IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1383 OF 2007 Between:
Jampa Veeranna & Anr. … Revision Petitioners/Appellants A-1 & A-2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP .… Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Revision Petitioners : Sri S.R. Sanku Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1383 OF 2007 O R D E R :
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 09/10/2007 in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2007 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru whereunder judgment dated 12/06/2007 in CC.No. 601 of 2006 on the file of II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against these Revision Petitioners and ten others alleging that all the accused are residents of Chataparru village and close friends and associates. On 24/10/2004 a procession of Goddess Kankadurgamma was arranged by accused and during the procession there was some galata and the same was pacified and after the completion of procession the accused were returning and reached Chataparru around 03:00 p.m., and they noticed PW-1 returning from his fields with cattle and all the accused abused him but A-1 and A-2 beat him with a stick on his head, nose and other parts of the body and caused injuries. PW-3 came there, he was also beaten and both the injured were shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru and on the report of PW-1 Out-Post Police registered a crime and made over to Eluru Rural Police Station and their investigation revealed that all the accused are liable for punishment for offences under section 326, 324 read with section 34 of IPC.
3. On these allegations, trial court examined PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 on behalf of prosecution. No witness is examined but Exs. D- 1 and D-2 are marked during cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-5 on behalf of accused.
4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty for offence under section 326 IPC and found the other accused not guilty for offences under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, both the accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, on a re-appraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction against A-1 and A-2. Now aggrieved by the same, present criminal revision is preferred.
5. Heard both sides.
6. Advocate for Revision Petitioners submitted that according to prosecution PWs 1 and 3 received injuries with a stick but the stick is not seized and it is a lacuna for the prosecution. He submitted that all the accused are acquitted for offence under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt but the same was not extended to A-1 and A- 2 in respect of charge under section 326 of IPC. He submitted that when the weapon is not seized, convicting these Revision Petitioners for offence under section 326 IPC is not correct. Lastly he submitted that offence was in the year 2003 and both the accused are not habitual offenders, considering the same the period already undergone may be taken as ‘punishment’ and set-off may be given to these Revision Petitioners.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both PWs 1 and 3 injured have clearly deposed about the overt acts of Revision Petitioners, their evidence is supported and corroborated with the medical evidence of PW-7, both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted these Revision Petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
8. Now the point for consideration is “whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, proper and correct ?”
9. P O I N T : According to prosecution on 24/10/2004 at about 03:30 p.m. the accused while returning from the procession of Goddess Kankadurgamma noticing PW-1 returning from fields with his cattle, pounced upon him, abused and beat him with a stick on his head, nose, right forearm and caused bleeding injuries and when PW-3 came there he was also beaten. Out of ten witnesses examined, PWs 1 and 3 are the injured persons, PW-7 is the Medical Officer, who treated the injured persons, PW-2 is the wife of one of the injured i.e., PW-1, PW-4 is one of the relative of PW-1, who shifted him to hospital in a auto. PW-5 is one of the eye-witness to the incident. PW-6 is the Head Constable, who received hospital intimation and recorded the statements of injured persons. PWs 8 and 9 are circumstantial witnesses and PW-10 is the Investigating Officer. Now the main contention of Advocate for Revision Petitioners is that no specific overt acts are attributed against A-1 and A-2 i.e., Revision Petitioners, both trial court and appellate court without considerinig the same convicted the Revision Petitioners.
10. As seen from the evidence on record, PW-1 clearly deposed about the overt acts against both the Revision Petitioners. Both injured have stated that the other accused also attacked them but they did not reveal the specific overt acts against other accused, for that reason the other accused were acquitted giving benefit of doubt to them. Both PWs 1 and 3 clearly deposed about the injuries they have sustained in the hands of these Revision Petitioners. Their evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PW-7 Medical Officer, who treated PW-1. Therefore, the contention of Advocate for Revision Petitioners that no specific overt acts are attributed against these Revision Petitioners cannot be accepted. The other objection of Advocate for Revision Petitioners is that the sticks used in the commission of offence by the Revision Petitioners are not seized and it is fatal to the prosecution case.
11. As seen from the record, this objection was raised before the appellate court and the learned appellate Judge considered this aspect and observed that for non-seizure of weapons by the Investigating Officer, victims cannot suffer. When the evidence of doctor and the victims discloses that the injuries are caused by weapon like sticks, which are on the vital parts of the body, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or wrong exercise of judicial discretion by the learned appellate Judge.
12. On a scrutiny of the material, it is clear that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and came to a right conclusion.
13. As seen from the evidence, both PWs 1 and 3 were attacked and they received bleeding injuries in the hands of A-1 and A-2 and the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of PW-5, who is an independent witness and eye-witness to the incident. Their evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of other circumstantial witness and the medical evidence of PW-7. Though there are two contradictions that were elicited during cross-examination of PWs 2 and 5 they are not very material. There are no contradictions and omissions in the evidence of injured persons PWs 1 and 3 on any of the material aspects. Even the contradictions elicited from the eye-witness P/W-5 is not on material aspect and considering the same both trial court and appellate court found that both the Revision Petitioners have committed offence under section 326 of IPC.
14. On a scrutiny of the material, I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence or incorrect findings of the courts below, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings with regard to conviction recorded against the Revision Petitioners.
15. Now coming to sentence part, Advocate for Revision Petitioners submitted that as the offence was in the year 2004 which is about ten years back, the period already undergone may be treated as ‘punishment’. There is no record to show for how many days the Revision Petitioners were in jail. But considering the submissions of learned Counsel for Revision Petitioners, I feel that sentence can be reasonably reduced. Considering the gravity of offence, nature of injuries and age of the Revision Petitioners, I feel that one year Rigorous Imprisonment can be reduced to six months.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed, confirming the conviction but sentence is modified and reduced from one year to six months. Trial court shall take steps for apprehension of the Revision Petitioners to undergo un-expired portion of sentence.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Revision shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
22/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1383 OF 2007 Circulation No. Date: 22/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43