IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of corroborative evidence in criminal cases was underscored, as the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ORDER:

Assailing the judgment dated 03.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 07.01.2015 in C.C.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimadole, for the offences under section 353 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as “PDPP Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 08.02.2017 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.469 of 2017.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:

(i). Petitioner claims to be the District Steering Committee Member of YSR Congress Party, West Godavari District. On 27.05.2012 at 07.30 p.m., on receiving information about the arrest of YSR Jagan Mohan Reddy by CBI and by anticipating agitation problem, P.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed to perform Traffic Regulation, Control of Law and Order and bandobasth duties at Bhimadole Junction. At about 07.45 p.m., when P.Ws.1 and 2 are busy with their duties, some persons came to there on their bikes and raised slogans against the Government. Then the accused came out of the group and damaged left side front glass of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3101, which was coming from Dwaraka Tirumala side to Eluru. On noticing the same, P.W1 rushed there to prevent him on doing further damage to the property. Then the accused assaulted the P.W.1.

(ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, Bhimadole Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 2012 for the offences under Section 353 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(2)(3) of PDPP Act and investigated into.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimadole, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 07.01.2015, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month, for each offence. Both the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.13 of 2015, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 03.02.2017, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

6. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

7. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Court appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

8. 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 as well first Appellate Court?”

9. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that except the sole testimony of P.W.1, no other evidence is available on record regarding commission of offence by the accused; that even P.W.2 identified the accused, nothing was stated against him to believe the prosecution version; that in the testimony of P.W.1, there is no whisper about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of incident; that P.Ws.4 and 5 conductor and driver of the said bus, did not identify the accused; that even the incident said to be happened in a busy locality, no independent witness was examined by