THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.56 of 2008 Date:07.10.2014 Between:
Kamtam Venkata Swamy . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
. Respondent.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.56 of 2008 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 15-09-2006 in Crl.A.103/2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereunder judgment dated 23-08-2005 in Sessions Case No.459/2003 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Siricilla was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:- Inspector of Police, Sircilla filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 03-09-2001, at about 10:00 A.M., while P.W.1 was alone in the house, the accused who is her neighbour, came to her house and committed rape on her and later he threatened her to kill if she reveals the incident to anybody and escaped from the scene and on the report of P.W.1, First Information Report was registered and investigation revealed that the revision petitioner committed offence under Section 376 (1) IPC and liable for punishment. On these allegations, 11 witnesses are examined and nine documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentenced him to suffer seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the Court of Session and the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both the Courts failed to see that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and 10 & 11 are highly contradictory and suffer from several infirmities inherent probabilities and convicting the accused on such evidence is not legal. It is further submitted that the alleged offence was at about 10:00 A.M., and that report was given at about 4:00 P.M., though police station is at a distance of 10 kms only from the village and there is no proper explanation about the delay and the same is not considered by the Courts below. It is further submitted that evidence of victim is contrary to the evidence of medical officer, who is examined as P.W.9 and even according to medical officer, the victim was examined long after the alleged incident, therefore, the Courts below were wrong in convicting the revision petitioner and the sentence & conviction are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged discrepancies pointed out are not material and even the delay attributed is not fatal to the prosecution case and both the Courts rightly convicted revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of Courts below are legal proper and correct?
6. Point:-According to prosecution, on 03-09-2001, at about 10:00 A.M., when P.W.1 came out of the bath room, after taking bath, the accused, who is neighbour of the victim, went inside her house, put the sarree of the victim in her mouth and committed rape on her and thereafter, threatened her with dire consequences of killing and went away. To prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1 is victim-cum-complainant, P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 & 6 are the neighbours who rushed to the scene on hearing the cries, P.Ws.4 & 5 are in- laws of P.W.1, P.W.7 is a circumstantial witness, P.W.8 is the medical officer, who examined accused, P.W.9 is the medical officer who examined the victim and P.Ws.10 & 11 are the police officials.
7. Admittedly, house of accused is opposite to the house of victim and he is a known person. One of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that this case was foisted due to family disputes, but the victim and her relatives denied the suggestion with regard to family disputes. One of the objections of the revision petitioner is that there is unexplained delay of six hours and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. Here according to prosecution, the incident was at 10:00 A.M., and report was given around 4:00 P.M. It is clear from the evidence that police station is at a distance of 10 Kms. It is also clear from the evidence that at the time of incident, the other inmates of the house were not present and according to P.W.1, after return of her husband, she informed the incident to him and thereafter, went to police station. The reason stated by P.W.1 is quite convincing and natural, because she being a married woman, cannot rush to police station immediately, after the incident, without consulting her husband, therefore, the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to delay has no force. Further, when the police station is 10 Kms away, gap of six hours in lodging the complaint cannot be termed as a delay and on this score also, the objection of the revision petitioner is not tenable.
8. The other objection raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is that findings of both the Courts are perverse in nature and therefore, they have to be set aside. Learned Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both the Courts, on presumptions and assumptions, accepted the version of P.W.1 and that amounts to perversity. He submitted that according to P.W.1, she was examined by a male Doctor, but according to prosecution, she was examined by P.W.9 who is a female Doctor and this discrepancy is very material in deciding the trustworthiness of the testimony of P.W.1. He further submitted that according to P.W.1, she was sent to hospital, after the report was given, but as per P.W.9, she examined the victim 24 days after the alleged incident and this aspect was taken very lightly by the trial Court and not extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.
7. I have perused the evidence of P.W.9, though she deposed that she examined the victim on 27-09-2001, but as seen from the evidence she has not mentioned the date of examination in the wound certificate, but the fact remains that the victim was referred to x-ray department and x-ray was taken on 4-9-2001, which was recorded in the wound certificate which shows that the victim must have been examined either on 4-9-2001 or prior to that.
So the objection that the victim was examined on 27-09- 2001 cannot be sustained and in fact the trial Court and appellate Court have negatived this objection, after assessing the evidence on record with reference to the contents of Ex.P4-wound certificate.
8. Both trial Court and appellate Court have elaborately considered each and every objection raised on behalf of the revision petitioner and discarded every objection with sound reasoning. Now the very same objections are raised in the revision and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial Court or by the appellate Court nor any incorrect findings, therefore, the very same objections raised here cannot be sustained.
9. Advocate for revision petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Rupavath Mothi Ram v. State of A.P
[1]
, but the said decision has no application to the case on hand.
10. Scope of revisional jurisdiction is a limited one.
The Courts, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. Section 397 empowers High Court or any Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of the inferior Court for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the correctness, legality or proprietary of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed. The object is to set right patent defect or error. The word ‘illegality’ can only mean an incurable irregularity, incurable because prejudice leading to failure of justice. In other words, it is nothing but contrary to the principles of law. Here in this case, the evidence on record is quite convincing and there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses on any of the material aspects and therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. On an over all scrutiny of the material on record, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. Accordingly, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the 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.
Date:07.10.2014 mrb
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
[1] 2003 (1) ALD (Cri.) 405