HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1988 OF 2006 Dated 16-4-2014 Between:
Bathina China Tatarao.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1988 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 21-11-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2004 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 10-5-2004 in S.C.No.310 of 2003 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram filed charge sheet against accused alleging that one year prior to the incident, the accused moved in the village threatening to kill P.W.1 on the ground that he used to tease his daughter Durga and on 10-6-2003, P.W.1 followed daughter of accused and made an attempt on her and that the accused came to know about the incident and on the same day at about 9 P.M., when P.W.1 went to Satyasai Medical shop belonging to P.W.5, the accused went there and abused P.W.1 in vulgar language and attacked him with a knife and caused bleeding injuries and the same was witnessed by P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6. The injured-P.W.1 was shifted to Government Hospital and on the statement of injured, police registered crime No.105 of 2003 and investigation revealed that the accused with an intention to kill P.W.1 attacked him and thereby, he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. On these allegations, P.Ws.1 to 10 are examined and documents 1 to 14 are marked on behalf of the prosecution and three Material Objects are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined but Ex.D.1 is marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court held that prosecution failed to prove offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and the evidence on record would attract offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer two years imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godavari at Rajahmundry on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed conviction and sentence. 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 have convicted revision petitioner believing the evidence of highly interested witnesses. He further submitted that independent witnesses have not identified the accused and the owner of the medical shop where the alleged incident said to have taken place has not stated anything about the actual attack and evidence on record is not attracting ingredients of Section 324 I.P.C. and that the accused is entitled for acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of P.W.1 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6 and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on 10-6-2003 at about 9 P.M., when P.W.1 went to Satya Sai Medical Shop belonging to P.W.5, the accused attacked him there and caused bleeding injury. To prove the same, the injured victim is examined as P.W.1 and the persons who came in rescue of P.W.1 and took him to the hospital are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Medical Officer is examined as P.W.4. Owner of medical shop is examined as P.W.5 and cousin of victim who accompanied the victim to the medical shop is examined as P.W.6. Mediator for the observation of scene of offence is examined as P.W.7. Photographer is examined as P.W.9 and Investigating Officers are examined as P.Ws.8 and 10.
8. P.W.1 the victim has clearly stated in his evidence the way in which he was attacked and about the injuries sustained by him. His evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to injuries on the body of P.W.1. No doubt, these two are not eye witnesses for the attack. Both of them have arrived after the incident on hearing the cries of P.W.1. But P.W.6 deposed the way in which accused attacked P.W.1. The objection of revision petitioner with regard to evidence of this witness is that he is related to P.W.1 and therefore, he is highly interested witness. This P.W.6 is cross examined on behalf of accused but except putting some suggestions, nothing was elicited from him to discredit his testimony on the ground of interestedness. Further the medical shop owner who is examined as P.W.5 also supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to injuries. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 have spoken about the presence of accused at the place of incident. According to the evidence of these three, on hearing the cries of P.W.1, when they turned towards him, accused was found going away from the spot. Medical Officer who was examined as P.W.4 deposed that P.W.1 received simple injuries. He also deposed that these injuries are possible by a knife. The injuries spoken to by P.W.1 are supported and corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4 and considering this part of evidence, trial court held that offence under Section 324 I.P.C. was made out though the charge was for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
9. On a scrutiny of evidence, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence, either by the trial court or by appellate court. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the witnesses. Only contradiction that was elicited from P.W.6 is marked as Ex.D.1. But this contradiction is not very much material and particularly when evidence of other witnesses would clinchingly show that accused attacked P.W.1 with a knife and caused bleeding injuries on 10-6-2003 near the medical shop of P.W.5. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any grounds to interfere with their findings with regard to conviction.
10. Now coming to sentence part, trial court imposed two years imprisonment for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. It is the argument of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that accused is not a habitual offender and even according to prosecution, the attack was made as P.W.1 made an attempt on the daughter of accused and police registered crime against P.W.1, and considering these aspects, some lenient view may be taken with regard to the sentence.
11. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record, and considering the fact that attack was for the misbehavior of P.W.1 with the daughter of accused, I feel that the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is on higher side.
12. According to Section 324 I.P.C., this offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or with both. On a consideration of the facts of the case, I feel that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice as the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or with both.
13. For the above reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence of two years imprisonment is set aside and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer three months simple imprisonment. He should pay the fine amount before the trial court within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in the trial court.
14. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1988 OF 2006 Dated 16-4-2014