AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1993 was tried by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for an offence punishable under S. 436, I.P.C. On evidence the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has not been able to connect the accused with the crime.
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-respondent herein, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.
The prosecution story can briefly be narrated as follows : That the father of the accused, P.Ws.6 and P.W. 7 were doing business jointly. They were doing the business of finance under the name of style of Sri Satya Sai Finance Company, Visakhapatnam. But there were some misunderstandings between the father of the accused on the one hand and P.W.6 and P.W.7 on the other. Therefore, the father of the accused separated from the business and P.Ws. 6 and 7 jointly continued the same business. Thus, the relationship between the father of the accused and P.Ws. 6 and 7 were strained.
It is further stated by the prosecution that P.W.1 was appointed as a watchman by P.W. 6 at a place where he was constructing his house. P.W.1 was residing in a temporary shed which was constructed for storing the building material. In the shed 200 bags of cement, other wooden articles and building material were stored.
It is further alleged by the prosecution that on the date of the incident, i.e., on the intervening night of 12/13-12-1988 the accused went to the scene of offence, i.e., near the shed and set the same on fire. On the night of the incident P.W.1 was not getting sleep and therefore he was sitting in the shed. P.W. 1 saw the flames from one corner of the shed and realised that his shed had caught fire and he came out of the shed and found the accused was standing nearby the shed and P.W.1 tried to catch hold of him and the accused successfully escaped from the scene of offence.
It is further alleged by the prosecution that when P.W.1 was going to inform his masters, i.e., P.Ws.6 and 7, on the way he alleged to have met P.W.4 who was going for answering the nature of calls. Ultimately the first information report came to be lodged by P.W.1, who was accompanied by P.Ws.4 to 7. Thus, the police machinery was set in motion. The accused was arrested, the Panchanama of the scene of offence was prepared, certain burnt articles were seized under Panchanama, the statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.
The defence of the accused is of a total denial. It is also suggested by the accused by way of defence that P.Ws.6 and 7 had a grudge against the father of the accused as their relations were strained in the partnership business and ultimately the father of the accused had to separate from the business which was conducted jointly by him and P.Ws.6 and 7.
It is the further case of the defence that P.W.1 is an unnatural witness, who happens to be the close relation of P.Ws.6 and 7, and he had planted the case in order to connect the accused with the crime.
Now I proceed to scrutinise the evidence as brought on record so as to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to connect the accused with the crime ?
It is not in dispute that the shed in question was burnt which was meant for storing building material. In this case, there is a sole eye-witness, P.W.1. This Court has to consider whether the evidence of P.W.1 can be believed to base the conviction of the accused for an offence punishable under S. 436, I.P.C.
It appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that he did not believe the evidence of P.W.1 for the reason that there was a delay of 17 to 18 hours in filing the first information report. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that P.W.1 filed the first information with the police after due deliberation with P.Ws.6 and 7. It is further held by the learned Sessions Judge that because of the strained relationship over the partnership business between the father of the accused and P.Ws.6 and 7, the accused has been falsely implicated. This possibility cannot be ruled out. It further appears from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge that he did not believe the evidence of P.W.1 for one more reason that he was a chance witness. He was not a resident of the village where the offence took place. He had come to work as a watchman with P.W.6 only about 2 or 3 weeks prior to the incident. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held that it is not possible for P.W. 1 to identify the accused. The version of P.W.1 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge for one more reason that he has stated in his evidence that he tried to extinguish the fire. In that process, he got burnt injuries. The evidence of P.W.1 has been negatived by the medical evidence. According to the version of P.W.1 that after getting the burnt injuries, he rushed to the hospital and he was treated there. The Doctor P.W.2, who has examined P.W. 1, has specifically stated that he did not find any external marks of burnt injuries on the person of P.W.1.
Considering the sole testimony of P.W.1, the learned Sessions Judge held that there is no impediment in law in basing the conviction on the sole testimony of an eye-witness provided that the evidence of such eye-witness is trust-worthy. But the learned Sessions Judge found in the present case that the evidence of P.W.1 is tainted with motive. The first information was given with due deliberation and discussion. The delay caused in filing the first information with the police was not explained by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed as a basis of conviction and hence the accused was acquitted.
Considering the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge, this Court holds that no interference is required at the hands of this Court against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused-respondent herein.
Appeal dismissed