THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.663 of 2007 Date:23.07.2014 Between:
Chereddy Jayaramireddy . Petitioner.
AND Chereddy Siva Reddy and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.663 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 18-01-2007 in S.C.No.167/2005 on the file VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Markapur whereunder respondents 1 to 7 are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Sections 34 & 109 IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Inspector of Police, Giddalur filed charge sheet against respondents 1 to 6 alleging that the offence took place near Komarolu Bus Stand Center, Giddalur on 16-03-2003, at about 6:00 P.M., where A1 to A4 on instigation of A5 & A6 attacked deceased with iron rods and killed him and then fled away towards Kasanayana Ashramam and P.Ws.1 to 3 & 6 witnessed the incident and P.W.4 found the accused-1 to 4 going away with weapons and blood stained clothes. On the report of P.W.1, police registered First Information Report and filed charge sheet against the respondents 1 to 6. On behalf of prosecution, 13 witnesses are examined and 19 documents are marked besides M.Os.1 to 5 and on behalf of accused, four witnesses are examined and one document is marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge found that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the charges under Section 302 read with 34 & 109 IPC. Now aggrieved by the acquittal, defacto- complainant-P.W.1 preferred the present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that out of 13 witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 4 & 6 are the material witnesses and out of them, P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly supported prosecution case and they deposed that A1 to A4 attacked the deceased with iron rods and that P.W.4 observed A1 to A4 going towards Kasanayana Ashramam with weapons and blood stained clothes, but the trial Judge observed that these witnesses are chance witnesses and as they did not speak specific overt acts, acquitted the accused.
He submitted that P.Ws.1 & 2 were at the distance of 50 yards, whereas, P.W.3 was at a distance of 100 yards, therefore, it is highly difficult for them to observe each and every overt act and they specifically identified A1 to A4 in the mob that attacked deceased and this part of evidence is not accepted by the learned trial Judge, therefore, the matter has to be remitted back for reconsideration. He further submitted that the weapons-M.Os.1 & 2 were noticed by P.W.4 while they were in the hands of A1 & A2 and the investigating officer recovered them from A1 & A2. He further submitted that for the lapses of investigating officer, the complainant cannot be penalized and as the investigating officer has not shown the place from where P.Ws.1 to 3 have witnessed the incident in the rough sketch that was also taken as a guiding factor infavour of the accused and that the judgment of the trial Court is not correct.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for respondents 1 to 6 submitted that the trial Judge has elaborately considered evidence of material witnesses and rightly held that P.Ws.1 & 2 are chance witnesses and they have not spoken to specific overt acts. He further submitted that even the investigating officer has not shown the place from where these witnesses have witnessed the occurrence. He further submitted that according to accused, P.W.1 was not having any office near the scene of offence and it was also not shown in the rough sketch and all these aspects were rightly considered by the trial Court and the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, the incident was on 16-03-2003, at about 6:00 P.M. Criminal Law was set into motion on the report of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1. From the averments of the complaint, it is clear that there are groups in the village and there are disputes between two groups in respect of shifting of burial ground. As seen from Ex.P1, P.W.1 clearly mentioned in the report that deceased was attacked by somebody from his back and he was beaten on his head with iron rods. He referred to the names of A1 & A2 in Ex.P1-report and the allegation against them is that complainant found them going away from the scene of offence. In F.I.R., there are two contradictory allegations. The first allegation that some persons suddenly attacked the deceased with iron rods contradicts the second version that complainant noticed A1 & A2 going away from the scene of offence. If really, he has seen A1 & A2 attacking deceased, he ought to have mentioned in the first place that both accused have attacked the deceased with iron rods on the head of the deceased. So the overt acts in respect of injury on the head is not by A1 & A2 from the very averments of F.I.R. P.W.6 is an independent witness and he has not supported the prosecution case. According to P.W.3, he saw the incident on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 & 2. Admittedly, P.W.4 is not an eyewitness and he is only a circumstantial witness. Learned trial Judge elaborately discussed every aspect of the objection with reference to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and ultimately held that both P.Ws.1 & 2 are chance witnesses and P.W.3 cannot be termed as an eye-witness, because he only turned towards scene of offence, on hearing of the cries of P.Ws.1 & 2. It is also observed by the trial Judge that the investigating officer has not shown the place from where these P.Ws.1 to 3 witnessed the offence in the rough sketch. It is also found by the trial Court that there was no reference in Ex.P1 about the alleged office of P.W.1. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 4 belong to opposite group and the supporters of deceased. If really, P.Ws.1 to 4 were present as they claim at the time of incident, in normal course, they should make an attempt to prevent the attack even at the cost of receiving some injuries in the hands of assailants. As seen from the evidence, they have not made any such attempt and they appear to have silently stay there only for the purpose of witnessing. This conduct of the witnesses is quite contra to the normal human conduct, particularly, when a person belonging to their group is attacked by opposite group. On a scrutiny of the material and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I am of the view that learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated evidence and extended benefit of doubt to the accused and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.
7. For these reasons, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:23.07.2014 mrb