Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 566 (TS)

Rupa v. State of Telangana

2022-09-02

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, SHAMEEM AKTHER

body2022
JUDGMENT : SHAMEEM AKTHER, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) is filed by the appellant/de facto complainant, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 13.12.2012, passed in S.C. No. 22 of 2012 by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, whereby, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC and were acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Prabhakar Sripada, learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant, Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State, Mr. M.S. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5/A1 to A3 and perused the record. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 21.12.2010 at about 01:30 hours, PW-1 M. Rupa went to Gandhinagar Police Station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint stating that A1 to A3 were residing at Flat No. 204, Pushpavathy Residency, New Bhoiguda, are her tenants. They are due by Rs. 42,000/- to her mother towards rents. On 20.12.2010, at about 18:50 hours, the complainant (PW-1) and her brothers Pavan Kumar (PW-3) and Krishna Kumar (PW-2) went to A1 to A3 for asking rents. On that, A2 suddenly started abusing PW-1 in filthy language and slapped PW-1. A3 showed a knife to PW-3 and said “....................” and threw the knife at PW-3 and punched PW-3 on his face, due to which, PW-3 lost his tooth and was bleeding profusely. Then, A3 punched PW-1 in her stomach. When PW-2 intervened, A1 and A3, saying the words “....................” dragged PW-2 catching his hair and banged his head to the railing and punched him on his face due to which, PW-2 sustained severe head injuries on his hand, nose, ear and vomited blood. Then, A2 started shouting “.....................” Then, A3 again gave severe blows to PW-2 due to which, PW-2 lost his conscious. A1 to A3 pushed PW-3 downstairs and A1 said “.....................”On seeking PW-2 unconscious, PW-1 started shouting for help and A1 to A3 ran away from the scene. Earlier also, A1 to A3 threatened PWs. 1 to 3 several times, and requested to take legal action against A1 to A3. 4. A1 to A3 pushed PW-3 downstairs and A1 said “.....................”On seeking PW-2 unconscious, PW-1 started shouting for help and A1 to A3 ran away from the scene. Earlier also, A1 to A3 threatened PWs. 1 to 3 several times, and requested to take legal action against A1 to A3. 4. On receipt of Ex.P.1-complaint, PW-6 Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 478 of 2010 of the offences under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P4-FIR and handed over the CD file to PW-7-Sub Inspector of Police. PW-7 examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch under Ex.P5 in the presence of PW-5 and another, seized MOs.1 to 4-four stone pieces under Ex.P2-Seizure Report in the presence of PW-5 and another, proceeded to hospital and seized MO.5-pant, MO.6-Jacket and MO.7-Orange lining half shirt of PW-2 under Ex.P3-Seizure Report in the presence of PW-5 and another, examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 3, 4 and LW.5 on the same day, examined and recorded the statements of PW-2 on the third day of the incident, as he was unconscious, apprehended A1 and sent him to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW-13 Y. Swarajya Laxmi, Sub Inspector of Police, laid charge sheet before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, against A1 to A3 of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. 5. The Magistrate had taken cognizance against A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, registered the same as P.R.C. No. 73 of 2011 and committed the same to the Court of Session, Warangal, since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. On committal, the Court of Session numbered the case as S.C. No. 22 of 2012 and made over to the Court below for disposal, in accordance with law. 6. On appearance of A1 to A3, the Court below framed charges against them of the offences under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, read over and explained to them for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the guilt of A1 to A3, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, besides case properties, MOs.1 to 7. 8. PW-1-M.Rupa is the de facto complainant. 7. To prove the guilt of A1 to A3, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11, besides case properties, MOs.1 to 7. 8. PW-1-M.Rupa is the de facto complainant. PW-2 M. Krishna Kumar is the brother of PW-1. PW-3 M. Pavan Kumar is another brother of PW-1. PW-4 G. Srinivas Rao is an eye witness. PW-5 A. Ram Dass is a panch witness for rough sketch and seizure reports. PW-6 is the Sub-Inspector of police who registered Ex.P4-FIR. PW-7 is the investigating officer. PW-8 is the doctor who was present at the time of medical examination of PW-2. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Exs.P2 and P3 are Seizure Reports. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P6 is the Injury Certificate of PW-2. Exs.P7 to P11 are photographs with negatives. MOs.1 to 4 are four stone pieces. MOs.5 to 7 are pant, jacket and orange lining half shirt, respectively, of PW-2. 9. When A1 to A3 were confronted with the incriminating material appearing against them and were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of A1 to A3. Ex.D1 is copy of legal notice and Ex.D2 is the copy of reply notice given by the accused. 