THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1141 of 2007
Date:16.09.2014
Between:
Hatwal Sunil . Petitioner.
AND The State pf Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1141 of 2007
ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 17-07-2007 in Crl.A.No.34/2007 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal whereudner judgment dated 17-04-2007 in Sessions Case No.73/2006 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to fling of this revision are as follows:- Inspector of Police, Hasanparthi filed charge sheet against revision petitioner and others alleging that on 12-07- 2004 during early hours, the revision petitioner and others entered into Ram Gopal Poultry Farm & Sri Satyasai Poultry Farm, committed theft of cash of Rs.23,000/- & Rs.65,000/- respectively; and on the complaint of victims, First Information Report is registered and investigation revealed that the petitioner and others committed decoity and liable for punishment. The case against the present petitioner and A2 was separated and tried, and 11 witnesses are examined and 12 documents are marked besides M.O.1 on behalf of prosecution and on behalf of accused, three witnesses are examined and no documents are marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner and another guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC and sentenced them to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Warnagal and V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Warangal, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner and no amount was recovered from the petitioner and that he is falsely implicated. He further submitted that trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 and only relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9 & 10 and that they are highly interested witnesses. He further submitted that out of the witnesses, examined P.W.6 & 10 turned hostile and even in the test identification parade, all the witnesses have not identified the revision petitioner. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have erred in convicting the accused and the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. Lastly, he submitted that revision petitioner was in jail for 15 months and some lenient view may be taken in respect of sentence.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses 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 judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
7. Point:- According to prosecution, on 12-07-2004, the revision petitioner and other culprits entered into the Poultry Farm at Annasagar cross-roads and took away cash of Rs.1,23,000/- from Supervisor-Suraneni Ravinder Rao and they also went to Satyasai Poultry Farm and from there, took away Rs.60,000/- from one Shyam Sunder Reddy. To prove the same, 11 witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. Complainant from whom Rs.1,23,000/- was taken away was examined as P.W.1 and he narrated the way in which the incident took place and he identified the revision petitioner both during trial and also during test identification parade conducted by Judicial First Class Magistrate. P.Ws.2 & 3 are eye witnesses to the incident and both of them supported and corroborated with the testimony of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the other poultry farm owner from whom Rs.65,000/- was taken away and he also identified the revision petitioner both during trial and test identification parade. These witnesses were cross- examined on behalf of the revision petitioner, but nothing could be elicited from them to discredit their testimonies.
8. P.W.4 is one of the mediator for the observation of the scene of offence and P.Ws.6 & 7 are the mediators at the time of arrest of A1 to A3. They have not supported the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. P.W.8 is the S.I who arrested the petitioners along with A1. P.Ws.9 & 11 are the Investigating Officers and P.W.10 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade. The main material witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 4 have clearly identified the revision petitioner and they deposed in one voice as to the manner in which the offence was committed. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these four witnesses. One of the contentions of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 is not considered by the Courts bellow. D.W.1 is mother of A2, D.W.2 is brother of A3 and D.W.3 is father of A3. According to evidence of D.Ws.2 & 3, A3 was falsely implicated at the instance of S.I-Vijay Kumar and Razack since A3 questioned about their illegal activities, but the evidence of these witnesses is not supported and corroborated by any material and it is not the case of the accused that was put-forth by him during 313 Cr.P.C examination. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he has not stated anything when he was questioned whether he wish to state anything.
He only stated that his photo was shown to the witnesses, therefore, the contention of Advocate for revision petitioner that the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 is not considered by the Courts below cannot be accepted.
9. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the revision petitioner has entered into the poultry farm of P.W.1 & P.W.4 along with other accused and took away Rs.1,23,000/- from P.W.1 and Rs.65,000/- from P.W.4 and thereby, committed offence under Section 395 IPC. Both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion in convicting the revision petitioner. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below. In a revision what has to be seen is whether any illegality is committed by the subordinate Courts while appreciating the evidence or in recording findings. Unless the findings are perverse, the revisional Court cannot interfere with the findings of the trial Court. As seen from the material, there is no perversity in the findings of the trial Court or the appellate Court. On the other hand, their findings are based on sound reasoning, therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
10. With regard to sentence, Advocate for revision petitioner requested that some lenient view may be taken considering the fact that the petitioner was in jail for 15 months, but as seen from the judgment, the very same request is made before the trial Court and even by that time, the petitioner was in jail for 15 months. As seen from the record, the petitioner was brought on P.T Warrant from another Court, which shows that he was also involved in some other cases. Considering the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the sentence and the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming conviction and sentence.
12. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence, if any.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:16.09.2014 mrb