgment that unless both the cases are tried it is not possible to decide who are aggressors from out of two groups.
10. Here except the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 2, who are mother and daughter, there is no evidence to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons i.e., respondents 2 to 5 herein. From the cross-examination of PW-1 the victim, it is clear that there are disputes between the parties and that she also filed a case against her divorced husband in CC.No. 688 of 2005 which was pending at that time. She also admitted that she filed another case against the husband of A-1 with allegation of attempt to murder. As already referred above, civil suit is also pending between the parties in respect of the property dispute. When there are disputes and pending cases between the parties, it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of the witnesses to convict the opposite party. When PW-1 was asked about the crime number registered against her in respect of the same incident, she denied knowledge of it. So these aspects will clearly indicate interestedness of the victim and her daughter and the learned trial Judge rightly discarded such evidence for convicting the accused. As already referred above, the main witnesses, who are independent, have not supported the prosecution case and the scene observation report discloses that there are no traces of any incident. So considering these aspects, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to alleged incident cannot be accepted and the trial court was right in acquitting the accused by discarding the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 2.
11. On a scrutiny of material on record, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court.
12. For these reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
22/01/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1695 of 2006
Circulation No. 77 Date:22/01/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43