HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1925 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014 Between:
Gundrapu Chakra Rao @Chakram @ Babu.
..Petitioner.
And:
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
… Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1925 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 10-11-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2005 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 16-5-2005 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram in Sessions Case No.78 of 2004 is confirmed by modifying the sentence.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddapuram filed Charge Sheet against the revision petitioner herein and three others alleging that on 1-1-2003 at about 6 P.M., when A.1 was coming back to his house on his cycle, calf and she buffalo of the victim came across the way of A.1 for which A.1 abused victim and A.2 to A.4 joined A.1 and abused victim and pounced upon her and A.1 hacked victim with knife on her left hand, on the back of left shoulder, right side of the head and also left side of the head and caused bleeding injuries whereas A.2 to A.4 beat her with hands. On the report of victim, police registered F.I.R. and investigated into which revealed that the attack was made with an intention to kill the victim and thereby A.1 committed offence under Section 307 and A.2 to A.4 committed offence under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. On these allegations, Assistant Sessions Judge, conducted trial during which ten witnesses are examined and 11 documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and one document during cross-examination of P.W.2 is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found all the accused guilty and convicted A.1 for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and A.2 to A.4 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and sentenced A.2 to A.4 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by which, A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2005 to the court of Sessions and the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry modified the conviction for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. into Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced the revision petitioner to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- in addition to the fine imposed by the trial court. Now aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence of the appellate court, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. According to revision petitioner, both the courts erred in accepting evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to revision petitioner, presence of P.W.2 is highly doubtful at the alleged place of incident and he only supported P.W.1 because of the interestedness. Another contention of revision petitioner is that earlier statement of the victim which was given prior to Ex.P.1 report is suppressed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and the appellate court after a reappraisal of evidence modified the conviction from Section 307 I.P.C. to Section 326 I.P.C. and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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 the alleged date of incident, when A.1 was coming on cycle calf and she buffalo belonging to victim came across the way and that lead to an altercation resulting injuries to P.W.1. Here P.W.1 is the victim and defacto complainant whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses. P.W.2 is the relative of P.W.1 and out of this four, P.Ws.3 and 4 have not supported the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as Exs.P.2 and P.3. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that on the date of incident at about 6.30 P.M., on hearing some abusive words towards her, she and her daughter (P.W.2) came outside the house then A.1 abused her in filthy language and meanwhile, the other accused came there and caught hold of her tuft and beat her indiscriminately. She further deposed that in the meantime, A.1 picked up a quarrel and attempted to hack her on neck and she guarded the blow with hands and sustained cut injury to her left hand. She further deposed that A.1 attacked her on shoulder and back. P.W.2 daughter of P.W.1 corroborated version of P.W.1. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross examined at length on behalf of the accused. But nothing could be elicited from them to doubt their testimony. There are no omissions or contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on any of the material aspects like attack and overt acts. Their evidence is supported and corroborated with the medical evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9 and documents Exs.P.4, P.5, P.8 and P.9. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, 6 and 9, it is clear that P.W.1 received four injuries out of which, injury No.1 is grievous and the other injuries are simple. This grievous injury is on the back of P.W.1 which is bone deep. Considering this injury and other evidence, the learned appellate judge found that facts of the case would fall under Section 326 I.P.C. but not under Section 307 I.P.C. accordingly modified the conviction of Section 307 I.P.C. into Section 326 I.P.C.
8. As seen from the record, the incident happened just opposite to the house of P.W.1 and according to evidence, she and her daughter came out of house on hearing some abusive words and the incident was around 6.30 P.M. So the objection of the revision petitioner that presence of P.W.2 is doubtful cannot be accepted because the incident was not away from the residential house of P.W.1 and it is only just opposite to her house. Both the courts have thoroughly examined evidence on record and particularly appellate court on a close scrutiny came to the conclusion that the evidence on record would only attract offence of Section 326 I.P.C. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the appellate court and the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner is purely based on evidence which is cogent and convincing. Both the courts have correctly appreciated evidence and came to a correct conclusion while convicting the revision petitioner. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the appellate court which modified the conviction from 307 I.P.C. to 326 I.P.C.
9. For these reasons, the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is upheld.
10. Now coming to the sentence part, the revision petitioner is sentenced to suffer three years besides fine.
11. Admittedly, the grievous injury on account of which Section 326 I.P.C. is attracted is not on vital part of the body, but it is only on the back of the body.
12. Considering this aspect and the fact that there is passage of 11 years time from the date of offence, I feel that the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to one year from three years and the remaining part of the sentence shall be upheld.
13. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed modifying the sentence of three years imprisonment into one year imprisonment and confirming the fine amount imposed by the appellate court. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
14. 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.1925 OF 2006 Dated 21-1-2014