10. The trial Court, having considered the submissions made and the evidence available on record, vide the impugned judgment, dated 13.12.2012, acquitted A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/de facto complainant preferred this appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant would contend that PWs. 1 to 3 are injured witnesses in this case, who specifically deposed that they were assaulted by A1 to A3 when they went to collect rent from them. A2 used foul language at PW-1 and slapped her. A3 hurled a knife at PW-3 with an intention to kill him and gave fist blows, as a result of which, PW-3 lost his tooth. A3 also gave fist blows to PW-1 on her lower abdomen due to which, PW-1 had pelvic bleeding. A2 used foul language at PW-1 and slapped her. A3 hurled a knife at PW-3 with an intention to kill him and gave fist blows, as a result of which, PW-3 lost his tooth. A3 also gave fist blows to PW-1 on her lower abdomen due to which, PW-1 had pelvic bleeding. When PW-2 interfered and tried to pacify the situation, A1 and A3, at the instigation of A2, caught hold the hair of PW-2 and banged his head against a wall and dragged him up to railing, due to which, PW-2 sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. Ex.P6-Injury Certificate of PW-2 substantiates the same. All the essential ingredients of Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC have been made out against A1 to A3. The testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 is cogent, convincing and inspiring confidence to act upon. There are no material omissions and discrepancies in their evidence. Further, their evidence is corroborated by PW-4, who is an independent witness. There is no delay in lodging the FIR. Further, merely because PWs. 1 to 3 are related to each other, that by itself would not affect the credibility of their testimony. Further, merely because there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is the duty of the Court is to scrutinize the evidence carefully and separate the grain from the chaff. There is unimpeachable evidence of the prosecution witnesses to arrive at a conclusion that A1 to A3 are guilty of the charges framed against them. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. The facts which stood established by the prosecution are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of A1 to A3. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously recorded acquittal in favour of A1 to A3 for the charges framed against them and ultimately, prayed to set aside the acquittal recorded by the Court below in favour of A1 to A3 vide impugned judgment, dated 13.12.2012 and convict them of the charges framed against them and allow the appeal as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant had relied on the following decisions: 1. Sucha Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 2. Krishna Mochi and Others vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 3. State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 4. Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh and Others, AIR 1990 SC 209 5. State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1776 6. State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, AIR 1981 SC 1390 7. Ugar Ahir and Others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 8. Sohrab S/o Beli Nayata vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 751 9. Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 10. Gangadhar Behera and Others vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 11. Appabhai and Another vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 241 12. Mahender Chawla vs. Union of India, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 1235 13. Karnel Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1995) 5 SCC 518 14. State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715 15. Ram Bali vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 10 SCC 598 16. Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC 532 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5/A1 to A3 would submit that there are material omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. A civil dispute in between PWs. 1 to 3 and A1 to A3 was given a criminal colour and A1 to A3 were falsely implicated in this case by concocting a false story. Though PW-3 is said to have lost his tooth and PW-1 is said to have had pelvic bleeding due to the beatings of A3, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. Further, in PW-6 Injury Certificate of PW-2, there is a specific mention that PW-2 suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. Further, there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, the evidence of PW-4, who is said to be an independent witness, is not trustworthy. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record in correct perspective, rightly recorded acquittal in favour of A1 to A3 of the charges framed against them. Further, there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, the evidence of PW-4, who is said to be an independent witness, is not trustworthy. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record in correct perspective, rightly recorded acquittal in favour of A1 to A3 of the charges framed against them. There are no circumstances to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Court below and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/state had taken this Court through the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3 and 7 and other evidence available on record to arrive at a just conclusion. 14. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are as follows: (1) Whether PWs. 1 to 3 suffered injuries at the hands of A1 to A3 in the alleged incident on 20.12.2010 at Flat No. 204, Pushpavathy Residence, New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad? (2) Whether there was an attempt on the part of A1 to A3 to do away with the life of PWs. 1 to 3? (3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? (4) Whether the acquittal recorded in favour of A1 to A3 by the Court below of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC vide impugned judgment, dated 13.12.2012, is liable to be set aside? (5) To what result? POINTS: 15. It is the specific case of the prosecution that when PWs. 1 to 3 went to the flat of A1 to A3 to collect the rents due, A1 to A3 intentionally caused hurt and attempted to do away with the life of PWs. 1 to 3. A1 to A3 denied the same and averred that in order to evict them forcibly from the flat, a false case is foisted against them. Hence, the burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt. To prove the same, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8, besides marking Exs.P1 to P6. 16. PW-1 is the de facto complainant. Hence, the burden lies heavily on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt. To prove the same, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8, besides marking Exs.P1 to P6. 16. PW-1 is the de facto complainant. She deposed in her chief examination that on 20.12.2010 between 06:30 P.M. and 07:00 P.M. A1 called PW-2 (brother of PW-1) and informed him to collect rent. Believing the same, herself, PW-2 and PW-3 went to A1. As soon as they reached the place of accused, initially PW-1 enquired about the rent. Immediately, A2 used foul language at PW-1 and slapped her. A3, from his room, hurled a knife at PW-3, came to PW-3 and gave fist blows due to which, PW-3’s tooth has fallen. At the same time, A3 hit PW-1 on lower abdomen with fist blows and immediately, she had pelvic bleeding. On seeing the above situation of assault, PW-2 interfered and tried to pacify. Thereafter, at the instigation of A2, A1 and A3 hit the head of PW-2 against a wall by catching his tuft and dragged him up to the railing. The accused threatened that if PWs. 1 to 3 ask rent, they would be killed. The action of A1 and A3 was at the instigation of A2. A3 also hit PW-2’s head to complex building steps railing continuously due to which, PW-2’s head was cracked on two places. At the same time, A1 was punching PW-2. On shouting by PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and LW-8 Madan Mohan and few complex persons also witnessed the incident. PW-1 lodged report with the police and the police recorded her statement. A3 deliberately hit her and her brothers as he is a professional boxer, knowingly that his punches will be forcible and strong. 17. PW-1 was cross-examined at length, wherein, she stated that police examined her and recorded her statement. It was suggested to PW-1 in her cross-examination that herself, Manjula, PW-2 and PW-3 went to the accused house in a drunken condition and created nuisance by insulting them by taking their caste name and snatched their gold ornaments. 17. PW-1 was cross-examined at length, wherein, she stated that police examined her and recorded her statement. It was suggested to PW-1 in her cross-examination that herself, Manjula, PW-2 and PW-3 went to the accused house in a drunken condition and created nuisance by insulting them by taking their caste name and snatched their gold ornaments. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before the police that A3 hurled knife at PW-3 and that she did not state before the police that on seeing the situation of assault, PW-2 interfered and pacified that the she did not state before the police that upon instigation of A2, A1 and A3 hit PW-2’s head to wall by catching his tuft and dragged him to a distance, i.e. up to railing of complex. She also denied the suggestion that PW-3’s tooth was not broken in the incident. PW-1 was recalled for further chief-examination on 07.11.2012, wherein, she stated that herself, PW-2 and PW-3 have handed over some photographs and OP slip to the Public Prosecutor for filing the same before the Court and that she handed over the clothes and photographs to the police under the impression that the IO will submit the same before the Court. She further categorically stated that she did not mention in Ex.P1 complaint as well as in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she had taken photographs of scene of offence and handed over to the police. 18. PW-2 is the brother of PW-1. He deposed that the accused kept balance of Rs. 42,000/- rental arrears. In that regard, on 20.12.2010 morning, A1 informed PW-1 about payment of rental balance by way of cheques and told her to come in the evening to collect the same. On the same day, in the evening, PW-2 along with PW-1 and PW-3 went to A1’s place to collect rental balance. They reached there and while climbing steps, PW-1 was in front, he and PW-3 were behind PW-1. Then, A2 used foul language at PW-1 and slapped her. In the meantime, A3, from his room, hurled knife at PW-3. Then A3 gave fist blows to PW-3 due to which, PW-3’s tooth has fallen. At the same time, A3 gave blows to PW1 on her lower abdomen. A1 and A3 together gave blows to PW-2 on his face, nose, ears and abdomen. In the meantime, A3, from his room, hurled knife at PW-3. Then A3 gave fist blows to PW-3 due to which, PW-3’s