THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1285 of 2007 Date:07.10.2014 Between:
A. Nagabhushnam . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1285 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 19-09-2007 in Crl.A.No.55/2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur whereunder judgment dated 23-09-2005 in Sessions Case No.929/2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Gorantla filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 29-04-2004 morning, one Saradamma and accused came to police station and complained orally about the misbehavior of Kotiki Narasimha Murthy on which Sub-Inspector of Police secured the presence of said Narasimha Murthy, accused and Saradamma wife of accused and enquired into the allegations for which, Narasimha Murthy revealed that he never misbehaved towards Saradamma and S.I of Police reprimanded and warned the said Narasimha Murthy not to go to the house of accused and left them. While so, on 30-04-2004, at about 9:45 P.M., while Narasimha Murthy was proceeding to his house on his T.V.S Moped bearing No.A.P-02-H-396, the accused armed with an iron pipe way laid him near the house of one Harinath and beat him on head and caused bleeding injury and that Narasimha Murthy fell down from his moped on that the accused beat him with iron pipe on both hands and legs indiscriminately. One Rangamma and Harinadh witnessed the incident and intervened, and the accused beat Rangamma also with an iron pipe and caused injury and on the report of Narasimha Murthy, Crime No.57/2004 was registered and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 IPC. On these allegations, 13 witnesses are examined and 17 documents are marked besides M.O.I on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of accused, no witness is examined, but Ex.D1 is marked during the cross-examination of P.W.8. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused not guilty for the offences under Section 307 & 326 IPC but found him guilty for the offences under Section 324 & 325 IPC and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 325 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur, on a reappraisal of evidence, dismissed the appeal by confining conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court failed to consider that the evidence of victim is with all inconsistent versions and not supported by any other convincing evidence. It is further contended that there is a discrepancy with regard to the weapon used and that discrepancy would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case, but the benefit of doubt was not extended to the accused. It is further contended that prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charges for which the accused was convicted and both the Courts, on presumptions and assumptions, accepted the prosecution case and the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner has to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the discrepancies pointed out are not at all material and all these objections are raised before the appellate Court, which were rightly discarded and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 30-04-2004, at about 9:45 P.M., P.W.1 was attacked near the house of P.W.3 with an iron pipe and caused bleeding injuries. According to prosecution, P.Ws.2 & 3 tried to intervene and then the accused attacked P.W.2 also and beat her. According to prosecution, P.W.4 is also an eye-witness.
So out of 13 witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the material witnesses, the other witnesses-P.Ws.5 & 6 are circumstantial witnesses, P.Ws.7 & 8 are the persons who shifted P.W.1 to the hospital, P.W.9 is the police constable who rushed to the place of incident immediately after knowing about the attack, P.W.10 is another circumstantial witness, P.W.11 is the Doctor who examined P.W.1, P.W.12 is the Doctor who examined P.W.2 and P.W.13 is the investigating officer. P.W.1 clearly deposed in his evidence the way in which he was attacked and the way in which he received injuries. His evidence is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 on all material aspects. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is supported and corroborated with the medical evidence of P.Ws.11 & 12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.11, there are as many as nine injures on the body of P.W.1, which shows the way in which accused attacked him. When P.W.2 came in rescue of P.W.1 and she was also beaten and she received one abrasion on the left thigh. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-examined on behalf of accused, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. Learned Advocate for revision petitioner argued that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 & 4. According to P.W.1, P.Ws.4 & 7 shifted him to the hospital, but according to P.W.3, he himself shifted P.W.1 to the hospital and according to P.W.4, he and some others shifted P.W.1 to the hospital and these discrepancies would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case. But as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, these discrepancies are not very material and they do not go into the roots of the case. The other objection raised is that in the F.I.R., the weapon used is mentioned as ‘rokalibanda’ (pestle), but whereas during trial, the weapon produced is ‘iron pipe’ and this discrepancy would also create any amount of doubt. But this objection is also not tenable, because as seen from the evidence, it is clear that accused used two weapons in attacking P.Ws.1 & 2, but police seized only one weapon and the fact remains that P.W.1 received as many as nine injuries and out of them, there are grievous injuries also. Though the accused is charged for the offences under Sections 326, 307 & 324 IPC in view of the non-seizure of the other weapon and discrepancy with regard to the weapon, both trial Court and appellate Court did not convict the accused for the charges under Sections 307 & 326 IPC and he was convicted for the lesser charge.
7. Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited one.
The Courts, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot enter into a detailed discussion as to the merits or demerits of the case. Section 397 empowers High Court or any Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of the inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the correctness, legality or proprietary of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed. The object is to set right patent defect or error. The word ‘illegality’ can only mean an incurable irregularity, incurable because prejudice leading to failure of justice. In other words, it is nothing but contrary to the principles of law.
8. From the evidence on record, it is clear that accused attacked P.Ws.1 & 2 on 30-04-2004 in which both of them received injuries. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 on any of the material aspects. Though these four witnesses were cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused, nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. As rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor the material on record would clinchingly establish offences of 324 & 325 IPC and that there are absolutely no merits in the revision. As seen from the judgments, both the Courts have not committed any error while appreciating evidence on record or in answering the objections raised on behalf of the accused. The findings of the trial Court and appellate Court are based on sound reasoning, therefore, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings with regard to conviction.
9. Now coming to sentence part, the offence was in the year 2001 and as seen from the prosecution, the day prior to this incident, there was a complaint from the accused against P.W.1 and the S.I of Police appear to have called P.W.1 and his wife and reprimanded them and considering these aspects, I feel that five years imprisonment is on higher side and the same can be reasonably reduced. Taking the facts of the case, gravity of the offence and nature of injuries into consideration, I feel that five years imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC can be reduced to one year while confirming fine amount.
10. Accordingly, revision is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence, but the sentence of five years imprisonment is reduced to one year while confirming the fine amounts for the offences under Sections 325 & 324 IPC.
11. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence, if any.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall, stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:07.10.2014 mrb