(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to Aggrieved by the impugned judgment made in CC.No. 44 of 2002 dt.08.01.2007 acquitting A1 and A3 against the offences committed by them U/s. 384, 38 &323 r/w 24 of IPC the appellant herein begs to present this Memorandum of Grounds involving Sec.174 of Cr.P.C i.e., appeal against acquittal

IA NO: 1 OF 2007(CRLAMP 1869 OF 2007

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 193 days in filing the Criminal Appeal

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLAMP 1180 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant special leave to prefer an appeal against acquittal in CC.No. 44 of 2002 on the file of the II Addl. J.F.C.M., Tirupati.)

1. There is no representation for the appellant/complainant. Even on the earlier occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant/complainant.

2. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 4th respondent–State are present.

3. In view of the absence of representation on behalf of the appellant/complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 4th respondent–State is requested to assist the Court in disposing of the appeal on merits.

4. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to hear the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 4th respondent–State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/accused.

5. For the convenience of the Court, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arraigned before the learned trial Court.

6. The appeal is disposed of on merits as under:

7. The present appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 08.01.2007 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, in C.C. No. 44 of 2002.

8. The learned Magistrate rendered the said judgment on a private complaint filed by the complainant and recorded an order of acquittal under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 352 IPC, thereby acquitting the accused.

9. The complainant challenged the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence and law. According to him, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 establishes the case of the complainant, but the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.

10. To prove the offence under Sections 384 and 352 IPC, the complainant examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The plea of the accused was one of denial.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant filed Exs.P1 to P5 to establish that the accused requested him to send money. However, on perusal of the said letters, there is no material to enable the Court to conclude that the accused threatened the complainant so as to attract the offence under Section 384 IPC. He further submitted that the evidence of PW1 discloses that he was assaulted by the accused in July 2000 when he, along with his friends, was proceeding to a tea stall. To corroborate his testimony, the complainant examined PW2 and PW3. Therefore, it is contended that their evidence proves the offence of assault.

12. The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW1 did not disclose the presence of PW3 at the time of the alleged incident. PW2 deposed a different version regarding the incident. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 creates a reasonable doubt about the occurrence of the incident as alleged by the complainant. Hence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused.

13. The appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal. Therefore, the complainant must demonstrate that the opinion of the trial Court is not based on any evidence and that such an opinion is wholly unreasonable. Only if the sole possible view is that the evidence on record proves the offence, can the appellate Court interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. If two views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, including the view taken by the trial Court, the appellate Court shall not interfere with the order of acquittal.

14. In the present case, it is the contention of the complainant that the accused addressed letters to him threatening him with dire consequences if he did not pay money. However, a perusal of Exs.P1 to P5 does not disclose any such threat. They merely contain a request for payment of money. The evidence of PW1 discloses that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were known to him and that on certain occasions he paid money for reasons best known to him. Therefore, based on Exs.P1 to P5, nothing can be inferred to conclude that the accused extorted money from PW1 so as to constitute an offence under Section 384 IPC.

15. PW1 deposed that in July 2000, while he was proceeding to a tea stall in Sundarayya Nagar, Tirupati, along with PW2 and other friends, the accused suddenly came and beat him. However, PW2 deposed a different version, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused. PW2 stated that in July 1999, he accompanied the complainant along with other friends to the house of the accused to question them about the letters, and at that time an aged person and others assaulted the complainant.

16. PW3 was examined as if he had witnessed the incident that occurred in July 2000. He deposed that on 02.07.2000, in the morning hours, he was present at Bhavani Nagar to have tea and noticed four male members and two female members beating the complainant. The complainant’s evidence, however, is that the accused waylaid and beat him on the way to the tea stall. Thus, the manner and place of the incident as deposed by PW3 differ from those stated by PW1 and PW2. Moreover, PW1 did not depose that PW3 was present at the time of the incident or that he witnessed the assault. PW3 appears to have been introduced subsequently as an eyewitness.

17. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the offence under Sections 384 and 352 IPC and accordingly acquitted the accused.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the opinion of the trial Court is a possible view based on the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the judgment is perverse or unsupported by evidence. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.

19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.