tooth has fallen. At the same time, A3 gave blows to PW1 on her lower abdomen. A1 and A3 together gave blows to PW-2 on his face, nose, ears and abdomen. When PW-2 was feeling unconscious, A1 and A3 caught his tuft and hit his head to wall and again they dragged him up to railing of the steps and beat him due to which, he sustained bleeding injuries. Then, he became unconscious. While he was going to unconscious stage, he heard the version of A2 stating to kill PWs. 1 to 3. He regained conscious on 22.12.2010 at Apollo Hospital and the police examined him and recorded his statement. PW-2 was cross-examined at length. It was suggested to PW-2 in his cross-examination that he was in drunken state at the time of his treatment at Gandhi Hospital and that the doctors noticed him in drunken condition. He also denied the suggestion that his accident register reveals his drunken condition and that he and PW-1 influenced the police not to file that document before the Court. 19. PW-3 is another brother of PW-1. He stated in his evidence that on 20.12.2010, accused informed to PW-1 about collection of balance rent and asked them to come to collect rent. After reaching the accused place, initially PW-1 talked to A2 and A2 slapped PW-1 and abused her in filthy language. Then A3 hurled knife at him. A3 beat him on his cheek and his tooth was broken. Again A3 gave fist blows to PW-1 on her lower abdomen twice. On seeing that, when PW-2 interfered, A1 caught hold PW-2 and A3 gave fist blows to PW-2 on his abdomen and both A1 and A3 hit PW-2 with his head to wall. A3 gave fist blows to PW-2 on his face and right side of his face and A1 caught hold PW-2’s tuft. A1 and A3 together, dragged PW-2 up to railing of complex, A1 caught hold PW-2 and A3 beat PW-2. PW-3 added that A2 stated to kill us. PW-2 fell down from steps and then A1 and A3 dragged him down. By pushing PW-2, the accused fled from the scene. PW-1 gave complaint to police. A1 and A3 together, dragged PW-2 up to railing of complex, A1 caught hold PW-2 and A3 beat PW-2. PW-3 added that A2 stated to kill us. PW-2 fell down from steps and then A1 and A3 dragged him down. By pushing PW-2, the accused fled from the scene. PW-1 gave complaint to police. Police came to the spot and with the help of ambulance, PW-2 was shifted to hospital. Later, police examined and recorded the statements of PW-2. PW-3 was cross-examined, wherein, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that A3 hurled knife at him. 20. PW-4 is a chance witness in this case. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny. A chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place and time of offence. PW-4, in his chief examination, deposed that on 20.12.2010, he went to see PW-3 at his residence. His purpose of visit to the house of PW-3 was to see his younger sister who was suffering with jaundice. The mother of PW-3 informed him that PWs. 1 and 2 went to collect rents from beside house. He had conversation with the mother of PW-3 and heard some noise. On hearing noise, he went to the spot, i.e. flats at flat No. 204. As soon as he reached there, A2 was telling A1 that he should not leave PW-2 and to kill him. By the time PW-4 reached, A2 pushed him from the steps and in the mean time, A2 beat PWs. 1 to 3. In that scuffle, PW-2 received punch and his tooth was broken. A1 and A2 together hit PW-2 to wall and from the mouth and ear of PW-2, blood was oozing and he fell unconscious in a pool of blood. Later, PWs. 1 to 3 were shifted to Gandhi Hospital in an ambulance and from there, they were referred to Yashoda. Later, police examined him and recorded his statement. PW-4 was cross-examined, wherein he stated that PW-3 is his friend. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the place of incident and he did not witness anything. 21. PW-5 is a panch witness for rough sketch and seizure reports. Later, police examined him and recorded his statement. PW-4 was cross-examined, wherein he stated that PW-3 is his friend. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to the place of incident and he did not witness anything. 21. PW-5 is a panch witness for rough sketch and seizure reports. PW-6 is the sub inspector of police, who deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, he registered the subject crime and handed over the CD file to PW-7 for further investigation. 22. The evidence of PW-7 assumes importance. He is the investigating officer, who examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He deposed that during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PWs. 1 and 3, visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch under Ex.P5 in the presence of PW-5, seized MOs.1 to 4-four stone pieces. On the third day of incident, he examined and recorded the statement of PW-2, as he was unconscious for two days. He apprehended A1 and sent him to judicial remand. PW-7 was cross-examined at length, wherein, he categorically stated as follows: “It is true that PW-1 did not state before me that A.3 hurled knife on PW-3 and on seeing the situation PW-2 interfered and pacified. It is true that PW-1 did not state before me that A.1 to A3 caught hold tuff of PW-2 and dragged him at a distance upto railing of complex and hit his head to wall. It is true that PW-1 did not state before me that accused threaten to kill them if they ask rents. It is true that PW-1 did not state before me that accused continuously hit PW-2’s head to all for which his head was cracked. 