THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1832 of 2007 18-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Sonti Venkateswara Rao …..Appellant/Complainant AND Pala Srinivas and others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1832 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the Judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed in S.C. No.29 of 2000 by the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 365, 342 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That there are disputes between the families of the appellant/complainant and his brother-in-law, and on account of the said disputes, the appellant/complainant thought that he would be implicated in a false case by his brother-in-law as his brother-in-law has got influence with the local police. In this connection, to take advice from advocate at Machilipatnam, the appellant/complainant along with his family went to the office of Advocate at Machilipatnam and that they were informed by the junior advocates that their Senior Advocate would be available on the next day. While they were returning from the Office of Advocate in a rickshaw, the accused surrounded them and severely beat them and that they kidnapped the appellant/complainant by throwing his wife and sons from the rickshaw and that the junior advocates witnessed the said occurrence. That the passers-by also requested the accused not to beat the appellant/complainant, but the accused did not heed to their requests. Thus, all the accused with the collusion of brother-in-law of the appellant/complainant committed the offences of kidnapping and causing voluntary hurt to the appellant/complainant and his family. Basing on the private complaint filed by P.W.1, a case was registered against A.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, and A.2 to A.4, police constables working under A.1, for the offences under Sections 365, 342 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the accused, but no documentary evidence was adduced.
The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence, and on hearing oral submissions on both sides, having found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 365, 342 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, acquitted A.1 to A.4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal.
When the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel for A.1 to A.4/respondents 1 to 4 submit that the matter is settled between them. The learned counsel for A.1 to A.4/respondents 1 to 4 further submits that the dismissal of the appeal with the observation that the matter is settled between the parties, may affect the promotional chances of A.1 to A.4/respondents 1 to 4.
On perusing the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the Court below has considered 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 same needs no interference by this Court.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the acquittal recorded by the Court below against A.1 to A.4/respondents 1 to 4 as this Court finds no merits in the appeal and also as the matter is settled between the parties. However, this Court directs that the observation that the matter is settled between the parties will not come in the way of promotional chances of A.1 to A.4/respondents 1 to 4 and their promotions can be considered without being influenced by the said observation. .
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 18.12.2014 pln