ORDER: Assailing the judgment dated 03.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 07.01.2015 in C.C.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimadole, for the offences under section 353 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as “PDPP Act”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 08.02.2017 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.469 of 2017. 3. The shorn of prosecution case is that: (i). Petitioner claims to be the District Steering Committee Member of YSR Congress Party, West Godavari District. On 27.05.2012 at 07.30 p.m., on receiving information about the arrest of YSR Jagan Mohan Reddy by CBI and by anticipating agitation problem, P.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed to perform Traffic Regulation, Control of Law and Order and bandobasth duties at Bhimadole Junction. At about 07.45 p.m., when P.Ws.1 and 2 are busy with their duties, some persons came to there on their bikes and raised slogans against the Government. Then the accused came out of the group and damaged left side front glass of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3101, which was coming from Dwaraka Tirumala side to Eluru. On noticing the same, P.W1 rushed there to prevent him on doing further damage to the property. Then the accused assaulted the P.W.1. (ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, Bhimadole Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 2012 for the offences under Section 353 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(2)(3) of PDPP Act and investigated into. 4. On noticing the same, P.W1 rushed there to prevent him on doing further damage to the property. Then the accused assaulted the P.W.1. (ii). Basing on the report of P.W.1, Bhimadole Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.97 of 2012 for the offences under Section 353 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(2)(3) of PDPP Act and investigated into. 4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimadole, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 07.01.2015, found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in-default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month, for each offence. Both the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.13 of 2015, before the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 03.02.2017, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 6. Against the said judgment of the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 7. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Court appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that except the sole testimony of P.W.1, no other evidence is available on record regarding commission of offence by the accused; that even P.W.2 identified the accused, nothing was stated against him to believe the prosecution version; that in the testimony of P.W.1, there is no whisper about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of incident; that P.Ws.4 and 5 conductor and driver of the said bus, did not identify the accused; that even the incident said to be happened in a busy locality, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused; that the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offences and thereby, prays to consider the present revision. 10. In support of the above contentions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 7 SCC 157 . 11. As against the same, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State vehemently submits that the testimony of prosecution witnesses proved the offences against the petitioner; that P.W.1 categorically testified about the offence committed by the accused, which is corroborated with the testimonies of P.Ws.2, 4 and 5; that minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases, cannot be a ground to discredit the entire testimony and they can be ignored, as the witnesses may not be deposed like a parrot; that prosecution categorically established the guilt of the petitioner beyond all doubt; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the material on record, convicted the petitioner for the said offences and that there is no material on record to discard the findings recorded by both the Courts below. In support of the above contentions, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 , Destruction of Poblic & Pvt.Prop v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2266 and Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharastra, (2000) 8 SCC 457 . 12. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. In view of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is categorical and clear that there was a protest held on 27.05.2012 at Bhimadole Junction and P.W.1 attended bandobasth duty. However, the prosecution has to prove that accused was participated in the said protest and committed the said offence. 13. To prove the same, the prosecution, relied upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. But on perusal of testimony of P.W.1, he testified about the offence committed by the accused. But, except the self-serving testimony of P.W.1, none of the witnesses produced by the prosecution testified about the presence of the accused at the time of offence. Even P.W.1 did not testify the presence of P.W.2 at the time of commission of offence by the accused, thereby, the inconsistent testimony of P.W.2 cannot be taken into consideration about the participation of the accused in the agitation. For the sake of arguments, if it is believed that accused participated in the said agitation, it cannot be said that he committed the offences alleged against him, because P.Ws.4 and 5 said to be conductor and driver of the damaged bus did not identify the accused. 14. It is an admitted fact that the said offence was taken place at Bhimadole Junction, which is a busy locality. But, for the reasons best known, no independent witness was produced by the prosecution to prove the offence alleged against the accused. More so, no material object was produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged damage committed by the accused to the public property. 15. Now, it is relevant to refer observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh case (referred to supra), wherein Apex Court categorized the type of witnesses and held at paragraph No.12 that: “12. More so, no material object was produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged damage committed by the accused to the public property. 15. Now, it is relevant to refer observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh case (referred to supra), wherein Apex Court categorized the type of witnesses and held at paragraph No.12 that: “12. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in its celebrated judgment in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras ( AIR 1957 SC 614 ): “11…..Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence, or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.” 16. In the present case on hand, the only testimony available to the prosecution is P.W.1, which is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In such circumstances, the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, but the same is absent in the present case. Except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to support the testimony of P.W.1 in identifying the accused. On close scrutiny of testimony of P.W.1, there is only self-serving testimony and his evidence is not supported by any of the other independent witnesses. Even accordingly to P.W.2, there are twenty-five (25) members involved in this offence, but he did not identify the accused specifically, who said to have committed the offence. There is no evidence stating that accused alone damaged the public property and assaulted P.W.1 to perform his official duties. Even accordingly to P.W.2, there are twenty-five (25) members involved in this offence, but he did not identify the accused specifically, who said to have committed the offence. There is no evidence stating that accused alone damaged the public property and assaulted P.W.1 to perform his official duties. Even P.Ws.4 and 5 have not identified the accused. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 is inconsistent with each other and no corroboration noticed by this Court, which was focused by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. As discussed supra, non-production of any independent witnesses, non- identification of accused at the scene of offence by P.Ws.4 and 5 who are said to be present at the scene of offense and non-production of any material objects to prove the alleged damage caused to the public property, is fatal to the prosecution version. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is needless to say that this Court is of the considered opinion that, the pronouncements relied upon the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor is of no use to the prosecution case. 19. Thereby, viewing from any angle, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences. The Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the above said aspects, mechanically proceed with the prosecution version and erroneously made the findings against the petitioner. As such, the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court miserably failed to appreciate the lacunas in the prosecution case, which cut the root of the case and convicted the petitioner for the said offences, which is not tenable under law. 20. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court failed to appreciate the material on record in proper perspective, there is manifest error of law and flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the trial Court as well first Appellate Court, thereby, the present criminal revision has merits and liable to be considered. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 07.01.2015 in C.C.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhimadole, as confirmed in the judgment, dated 03.02.2017 in Crl.A.No.13 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused, if any, shall be refunded to him. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.