3 It is true that PW-2 did not state before me that A.3 hurled knife from room and PW-3 tried to bent and A.1 and A.3 caught hold PW-2’s tuff and hit his head to wall and again dragged upto railing of steps. 3 It is true that PW-2 did not state before me that A.3 hurled knife from room and PW-3 tried to bent and A.1 and A.3 caught hold PW-2’s tuff and hit his head to wall and again dragged upto railing of steps. It is true that PW-3 did not state before me that A.3 hurl knife on him then he bent upon on seeing that, PW-2 interfered, A1 caught hold PW-2 and A.3 gave fistow blows to PW-2 on his abdomen and that A.1 caught hold PW-2 tuft, A.1 and A.3 together PW-2 dragged up to railing of complex and PW-2 fell down to steps then A.1 and A.3 dragged him to down by pushing me accused fled from scene. It is true that PW-4 did not state before me that as soon as PW-4 reached the spot, A.2 was telling to A.1 that you should not leave PW-2 should kill, by the time he reached, A.2 pushed me from the steps. It is true that as per the statement of PW-4, he came to know about the incident on his enquiry.” 23. It has been contended before this Court that this Court has to examine the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the police and compare the same with the evidence of PW-7. It is pertinent to state that neither the prosecutor nor the victim had taken any steps before the Court below to recall PW-7 and examine him further to dispel the variations in the evidence of PW-7. An appeal is a continuation of criminal trial. Before this Court also, no application was filed to recall PW-7 and further cross-examine him with regard to the material omissions, if any. It is also relevant to state that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not form part of substantial evidence. It cannot be looked into either by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. The veracity of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is required to be tested on oath. Therefore, the contention raised before this Court that PW-7-Investigating Officer had deposed before the trial Court callously and without looking into the record, after his retirement from service, is unsustainable and do not merit consideration. Thus we see that there are dramatic improvements and wild exaggerations in the evidence of PWs. Therefore, the contention raised before this Court that PW-7-Investigating Officer had deposed before the trial Court callously and without looking into the record, after his retirement from service, is unsustainable and do not merit consideration. Thus we see that there are dramatic improvements and wild exaggerations in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 before the Court, over the statements made by them before the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In view of what has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW-7 which is extracted above, it is clear that there are material omissions in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and such material omissions would improbablize their version and hence, it is not safe to act upon their testimony. It is true that minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness are bound to occur and the same would not vitiate the whole prosecution case. But in the instant case, the material omissions in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 goes to the root of the matter and renders their testimony, upon which the whole prosecution case is based, doubtful. Under these circumstances, the Court below rightly held that what has been spoken by PWs. 1 to 3 before the Court was an afterthought. 24. It is the evidence of PW-1 that A3 gave fist blows to her on her lower abdomen due to which, she had pelvic bleeding. If that is so, nothing prevented PW-1 to obtain medical certificate to that effect and produced before the Court to substantiate the same. No such medical record is available. Further, PW-3 stated that A3 hurled a knife at him PW-3 with an intention to kill him and gave fist blows, as a result of which, he lost his tooth. It is true that dislocation of a tooth is a grievous injury. But however, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same and there is no medical record to that effect. Though PW-3 denied the suggestion that he was not examined by the doctors and he did not sustain any injuries in the subject incident, that mere statement would not suffice. There should be some material to substantiate the same, which is absent in the instant case. Further, the prosecution did not bother to recover the knife which was allegedly hurled by A3 at PW-3 and mark it as a material object. There should be some material to substantiate the same, which is absent in the instant case. Further, the prosecution did not bother to recover the knife which was allegedly hurled by A3 at PW-3 and mark it as a material object. Nothing has been attributed to the PW-7 Investigating Officer that he did not take steps to get PWs. 1 and 3 examined by a Government doctor. If there are laches on the part of the investigating officer, at least PWs. 1 and 3 ought to have got examined themselves by a doctor and ought to have examined the doctor who treated them and ought to have produced medical record to substantiate their case. They did not do so. 25. It is contended that when PW-2 interfered and tried to pacify the situation, A1 and A3, at the instigation of A2, dragged PW-2 catching his hair and banged his head to the railing and punched him on his face due to which, he sustained severe head injuries on his hand, nose, ear and vomited blood and became unconscious. Though a