The importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 12/5/2009 in S.C.No.150 of 2006on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Tanuku, the petitioner/P.W.1/de facto complainant filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 19/3/2010. During pendency of this revision, respondent Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 died on 30/8/2017 and 12/4/2011 respectively and, as such, the present revision against respondent Nos.2 and 4 is dismissed as abated, vide order dtd. 1/12/2023.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:

i) On 5/3/2005 at about 05.00 p.m., due to disputes, accused Nos.3 and 4 abused P.W.4 in filthy language. Later, accused Nso.1 and 2 went out and on the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4, they made an attack on the family of P.W.1. Then accused No.2 brought a knife from his house, abused P.W.1 in filthy language and forcibly hacked on the hand of P.W.1 by uttering that 'Chaavu Na Kodaka', as a result, P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury. Accused No.1 was also brought another knife from his house, attacked on P.W.2, hacked on his neck, head and both hands and caused bleeding injuries to him.

Accused No.2 caught hold tuft of hair of P.W.3, dragged her on the ground, removed her wearing saree, thereby outraged her modesty and hacked her with the same knife on her back and inflicted her to bleeding injury. All the accused made the daughter of P.W.1 fell down and accused Nos.3 and 4 kicked her with legs indiscriminately.

ii) Basing on the report submitted by P.W.1, P.W.13 Sub- Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2005under Ss. 307, 354 r/w.34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 4 and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, Police laid charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C.No.27 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku and committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.150 of 2006on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tanuku and after full-fledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 not guilty of the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC, found accused No.2 is not guilty of the offence under Sec. 354 of IPC, found accused Nos.1 to 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 323 of IPC, found accused Nos.3 and 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 307 r/w.34 IPC, found accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are not guilty of the offence under Sec. 354 r/w.34 IPC and accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant/P.W.1.

6. Heard Sri MD.Ismail, learned counsel representing Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant, Sri M.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Assistant Special Public Prosecutor for the 5threspondent-State.

7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?"

8. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court in acquitting accused for the said offences, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant/P.W.1.

9. It is a fact found from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the accused and P.Ws.1 to 4 are close relatives. P.W.1 and accused No.2 are cousins by relation.

10. The categorical contentions of the accused are that no independent witnesses were cited or examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident, even as per Ex.P.1 the presence of any neighbor was referred; that even though accused received injuries and Cr.No.22 of 2005 was registered basing on the complaint of accused as per the remand report, the same is not brought to the notice of