HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1650 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014 Between:
Boya Talari Venkateswarulu.
And:
..Petitioner.
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1650 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is filed against judgment dated 14-7- 2006 in Sessions Case No.206 of 2005 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool whereunder the court acquitted the respondents 2 to 6 herein for the offences under Sections 323, 506, 326 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police Kurnool filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 6 herein alleging that on 11-2- 2004 after returning from duty to his village at about 9 P.M., P.W.1 noticed that a recording dance programme is being organized at Ujjuraiah pial located opposite to his house and on that told the organizers that it is not good to play record dance on god’s pial that too without permission from police and asked them to stop the same, for which A.1 and A.2 who were watching and enjoying dance programme picked up a quarrel and kicked P.W.1 and meanwhile, A.5 joined them and at that time, P.W.2 came to his rescue and on that, all of them threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 with dire consequences and left the place. On the same day, at about 9.30 P.M., A.1 to A.5 came to the house of P.W.1 whereunder A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5 are armed with hunting sickle and tried to kill P.Ws.1 and 2. On seeing them, P.W.2 started running but he fell down, on that, A.1 hacked P.W.2 with hunting sickle on his right shoulder and below his right elbow, three or four times and caused bleeding injuries. A.2 hacked P.W.2 with hunting sickle above his right elbow twice and caused bleeding injury. A.3 hacked P.W.2 over left side hip and caused bleeding injury. A.5 hacked P.W.2 on right thigh and caused bleeding injuries and A.4 instigated other accused to hack P.W.1, meanwhile, Chinna Madduleti Venkateswaramma and Rangamma came there and on seeing them, all the accused ran away and on a report, police investigated and filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 6 herein. On these allegations, trial court conducted trial, during which, seven witnesses are examined and seven documents are marked besides three material objects on prosecution side. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of revision petitioner is that P.Ws.1 to 3 are eye witnesses but the trial court failed to appreciate their evidence. According to revision petitioner, findings of the trial court that the evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is erroneous and that the evidence of P.W.3 is perfectly valid and consistent with the evidence of injured P.Ws.1 and 2. It is further contended that the observation of the trial court was wrong in acquitting the accused i.e., respondents 2 to 6 herein.
5. On the other hand, advocate for respondents 2 to 6 submitted that the trial court after scanning entire evidence extended benefit of doubt to the accused persons and there is nothing wrong in the findings of the trial court.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgment of the court below is legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 11-2-2004 at about 9 P.M., PW.1 on noticing organizing recording dance on Ujjuraiah pial questioned organizers, for which, A.1 and A.2 objected and kicked him, for which, A.5 also joined hands and on intervention of P.W.2, all of them went away by threatening with dire consequences against P.Ws.1 and 2 and that, on the same day, at about 9.30 P.M., they put the threat into action along with two other persons and attacked P.W.2 and P.W.1. Out of the seven witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 are important and material witnesses. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he returned back to his house from M.R.O. office, Kurnool and found a record dance was being played at Ujjuraiah pial, which is 20 feet away from his house which is a worshiping place and that he questioned the organisers for organising such dance programme and on that, A.1, A.2 and A.5 came to him and informed that sarpanch permitted them to organise such programme and while saying so, they beat him with hands and on the intervention of P.W.2, they left the place with a threat. He deposed that at about 9.30 P.M., while he, his wife, his mother and younger brother were standing in front of his house, P.W.2 was standing on the road and all the accused came there and among them, A.1 to A.3 and A.5 armed with hunting sickle and they all proceeded to P.W.2 and on seeing them, P.W.2 started running but fell down on the ground, then A.1 hacked P.W.2 and caused bleeding injury. He deposed that all the accused came upon him and on seeing them, he went inside the house and bolted the door and five minutes later, his younger brother knocked the door, on that he found all the accused left the place and P.W.2 was lying on the ground with injuries.
8. P.W.2 deposed that he was attacked by the accused at about 9.15 P.M., and received bleeding injuries and also deposed about the earlier incident where P.W.1 was beaten for questioning of arranging recording dance.
9. Here according to P.W.1 at the time of incident, he, his wife, his mother and younger brother were standing in front of their house and on seeking the attack, he went inside. He did not speak about the others but stated that he opened the door after being knocked by his younger brother, which means, his younger brother remained outside when the alleged attack against P.W.2 was made.
10. P.W.3 is not the younger brother of P.W.1. According prosecution, she is an eye witness. But she has not supported the prosecution case.
11. P.W.4 is cousin of P.W.1 and nothing is whispered in the evidence of P.W.1 about his presence or about the presence of P.W.3.
12. Further, there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused.
13. Considering all these aspects, learned trial judge disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. I do not find any wrong appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial judge. If really, there was an incident, as spoken to by P.W.1 at about 9 P.M., in which, A.1, A.2 and A.5 beat P.W.1 with hands, the real grudge for A.1, A.2 and A.5 must be against P.W.1 but not against P.W.2, who according to prosecution, intervened and pacified, the incident at 9 P.M.
14. Admittedly, P.W.2 has not received any bleeding injuries in the hands of accused. So, considering all these aspects, the learned trial judge extended benefit of doubt to the accused and in my view, the learned trial judge is absolutely right in giving benefit of doubt to the accused and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned trial judge.
15. On a thorough scrutiny of material on record, I am of the considered view that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court which are based on sound reasoning. Further, there is nothing illegality in the judgment of the trial court in extending benefit of doubt.
16. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
18. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-1-2014 Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1650 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014