Photostat copy of Out Patient Ticket of Government General Hospital, Secunderabad, has been produced before this Court in connection with the said contention, neither the said Out Patient Ticket was marked as an exhibit, nor the doctor who treated PW-2 at the Government General Hospital, Secunderabad, was examined. The only available medical record with regard to the injuries sustained by PW-2 in the alleged incident is Ex.P6-Injury Certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad. Even in the said Certificate also, it was mentioned that PW-2 was admitted in the hospital on 20.10.2010 for alleged H/o “RTA at around 7 P.M. on 20.12.2010.” The prosecution got examined PW-8, a doctor, to substantiate the injuries said to have been sustained by PW-2 in the subject incident. PW-8 deposed that he was working as Hospital Administrator of Yashoda Hospital; when PW-2 was admitted in the hospital, at the time of treatment, in fact Sanjay Divakar examined PW-2 and he was assisting Sanjay Divakar. This witness further added that neither himself nor Sanjay Divakar examined the injured and the concerned consultant examined the injured person and they issued Ex.P6-Injury Certificate. PW-8 was cross-examined, wherein, he stated that he was not assisting Dr. Sanjay Divakar, as they were working in same department. He further stated that he signed Ex.P6-Injury Certificate on behalf of Dr.Sanjay Divakar. This witness further added that neither himself nor Sanjay Divakar examined the injured and the concerned consultant examined the injured person and they issued Ex.P6-Injury Certificate. PW-8 was cross-examined, wherein, he stated that he was not assisting Dr. Sanjay Divakar, as they were working in same department. He further stated that he signed Ex.P6-Injury Certificate on behalf of Dr.Sanjay Divakar. Further, he had categorically stated that in Ex.P6, it is mentioned that the injured has met with an RTI at 7.00 P.M. on 20.12.2010 and that RTI is short form of ‘Road Traffic Accident’ and that Ex.P6 shows that the injured has met with a road traffic accident. It is true that in Ex.P6-Injury Certificate of PW-2, in the first paragraph, it was mentioned as ‘road traffic accident’ and in the last paragraph, the word ‘assault’ was used. To dispel such discrepancy, the prosecution ought to have taken steps to examine the doctor who issued Ex.P6-Injury Certificate. No steps were taken to do so. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P6 to arrive at a conclusion that PW-2 sustained injuries in the subject incident. Further, PW-4 admitted in his cross examination that PW-3 is his friend. PW-4 is a chance witness. It is unsafe to act upon the testimony of PW-4. As seen from the material placed on record, the alleged incident took placed in a residential complex consisting of 20 to 22 flats. Except the evidence of PW-4, who is a chance witness, there is no evidence of other independent witnesses with regard to commission of alleged offence by A1 to A3. Further, there is no mention in Ex.P1-FIR with regard to the presence of PW-4 or any other witnesses during the commission of alleged offence by A1 to A3. 26. We have gone through the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant/de facto complainant. In Sucha Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the evidence of a witness cannot be rejected merely because he is a close relative of the victim; foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is raised; In such case Court has to adopt a careful approach while analyzing the evidence; proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. 27. 27. In Krishna Mochi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a witness may not stand the test of cross-examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored; some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. It is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. 28. In Anil Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in an appeal against acquittal, rejection of prosecution version only on ground that all witnesses to occurrence were not examined is not proper; it is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. 29. In Gurbachan Singh’s case (supa), the accused were tried for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. There was delay in lodging FIR by the father of the deceased. In the given facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that information of incident given to the father of the deceased in evening; father with his family rushed to hospital where the deceased was taken and stayed there throughout night and also on the next day till the body of the deceased was handed over; Hence, evidence of the father could not be doubted on account of delay in filing FIR. 30. In Teja Ram’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that evidence of all probable witnesses and close relatives cannot be rejected on ground of non-examination of independent witnesses; rejection of testimony of interested witnesses which is probable, on the ground that they all were close relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined is not proper. 31. In Teja Ram’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that evidence of all probable witnesses and close relatives cannot be rejected on ground of non-examination of independent witnesses; rejection of testimony of interested witnesses which is probable, on the ground that they all were close relatives of the deceased and no independent witnesses were examined is not proper. 