HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1666 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.
Between:
G.Babji.
…Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1666 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 4-10-2006 in Crl.A.No.135 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari Eluru whereunder judgment dated 3-7-2006 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari in S.C.No.81 of 2005 is confirmed partly.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 25-2- 2004 at about 8 P.M., when Bhaskararao was returning home from Chintalapudi, A.1 with other accused in pursuance of plan of killing Bhaskararao attacked him with sticks and pestles in front of the house of one V. Pothuraju in Patha Chintalapudi and on a report from Bhaskararao, Crime No.48 of 2004 is registered and investigation revealed that there was an earlier incident for which crime No.39 of 2004 was registered and that A.1 to A.6 are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after framing a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against all the accused conducted trial during which nine witnesses are examined and five documents are marked besides three material objects. O n an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial judge found A.1, A.3 to A.6 guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and found A.1 to A.6 not guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 and A.3 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and sentenced A.4 to A.6 with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,A.1, A.3 to A.6 preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, West Godavari at Eluru and the learned Sessions Judge on a reappraisal of evidence gave benefit of doubt to A.1, A.4 to A.6 but confirmed the conviction and sentence against A.3. Aggrieved by which, A.3 preferred the present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of advocate for revision petitioner is that when the appellate court has not accepted the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in respect of A.1, A.4 to A.6 and believing the same evidence in respect of A.3, i.e., revision petitioner herein is illegal and incorrect. He further contended that according to the charge sheet allegations, A.1 is the main culprit and the remaining accused have participated in the commission of offence in furtherance of their common intention under Section 34 I.P.C. and when the main culprit A.1 is given benefit of doubt convicting A.3 is incorrect.
5. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as the medical evidence is not in conformity with the overt acts that are attributed to the other accused, benefit of doubt was given but so far as the revision petitioner is concerned, medical evidence is supported and corroborated with the injuries spoken to by the injured and therefore, the appellate court has not committed any wrong.
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, there were two incidents, first was on 18-2-2004 and the second was on 25-2-2004. It is the specific case of prosecution that as P.W.1 gave complaint against A.1 in respect of incident dated 18-2- 2004, A.1 in pursuance of a pre-plan with the other accused attacked P.W.1 on 25.2.2004 at 8 P.M., P.W.1 in his evidence deposed about the individual overt acts of all the accused. Trial court has not accepted the evidence of prosecution in respect of A.2 and the appellate court has not accepted in respect of remaining accused accept A.3. Trial court gave benefit of doubt to A.2 and appellate court has given benefit of doubt for A.1 and A.4 to A.6. As rightly pointed out by learned advocate for revision petitioner that the same evidence of prosecution witnesses can not be viewed in two ways. If the evidence of prosecution witness is doubtful in respect of some of the accused, it has to be viewed in the same way in respect of other accused. When prosecution specifically alleged participation of all the accused, accepting evidence of the victim and other witnesses in respect of one accused and discarding the same evidence in respect of other accused, in my view, is highly incorrect and it amount to perverse appreciation.
8. On a scrutiny of evidence on record, I am of the view that the benefit that was extended to other accused is to be extended to the revision petitioner herein also and the appellate court committed error in not extending the benefit of doubt to the revision petitioner which was extended to the other accused convicted by the trial court.
9. For these reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is liable to be set aside to the extent of A.3 and the revision petitioner is also to be given benefit of doubt.
10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and conviction imposed against the revision petitioner by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court is hereby set aside and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any already paid, shall be refunded to the accused.
11. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
Dated 20-1-2014.
Dvs KUMAR JUSTICE S.RAVI HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1666 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.