HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1965 OF 2007 Dated 19-9-2014 Between:
And:
Chadalawada Chinna Gali Reddy and others.
..Petitioners.
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.1965 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 28-12-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur whereunder judgment dated 10-8-2006 in C.C.No.29 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Petitioners herein are A.1, A.3 and A.4.
Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against revision petitioners and three others alleging that on 2-2-2003 at about 7-00 P.M., when P.W.1 was coming from fields with heap of grass, there was a quarrel between P.W.1, A.2 and A.3 and in that, A.3 beat P.W.1 with a stick on left ear portion and caused injuries and that A.2 stabbed him with a knife and in the meantime, A.1, A.4 to A.6 came there and joined A.2 and A.3 and they also beat P.W.1 and that on the report of P.W.1, police registered F.I.R. in Crime No.7 of 2003 and that investigation revealed that all the accused are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C.
On these allegations, before trial court, six witnesses were examined and five documents were marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer six months imprisonment and found A.5 and A.6 guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, A.1 to A.6 preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Prakasam and the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Markapur, on a reappraisal of evidence found A.2 not guilty and acquitted him for the charges leveled against him but found A.1, A.3 and A.4 guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., and A.5 and A.6 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and confirmed conviction against them. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that courts below failed to notice that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is not at all corroborated and supported by any of the independent witnesses and all four witnesses are none other than father, brother, son and wife. It is further submitted that appellate court acquitted the second accused, extending benefit of doubt and the same was not extended to A.1, A.2 to A.6 and thereby, appellate court committed error in convicting revision petitioners.
It is further submitted that both the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that there is a property dispute between the parties and due to that case is foisted against the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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?
POINT:
According to prosecution, on 2-2-2003 at about 7-00 P.M., A.2 and A.3 picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and thereafter, A.3 beat him with a stick and A.2 caused injuries to P.W.1 with a knife. According to prosecution, A.1, A.4 to A.6 joined A.3 and they also beat P.W.1. To prove the same, the injured is examined as P.W.1 and he clearly deposed the manner in which the incident took place.
From the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that when the incident was going on, P.W.3 came there to rescue him, he was also beaten. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborated with each other. The other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined to show that they witnessed the incident. P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed in their evidence the way in which incident occurred and they supported version of P.W.1 on all aspects. All these witnesses are cross-examined on behalf of accused but nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimony. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. The only objection raised on behalf of revision petitioners is that witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 are closely related and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied on. But the objection of the revision petitioners is not tenable simply because they are related, their testimony cannot be brushed aside. When there are no material contradictions or omissions and all the four stood for the test of cross-examination, their testimony which is corroborated with each other with regard to manner of attack and nature of injury, the same cannot be discarded. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed evidence of these witnesses with reference to objection raised on behalf of revision petitioners and rightly accepted them.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of courts below and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with conviction recorded against the petitioners.
Now coming to sentence part, trial court sentenced these petitioners to suffer six months imprisonment and the appellate court confirmed the same. Admittedly, there are some property disputes between the parties.
As seen from the wound certificate, injuries are not on vital parts, one injury is on the left ear and one injury is on the right eye brow and third injury is on right temple region. The Medical Officer observed that the injuries are simple. Further, injuries sustained by P.W.3 are also not on the vital parts, one injury is on upper lip and one injury is on left zygomatic bone area.
Considering nature of injuries and the fact that incident was in the year 2003 i.e., almost 11 years back, I feel that the sentence already undergone can be treated as sentence of imprisonment besides awarding some reasonable fine to meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, petitioners are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone during trial and enquiry. Petitioners shall pay fine amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and failing which, they shall undergo remaining part of sentence.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 19-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1965 OF 2007 Dated 19-9-2014