An acquittal stands upheld where the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence in appeals.

JUDGMENT :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned VII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in S.C. No.860 of 2015, dated 16.05.2017, where under respondent No.1/accused No.1 was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 379, 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and respondent No.2/accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence under Section 435 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant-State. No representation on behalf of the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 in the morning session and in the afternoon session either physically or virtually.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 14.11.2014 at 22-20 hours Sri Kancharla Sainath Reddy, PC-4070 lodged a complaint in which he stated that on 14.11.2014 at 8-20 PM they saw a person moving on a numberless PULSAR motor cycle near More Supermarket side, Snehapuri Colony, wearing a helmet, and on suspicion, he and LW2 B. Jagan Mohan, PC 5736 followed him and passed on information to LW3 E.Prasad Reddy, PC 4935. Immediately LW3 joined them and LW1 and LW2 waylaid accused No.1 by stopping numberless motorcycle and when tried to catch him, accused No.1 took out the knife and threatening LW1 and LW2 not to approach accused No.1 and in the meantime LW3 caught hold the accused No.1 from backside. But accused No.1 managed to release from LW3 and stabbed LW3 on his left shoulder causing severe bleeding injury and accused No.1 took the Karizma motorcycle and fled away from the scene. Accused Nos.1 and 2 took the stolen vehicle to an isolated area beside Shiva Goshala, at the outskirts of Palmakula Village and burnt away the stolen vehicle. Basing on the said complaint, the present case was registered for the offence under Section 304-B of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences.

4. On behalf of prosecution before the Court below, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined, however, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. The trial Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the parties, acquitted respondents for the offences with which they were charged.

5. Aggrieved by the above said judgment, the State filed the present Appeal.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences by producing the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record erroneously acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that PW.3, who is the injured person, specifically stated in his evidence that when he tried to caught hold accused No.1 from back side, he hit him with knife on his left shoulder and he fled away by taking Karizma motorcycle of PW.1. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW.3 and acquitted the accused persons. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be convicted for the offences with which they were charged.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that basing upon the complaint lodge