31. In Smt. Kalki’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘related’ is not equivalent to interested. A witness may be called ‘interested’ only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ‘interested’. 32. In Ugar Ahir’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law, nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries, or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the Court is to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and re-construct a story of its own out of the rest. 33. In Shorab S/o Beli Nayata’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely because there have been discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all of the witness does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only after exercising caution and care and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the Court comes to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the accused, it will convict him. 34. In Gurucharan Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of proving alibi undoubtedly lies on the accused setting up the defence. But even so, the burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a plausible defence. 35. 34. In Gurucharan Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the burden of proving alibi undoubtedly lies on the accused setting up the defence. But even so, the burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a plausible defence. 35. In Gangadhar Behera’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely because of witness being related to the deceased, that by itself would not affect credibility of testimony of such witnesses; if for the plea of false implication proper foundation is laid, Court, by adopting a cautious approach, will analyze the evidence to find its credibility. 36. In Appabhai’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that failure of prosecution to examine independent witness, though the incident occurred at a public place, is not fatal to prosecution case. 37. In Mahender Chawla’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system. 38. In Karnel Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in cases of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer, if the investigation is designedly defective. 39. In K. Yarappa Reddy’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to that level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to that level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer's suspicious role in the case. 40. In Ram Bali’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to Karnel Singh’s case (supra), held that in the case of a defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. 41. In Gajoo’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused, should not be an aspect of material consideration by the court. 42. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the law laid down in the above referred decisions. Nevertheless, it is settled law that each case has to be decided on its own merit. It is also equally true that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which, the order of acquittal is founded. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts no limitations, restrictions, or conditions for exercising such power by the appellate Court. In fact, the High Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, is duty-bound to consider the entirety of the evidence and is required to evaluate the evidence on record independently, both on questions of fact and of law, and arrive at its own findings, as regards the culpability or otherwise of the accused, on the basis of evidentiary material. The paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court should involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself, whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible. The paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Court should involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself, whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible. In the instant case, all the circumstances indicated above makes the story of prosecution doubtful. There is no evidence, much less cogent and convincing evidence, to conclude that PWs. 1 to 3 sustained injuries due to assault by A1 to A3. In view of the above material discrepancies, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 that they suffered injuries at the hands of A1 to A3 in the subject incident is unbelievable. In the absence of any substantial evidence against A1 to A3 to prove their complicity in the subject offence as indicated above, it cannot be held that they are guilty of the charges framed against them. Hence, the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are not helpful to the appellant. 43. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn against A1 to A3 are not cogently and firmly established by the prosecution. The Court below had meticulously dealt with the entire evidence and is justified in acquitting A1 to A3 of the charges framed against them. There is nothing to take a different view. None of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/de facto complainant merit consideration. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 44. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the acquittal recorded in favour of A1 to A3 of the offences under Sections 323 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment, dated 13.12.2012, passed in S.C. No. 22 of 2012 by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. 45. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.