THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2006 15-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Shaik Azeezuddin …..Appellant/complainant AND Ram Mohan And others.
…..Respondents/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1020 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 01.03.2006 passed in C.C.No.64 of 1997 by the Court of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Judge acquitted A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Sections 342, 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
A3 is family friend of complainant and used to help them in all their necessities. A2, Inspector of Police is bent upon to ruin the family of A3 taking advantage of old age of her mother. Seeing the situation, the complainant intervened. A2 bore grudge against him. A3 was impressed that complainant may inform the affairs of A3 to her husband, who is at Canada. A2 and A3 planned to eliminate the complainant and took the services of A1. All of the accused planned to kill the complainant in such a way that there should not be any evidence and everything will go under the official curtain. Under the above said conspiracy, at the advice and connivance of A2, A3 filed a false complaint of gold theft in the Police Station of A1 against some persons. In consequence of that complaint, A1 prepared a ground to apprehend the complainant under the guise of investigation. A1 led by A2 and A3 abducted the complainant at about 6.00 p.m. on 27-6-1994 and the complainant was brought to Police Station Dabeerpura, where at the instigation of A2 and A3, A1 beat the complainant in the lock up with stick and motor tire all over the body, due to which the complainant fell unconscious. A1 did not allow the complainant to have any proper food and also did not allow any relative to take food in this process, the complainant due to starvation and weakness became high feeble and was lying unconscious till 7-7-1994. A1 under the impression that he is dead took the complainant into one jeep bearing No.APQ1221 and took to Moosi River bed and thrown him and went away. Complainant got consciousness at midnight, went to his house, took rest and food and on the next day he felt high pain. Then he went t o Osmania General Hospital. Thereafter, seeing the complainant, accused again started harassment. Complainant submitted written representation to Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, and took interview of Joint Commissioner. But the police Officers did not take any action on the ground that A1 and A2 are police officers.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D.1 was marked on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds:
(i) P.W.1 deposed that when he was taken to police station in the police jeep, P.Ws.2 and 3 witnessed the same. But, he has not stated about the said fact in the complaint, Ex.P.1. Further, P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not mention the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 while he was taken to police station, in the complaint, Ex.P.1.
(ii) The medical evidence and ocular evidence is totally different. Once, the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused concerned.
(iii) Further, under Ex.P.7, P.W.1 got marked the signature of the Deputy Commissioner of Police on the statement said to have given by P.W.1 to the Deputy Commissioner. But the statement was not marked. P.W.1, in his chief examination stated that he gave complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 11.07.1994 and he filed Xerox copy of the complaint, i.e., statement under Ex.P.8. P.W.1 did not state about his statement recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 30.09.1996. As per the said statement, P.W.1 was released from police station on 29.06.1996 at 4.30 p.m., whereas in the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that he was detained till 10.07.1994, and as such, it cannot be believed. In this context, the learned trial Judge observed as follows.
It is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 when he has given different versions before DCP and before the Court. If really, P.W.1 was released at 4.30 p.m., on 29.06.1994 and he was taken treatment from Dr.Masood, P.W.1 has not explained why he has not examined Dr.Masood. He also did not explain as to why he has not filed private complaint immediately after he was released from illegal custody and why he presented complaint to Deputy Commissioner of Police on 11.07.1994 and why he presented complaint on 19.07.1994 when he has chosen to move an application for anticipatory bail on 10.07.1994. The delay was also not properly explained. In the absence of independent evidence, and delay in presenting the complaint and as there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, when compared with his statement before D.C.P., A.1 and A.2 are entitled to be given benefit of doubt and entitled to be acquitted.
Heard 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 appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court 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 15.12.2014 pln