Prosecution must provide independent evidence beyond police witnesses to establish assault and obstruction of public officials.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and

401 of Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioners-appellants-accused Nos.1 & 2 seeking to set aside the order dated 01.04.2019 in Crl.A.No.1115 of 2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the conviction orders dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally in C.C.No.533 of 2012.

2. Heard M/s T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2010 excise police officials found two cyclists carrying gunny bags under suspicious circumstances opposite to Matha Temple at Mangalhat road and on seeing the police, the cyclists fled away from the place by leaving cycles and gunny bags. On verifying the bags they found black jaggery in gunny bags and when they were attempting to shift the gunny bags to the police station in their jeep, A1 came there and claimed the ownership of the jaggery and pushed the excise official aside and broke jeep’s wind shield and took away the cycles and gunny bags by abusing and assaulting the public servant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against accused is that they assaulted the officials and obstructed the duties of PW1 and others while discharging their duties. To prove the same no independent witnesses were examined with regard to the occurrence of alleged assault and interference in duties of excise officials and all are official witnesses. The trial Court has convicted them though none of the eye witnesses were examined and supported the case of the prosecution. Further the prosecution has not examined the eye witnesses who are present in the scene of offence and also has not examined the panch witnesses who conducted scene of observation panchnama. Further the evidence of the P.Ws 1 to 5 is inconsistent with each other in respect of timings and scene of offence. Further P.W.6 who is the driver of the jeep did not support the case of the prosecution.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same stating that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the case and prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. A perusal of the case record reveals that except official witnesses no independent witness was examined with regard to the alleged offence committed by the petitioners. Further there is inconsistency with regard to the evidence led by PW’s 1 to 5 and PW6, who is the jeep driver, did not support the case of the prosecution. Further the non examination of eye witnesses in the scene of offence and panch witnesses for scene of observation panchanama are fatal to the case of prosecution, wherein the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used criminal force or assault with the intent to obstruct a public servant in the execution of their duty. Hence, when the allegation is with regard to the assault and interference of duties of the officials, the only evidence led by such officials which is inconsistent becomes biased and does not hold good. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence by the independent witnesses except police officials, the concurrent findings made by both the trial Court and appellate Court are set aside.

7. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed and the sentence imposed against the petitioners-appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 in the judgment dated 01.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2017 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment dated 07