Appellate court maintains acquittal where evidence does not sufficiently substantiate claims against police officer's actions in discharge of duties.

1. Heard Sri Raghunath, counsel representing the appellant and also Smt. Jhansi, representing B. Audinarayana Rao, counsel representing first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Sri Raghunath, learned counsel representing appellant with all vehemence would contend that this is a typical case of torture and ill - treatment of a woman, who made a request to the first respondent - accused to take action against the offender and instead of taking action against the offender, the first respondent - accused beat the complainant - appellant. Learned counsel also would submit that the evidence of PW 1 is well supported by her daughter, PW 2 and in the light of the evidence available on record, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, Exs. P2 and P3 the photographs and Exs. P4 and P5 the negatives and the news item published in Ex. P6 and also the wound certificate Ex. P7 the prosecution was able to establish the charge as against first respondent - accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence acquittal recorded cannot be sustained.

3. On the contrary, Smt. Jhansi, learned counsel representing first respondent would submit that this is a private complaint filed by the appellant - complainant as against the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tandur P. S. under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code . Except the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 the interested testimony, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned counsel also would submit that the news item published, as Ex. P6 need not be given serious consideration, since it is only a publication made in a newspaper which is just in the nature of hearsay evidence. Learned counsel also would submit that when acquittal had been recorded, unless there are compelling reasons to arrive at a different conclusion, normally the order of acquittal not to be disturbed in appeal, even if no appreciation of evidence the other view also is possible, hence, the acquittal not to be disturbed by this Court as appellate Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 and would submit that such acts, if any, on the part of police officials may have to be deprecated.

5. Heard the counsel on record.

6. This is an appeal preferred by the private complainant Smt. Padmamma as against the order of acquittal recorded in relation to A. V. R. Narasimha Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tandur for the offence under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code , who is arrayed as R. 1 in criminal appeal.

7. The case of the prosecution is that at about 4 months back, prior to the filing of the private complaint, a theft occurred in the house of the complainant. On 11-5-1997 the complainant caught hold of an offender, who committed theft in her house and handed over the said offender to the police station, Tandur, where the accused beat the complainant with lathies on her body and caused injuries. On a written complaint by the said Padmamma - complainant before the Court on 12-5-1997 the Magistrate was pleased to refer the complainant to G. C. H., Tandur for treatment and she was examined by the doctor and wound certificate was issued stating that all the four injuries are simple in nature. The Magistrate also was pleased to record the sworn statement of the complainant and cognizance was taken under S.324 of the Indian Penal Code as against R. 1 - accused.

8. In order to substantiate her case, the complainant examined herself as PW. 1, the daughter of complainant was examined as PW. 2 and the doctor was examined as PW 3. Ex. P1 is the complaint, Exs. P2 and P3 are the photographs, Exs. P4 and P5 are the negatives corresponding to Exs. P2 and P3, Ex. P6 is the news item published in Va