The Court made the following JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal, under section 378(1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) is preferred by the Appellant / State against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nuzvid (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.74 of 2005 by its judgment dated 13.10.2008 acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against A.1 to A.3, under Section 326 of IPC against A.3 and under Section 307 of IPC against A.1 and under Section 326 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against A.2.

2. Perused the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, which is challenged under this appeal. It consisted of evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.7 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

3. The facts in a nutshell, which give rise to the present appeal, are as follows:

P.W.1, Pinapati Veladri, an active member of the Congress Party and the proprietor of a Fair Price Shop in Vavilala Village, was the subject of a rumour alleging that he had developed an illicit intimacy with the wife of A.1. Aggrieved by this rumoured relationship, the accused are said to have nurtured a grudge against P.W.1 and awaited an opportunity to eliminate him. On the night of 22.05.2003, P.W.1 attended the marriage function of the son of P.W.6, Chalasani Basavayya, at the latter’s residence, accompanied by P.W.2, Madugula Pedda Krishna, and P.W.3, Pinapati Jakarayya. After the dinner, at about 11:30 p.m., while they were returning home and reached near the house of A.1, A.1 to A.3 suddenly attacked P.W.1, armed with sickles, dragged him into the premises of A.1’s house, and wrongfully restrained him. A.2 allegedly held P.W.1 by folding his hands behind his back; A.3 inflicted a cut on the nose of P.W.1 with a sickle; A.1 cut his right ear and also struck his left shoulder. A.1 further attempted to sever the neck of P.W.1, resulting in a minor cut to his left ear. P.Ws.2 and 3 witnessed the incident. L.W.4 Appa Rao, L.W.5 Narasaiah, and P.W.4 Tati Butchayya were aware of the rumours concerning P.W.1 and A.1’s wife, and they subsequently learnt of the occurrence. P.W.1 thereafter lodged a complaint, marked as Ex.P1, upon which the Police registered a case, conducted an investigation, and subsequently filed the Charge Sheet.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvur, has taken on file as P.R.C. No.18 of 2003 under Sections 307, 326, 341 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. On appearance, furnished the copies of the documents to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed to the Session Court. The trial Court framed the charges for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC against A.1 to A.3, under Section 326 of IPC against A.3 and under Section 307 of IPC against A.1 and under Section 326 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against A.2, read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

5. The Trial Court examined the accused as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to enable it to consider the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and against them. But the accused denied the evidence adduced by the prosecution. After the conclusion of arguments and upon perusal of the material, the trial Court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant / State contends that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate that the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 341, 326, 307, 326, 307 r/w.34 of IPC were made out. He further contends that the learned trial Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of prosecution witness, which is cogent and reliable and the Trial Court's disregard of prosecution evidence renders the acquittal unsustainable.

7. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Accused despite being afforded sufficient opportunities