HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1624 OF 2006 Dated 25-4-2014 Between:
Bonagiri Poshamallu.
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.1624 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 2-6-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Adilabad whereunder judgment dated 14-11-2005 in C.C.No.892 of 2003 on the file of First Class Magistrate, Luxettipet is modified to the extent of sentence.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 30-6-2003 at about 7 P.M., P.W.1 questioned A.1 and A.2 for teasing his niece (P.W.3) while she was going to college, for which, A.1 and A.2 pounced upon P.W.1 and beat him with sticks and in the meantime, A.3 joined A.1 and A.2 and beat P.W.1 with sticks, in which, P.W.1 sustained fracture and on the report of P.W.1, police investigated and filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner and two others for the offence under Sections 290 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, seven witnesses are examined and seven documents are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found that A.1 and A.2 committed offence punishable under Sections 509 and 323 I.P.C. and A.3 committed offence punishable under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted them. A.1 and A.2 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 509 and 323 I.P.C. A.3 is sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. A.3 is further sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, A.3 alone preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Adilabad, and the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Adilabad dismissed the appeal confirming the sentence but the sentence of two years imprisonment is reduced to one year and sentence of six months imprisonment is reduced to three months for the offences under Sections 325 and 323 I.P.C. respectively. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there is delay of twenty hours in giving F.I.R. but both the trial court and appellate court have discarded this objection. He further submitted that witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 have not stated specific overt acts. He further submitted that except interested witnesses, prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses and for these reasons, the conviction against the revision petitioner is to be set aside.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that delay in lodging the F.I.R. is properly explained by prosecution and both the courts rightly accepted the explanation. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is cogent and convincing and the courts below have rightly accepted the same and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
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 30-6-2003 at about 7 P.M., A.1 and A.2 questioned P.W.1 and later attacked him and in the meantime, A.3 joined them and beat him with sticks. A.1 and A.2 are sons of A.3 i.e., revision petitioner herein. Though all the three are convicted and since they have not preferred any appeal, only father preferred appeal. Out of seven witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the complainant and injured, P.W.2 is elder sister of the injured, P.W.3 is the niece of P.W.1 and also injured, P.W.4 is the Medical Officer, P.W.5 is wife of P.W.1 and also injured, P.W.6 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1 and also injured and P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have deposed the way, in which, attack was made. One of the objections of the revision petitioner is that these witnesses have not spoken about the specific overt acts. On a scrutiny of the evidence, these witnesses have spoken to about the overt acts with reference to the revision petitioner i.e., A.3, but they have not deposed about the specific overt acts of other accused i.e., A.1 and A.2. So, the objection of the revision petitioner that witnesses have not stated about the specific overt acts cannot be accepted. The Medical Officer who is examined as P.W.4 deposed that he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 and issued Exs.P.3 to P.6 wound certificates for the injuries noticed on these persons. The de facto complainant-P.W.1 has specifically deposed about the injuries caused to him by A.1 and A.2 and injury caused to him by A.3. As per the wound certificate, this P.W.1 received five injuries, out of them, injury No.5 is a fracture to the 5th metacompel bone on right hand. P.W.1 deposed that A.3 beat him with a stick on his right hand and due to that, he sustained fracture. So, the specific overt acts of A.3, are clearly spoken to by the injured- de facto complainant and considering the same, both trial court and appellate court held that he is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Therefore, the objection of revision petitioner that both the courts have convicted the revision petitioner without evidence for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
8. The other objection of the revision petitioner is that there is delay of 20 hours in lodging the F.I.R. This objection is raised before both the trial court and appellate court and both courts have discarded the objection as there is no possibility of falsely implicating the revision petitioner in the case. As seen from the evidence, the cause of incident is teasing of niece of P.W.1 who is examined as P.W.3. The incident was on the night of 30- 6-2003 and the report was given on the next day i.e., 1-7- 2003. No doubt, in Ex.P.1, no explanation is offered for the delay. But as there is no possibility of implicating the revision petitioner and his sons, both courts held that delay is not fatal. I do not find any wrong in the approach of trial court and the appellate court in respect of delay in registering the F.I.R. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and 6 is consistent and cogent with regard to the manner in which they were injured, the delay is of no consequence, and therefore, both trial court and appellate court have rightly discarded this objection.
9. On a scrutiny of evidence on record, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
10. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner.
11. Now coming to the sentence part, advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the offence was about eleven years back and the revision petitioner was forty two years as on that day and now he has already crossed fifty years and he is not involved in any other criminal cases prior to this incident or subsequent to this incident and considering these aspects, the sentence may be reduced.
12. In this case, trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to suffer two years imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and the same is reduced to one year by the appellate court for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to suffer to six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and the appellate court reduced it to three months for the said offence.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances, gravity of the offence and the submission of the advocate for revision petitioner, I feel that one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. can be reduced to three months while maintaining the sentence of three months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C.
14. With this modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but sentence of one year for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is reduced to three months and sentence of three moths for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is confirmed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
15. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 25-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1624 OF 2006 Dated 25-4-2014