HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1138 of 2010 DATE:28.06.2010 Between:
Shk.Jafar Sadiq @ Sadiq And:
Mohammad Abul Kalam and 2 others …… Petitioner.
…..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1138 of 2010 ORDER:
1. P.W.1 who is the first informant and who is brother of the deceased seeks to file this revision petition against judgment of acquittal recorded by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in Sessions Case No.336 of 2009. No doubt, it is a brutal murder. There were 15 stab injuries on the deceased as per Ex.P-10 Post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.14. The question is who committed the said murder and whether it was A-1 and A-2 who are respondents 1 and 2 herein.
2. P.W.1 is not eye witness to the occurrence. After coming to know about the offence, he came to the scene and saw the dead body in pool of blood and gave Ex.P-1 report to the police. P.W.2 though an eye witness to the occurrence, did not speak to identity of the two culprits who inflicted injuries on the deceased. P.W.4 and P.W.11 are witnesses to speak motive for the offence. According to them, the deceased developed intimacy with A-1’s wife. Mere proof of motive will not lead to any conviction. P.Ws.5 and 7 to 9 totally turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.6 came to the scene after hearing cries and found the dead body in pool of blood. He did not witness the occurrence proper. Thus, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence with regard to the alleged offence said to have been committed by A-1 and A-2. It is stated that another eye witness was murdered few days after this incident and so P.W.2 did not depose before the trial court, even though he gave names of A-1 and A-2 as culprits to the police during investigation in his statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. No conviction can be recorded on the basis of contents of statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Even with regard to recovery of the alleged crime weapons, the lower court found there is certain discrepancy. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, no conviction can be recorded on the basis of mere recovery of weapons. The lower court after going through the record, rightly acquitted A-1 and A-2 in this case. There are no grounds to come to a different conclusion in this revision petition. In any event, as per Section 401(3) Cr.P.C a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction while exercising powers of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. There are no merits in this revision petition.
3. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.
Date:28.06.2010.
Gk.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1138 of 2010 Date:28.06.2010 Gk.