JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. A-1 to A-4 in Sessions Case No. 805 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District had preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Sri Suresh Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellants would submit that the ingredients under Section 398 IPC are not attracted even as per the evidence of PW.! 3 and PW4. The learned counsel also would submit that PW.3 is the Head-Constable and PW.4 is the Sub-inspector of Police. PWs.1 and 2-mediators had not supported the version of the prosecution, except identifying their signatures in mediators report Ex. P-1 and P-2. Solely on the strength of such evidence, conviction cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would submit that even otherwise, in the light of the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4, it cannot be said that there was any attempt to commit either robbery or dacoity, so as to attract the ingredients under Section 398 IPC. The counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of CHINNADURAI V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, .
3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that mere fact that PWs. 3 and 4 are police officials by itself cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of these witnesses. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that these are the persons who are duty bound to safeguard the interest of citizens and hence while discharging their duties, they came across A-1 to A-4. The evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 is clear and categorical and hence the conviction is sustainable. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the effect that on the strength of the police officials alone, conviction can not be sustained.
4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 102 of 1998 for the offence under Section 398 IPC. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is as hereunder::-
“A-1 to A-4 are close associates and bad elements to commit offences like Highway Robberies, High Way dacoities in and around Guntur town on National Highways and State Highways. While so on the intervening night of 16/17-7-98 when PW.4 along with police officials PW.3 and others patrolling along the state highway between the Phirangipuram and towards Narasaraopet for spotting out the dacoities in Cr. No. 101 of 98 u/s.395 IPC of ! Phirangipuram P.S At about 3.00 A.M on 17-7-98 when they laid in wait at Repudi market yard checking the vehicles, one lorry driver proceeding on the state highway from Narasaraopet to Guntur side informed PW.4 that 4 persons stood near the bridge of the canal near to Nudurupadu Railway Gate and attempted to stop his lorry and he suspecting them to be criminals speeded the lorry without stopping and also found knives with them. Immediately, PW.4 along with PW.3 and other staff in their jeep proceeded at a speed of 60 K.Ms per hour and found A-1 to A-4 giving signals with their hands to stop the jeep without knowing that it is a police jeep. PW.4 stopped the jeep alighted along with other staff and chased and caught 4 accused who are running towards southern fields. On interrogation A-1 to A-4 disclosed their identity. On search A-1 is in possession of knife about 27 cm. in length with a green colour plastic handle and A-2 is found in possession of a knife about 27 cms, length having black coloured plastic handle and a pair of gold ear studs, A-3 was in possession of cash of Rs. 1650/- in two bundles, one knife of 33 c.ms in length with wooden handle and one Alwyn wrist watch, and A-4 was found in possession of one casio design wrist watch with plastic strap and cash of Rs. 400/-. A-3 led the police party and mediators PWs.1 and 2 to his house at Guntur and A-3 went inside his thatched house and produced a proper packet containing a gold chain weighing about 10 grams and seized the same under the cover of mahazar.
In view of the fact that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions which had been made over to the learned principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet and the learned Judge recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-4 and Mos. 1 to 3 and recorded a finding and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the offence of Section 398 IPC as against A-1 to A-4 had been proved by the prosecution. PW.3 is the Head-Constable and PW.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram, PW.3 and PW.4 had deposed that on the intervening night of 16/17-7-98 while PWs. 3 and 4 the Sub-Divisional I.D. Party police personnel and their police staff were patrolling and checking the vehicles at Repudi marketing yard in view of the earlier offence in Cr. No. 101/98 for the offence under Section 398 IPC of Phirangipuram Police Station as mentioned in Ex. P-3 Police proceedings and in Ex. P-4 F.I.R at about 3.00 A.M on 17-7-98, one lorry driver proceeding towards Guntur from Narasaraopet side informed them that four persons armed with knives were stopping the vehicles near canal nearby Nudurupadu railway gate. PWs. 3 further deposed that immediately after the information they proceeded in their jeep at a high speed of 60 K.M per hour and no vehicle came opposite to them or crossed them on the highway. PW.4 no doubt deposed that some four or five vehicles came in opposite direction. PWs. 3 and 4 further deposed that on seeing the jeep A-1 to A-4 gave signals to stop the jeep because A-1 to A-4 had no knowledge that it is a police jeep. The jeep was stopped and on seeing the police personal, the accused started running away towards southern fields. The police chased A-1 to A-4 and caught them at a distance of 100 yards from Nudurupadu railway gate. On interrogation A-1 to A-4 disclosed their identity. PW.4 searched A-1 to A-4 and seized MO.1 and a gold ring in possession of A-1, Mo. 2 a pair of ear studs in possession of A-2 and cash of Rs. 1650/- in two bundles and wrist watch and MO.3 in possession of A-3, a cash of Rs. 400/- and wrist watch in possession of A-4 and they were arrested and Mos. 1 to 3 were seized under Ex. P-3 police proceedings. PWs. 3 and 4 deposed that they identified A-1 to A-4 though it was dark because they were chasing A-1 to A-4 running on their back and caught them in the shadow of men.
PWs.1 and 2 mediators, had not supported the version of the prosecution, were simply identified thei! r signatures on mediator’s report-Exs. P-1 and P-2.
5. Both the counsel made submissions at length on the aspect of sustainability of conviction on the strength of the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 alone, defence counsel contending that conviction cannot be sustained and on the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contending that mere fact that these are the police officials that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of these witnesses in toto. In the case of CHINNADURAI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with Section 398 IPC held that:-
“No robbery or dacoity has been committed as such, in the sense that no property was removed from the house of the complainants and nothing said to be belonging to the complainants was recovered, it would be improper to hold that there was any attempt in regard to the commission of robbery or dacoity. Scattering of articles in the house may cause a scene as if ransacked, but that does not prove the charge.”
6. No doubt, there are certain variations in between the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4, but, however, in substance PWs. 3 and 4 deposed that A-1 to A-4 stopped the jeep not knowing that it was a police jeep and on seeing these persons, PWS.3 and 4 had chased A-1 to A-4. PWs.1 and 2 mediators except admitting their signatures had denied the other aspects. Hence relating to seizure of Mo. 1 to MO.3, there is no other independent evidence except the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the very version of PWs. 3 and 4 is that on information received by them, they had reached the spot and on seeing the police jeep not knowing that it was a police jeep A-1 to A-4 stopped. On coming to know that it was a police jeep, they ran away and they were chased by PWs. 3 and 4 and the recoveries were made and also Mos. 1 to 3 were seized. In nutshell this is the version of the prosecution. Section 398 IPC dealing with attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon, reads as here! under:-
“Sec.398 IPC.
If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
In the light of the nature of the evidence available on record, especially in view of the fact that the independent witnesses had not been supported the version at all and also taking into consideration the varying versions, which had been deposed by PWs. 3 and 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ingredients of Section 398 IPC are not satisfied and at any rate definitely the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Hence, the prosecution had not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained and acquittal is hereby recorded.
7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.