HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1744 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.
Between:
Ippili Tirupathi Rao and others.
…Petitioners.
And:
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.1744 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 18- 10-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 29-9-2004 in Sessions Case No.9 of 2003 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikakulam Rural Police Station filed Charge Sheet against the revision petitioners alleging that on 2-7-2002, at about 9 A.M., when K.Ramanamurthy was attending to the field work with the assistance of K.Krishnarao, D.Mallesu and K.Asirivadu, A.1 to A.3 with the common intention of killing K.Ramanamurthy armed with deadly weapons like knife, kathuva etc., attacked K.Ramanamurthy, A.1 aimed him on his neck with a knife and Ramanamurthy warded the blow with left hand due to which he received cut injury and A.2 attacked Ramamurthy with kamma kathi and A.3 with kathuva and caused injuries and thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 read with 34 I.P.C. Learned trial judge after framing appropriate charges proceed with trial, during which, fourteen witnesses are examined and 16 documents are marked besides six material objects. On behalf of revision petitioners, no witnesses are examined but during cross examination of P.Ws.3 and P.W.8 Exs.D.1 and D.2 are marked respectively. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found A.1 to A.3 guilty and sentenced them to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. but acquitted them of the charge under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred appeal to the court of Session. The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed appeal by confirming conviction and sentence of the trial court. Now aggrieved by the judgments of the trial court and appellate court, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that P.Ws.2 and 3 are not direct witnesses and they are only circumstantial witnesses. It is further contended that there is a delay in reaching the F.I.R. to the court and that aspect was not considered by the trial court and appellate court. It is further contended that medical evidence in this case is contrary to the ocular evidence and the benefit of it was not extended to the accused. It is further contended that there are land disputes between the injured party and accused party and therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is interested and is highly motivated. Revision petitioners further contended that all the witnesses gave different versions about the place of incident with regard to bunds and trees in the land and those discrepancies have to be taken as material contradictions and the benefit of it shall go in favour of the accused.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused intentionally attacked P.W.1 and luckily P.W.1 warded the blow with his hand which resulted cut of his left wrist. He further contended that P.Ws.4 and 7 are no way related and they are main material witnesses to the prosecution case who fully supported the evidence of P.W.1 and both the courts rightly accepted their evidence.
6. He further contended that all the witnesses in one voice deposed that the incident was happened in Gangi Revu Polam and non mention of bunds etc., is not very material and both the courts have considered this aspect and rightly discarded the version of the accused.
7. 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?
8. POINT:
According to prosecution, on 2-7-2002 at about 9 A.M., P.W.1 was attending to his filed work, he engaged P.Ws.5 and 6 as coolies and when he was on the bund of his land, all the accused attacked him with deadly weapons.
9. The main objection of the revision petitioners is that presence of P.Ws.4 to 7 at the alleged scene of offence is doubtful but both the courts have relied on their evidence.
10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that this objection was raised before trial court and appellate court and trial court rightly discarded the objection of the revision petitioners after considering some ruling of the apex court.
11. Out of four witnesses, P.W.5 is a partly hostile witness. P.W.6 has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.4 is the eye witness. P.W.7 is the neighbouring ryot. P.W.4 deposed that when he was at the place of incident along with P.W.1, A.1 to A.3 came there and questioned the coolies working in the field and then attacked P.W.1 and on seeing that, coolies left the scene. This witness is neither relative nor a person interested in P.W.1. He was cross examined on behalf of accused and except putting suggestion, nothing was elicited from him to doubt his presence at the scene of offence. P.W.5 has not fully supported prosecution case. According to prosecution, he is one of the coolies engaged by the victim P.W.1. He deposed that when he was attending to work in the field of P.W.1 around 9 A.M. A.1 with two persons came there armed with knife and other weapons and he was adjusting bunds at that time, then A.1 questioned him and asked him to leave the place accordingly, he left the place. This part of evidence of P.W.5 is quite convincing because P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that all the accused came to the field with an intention of attacking him and obstructing the field work. P.W.6 the other coolie has not supported the prosecution case but he stated to the extent that he attended for coolie work along with P.W.5 and when they were adjusting bunds, A.1 came there and asked them to leave and accordingly, he left the place. The other witness P.W.7 is a neighbouring ryot and he deposed that on the date of incident, two coolies were attending while P.W.1 was present in his land which is at a distance of 100 yards from his land and that he observed A.1 and A.2 proceeding to the land of P.W.1 armed with knife and kamma kathuva respectively and thereafter, noticed a quarrel between P.W.1 and accused in which P.W.1 received injuries. This witness was also cross-examined on behalf of accused but nothing was elicited to doubt his presence. During cross- examination of this witness, it was elicited about the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 i.e., coolies. The accused both at the trial court and appellate court contended that P.Ws.4 to 7 are interested witnesses and their presence is doubtful at the scene of offence. But both the courts on a thorough scanning of evidence held that P.Ws.4 to 7 are neither related to P.W.1 nor to accused and they are independent witnesses and have no special motive to speak against the accused. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence to arrive on the finding that P.Ws.4 to 7 were present at the scene and they are independent witnesses. So, the contention of advocate for revision petitioner with regard to evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 cannot be accepted.
12. The next objection of revision petitioners is that scene of offence stated by P.W.1 is completely different from the scene of offence stated by the independent witnesses P.Ws.4 to 7. This aspect was also raised before the trial court and the appellate court and trial court negatived the objection on the ground that the incident was at Gangi Revu Polam where P.Ws.5 and 6 were attending to the bund work. So, as rightly held by the courts below, there is no material to show that scene of offence is differed from witness to witness or there is any shift of scene, therefore, objection of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted.
13. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that all the accused armed with deadly weapons attacked him and when A.1 aimed the blow on the neck, he warded it with the left hand which resulted cut of his left wrist. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and Medical Officer P.W.11 that the injured went to hospital while his left wrist was hanging with skin. There are as many as four injuries on the body of P.W.1 that were noticed by the Medical Officer P.W.11 and P.W.12 took X rays Exs.P.10 to P.12 and gave Ex.P.13 opinion basing on which, the Medical Officer P.W.11 issued Ex.P.9 wound certificate. So, the contention of the revision petitioners that the Medical evidence is not supported with the oculary evidence cannot be accepted in view of the fact that evidence of P.W.1 is fully supported and corroborated with the injures mentioned in Ex.P.9 Wound Certificate.
14. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to right conclusion and all the objections now raised were also raised before the appellate court, and the learned appellate judge considered every objection with reference to the material available on record and I am of the view that the judgment of the appellate court is a well considered judgment and there are no grounds to interferer with the judgments of the courts below. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court and as such, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, this revision is dismissed. The trial court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
16. 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.1744 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.