The principle of parity mandates that when evidence against co-accused is identical, the court cannot convict one while acquitting another, ensuring equal treatment under the law.

ORDER :

V.Srinivas, J.

This Revision is filed by the petitioner/A1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2010 in Crl.A.No.67 of 2009 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the appeal insofar as A5 and A6 are concerned by acquitting them and dismissed the appeal insofar as A1 is concerned by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, in the judgment dated 15.10.2009 in C.C.No.226 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 27.04.2007 at about 3.00 P.M, while conducting raids by the excise officials near Chinamerangi Village, they found that petitioner along with others were preparing illicit arrack in two vessels. When they tried to conduct raid, the said persons assaulted with sticks and knives by abusing in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. On the report of PW1, a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 of Jiyyammavalasa police station was registered. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

4. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.12.2010, found A1 to A13 and A15 not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 506(II) IPC and found A1, A5 and A6 guilty for the offence under Section 353 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, A1, A5 and A6 preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.67 of 2009 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District, wherein the learned Judge has allowed the appeal insofar as A5 and A6 are concerned by acquitting them and dismissed the appeal insofar as A1 is concerned by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC,

6. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this revision is preferred by the petitioner/A1.

7. Heard Sri A.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and there are lot of discrepancies. There is no evidence to show that PW1 to PW3 were on official duty at the time of alleged incident. More so PW1 did not identify the accused, who were allegedly obstructed him while discharging duties. In EX.P1-report, it was mentioned that apart from 15 accused there were 25 unknown persons but no identification parde was conducted to identify them.

9. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 is clear that on 27.04.2007 at about 3.00 P.M. they went for raiding of excise cases and on reaching scene of offence near Chinamerangi village, observed preparation of distilled liquor and they tried to raid, 15 accused obstructed them with knives, sticks and in the meanwhile 50 to 60 people including women folk of the said village reached there and warned all the officials and when tried to arrest, there was scuffle between them, in which accused assaulted them. He further submits PW1 clearly stated that the accused attacked Head Constable, Ramarao-PW3 and torn his shirt. He further submits PW1 identified A1, who assaulted him besides he is a habitual offender. He also submits that evidence of PW1 cannot be doubted on any ground since he participated in the incident officially and his evidence is believable and reliable and cannot be discredited any iota of fact thereby, this Court warrants no interferance and prayed to dismiss the revision.

10. The point that arise