THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1980 of 2006 Date:24.01.2014 Between:
Kistappa and others.
. Petitioners.
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.1980 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This revision is preferred against Judgment dated 31-03-2006 in Crl.A.No.93 of 2005 on the file III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal whereunder judgment dated 08-04-2005 in C.C.No.200 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal was confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:-
Sub-Inspector of Police, Gattu Police Station filed charge sheet alleging that on 25-07-2001, at about 7:30 A.M., when the defacto-complainant along with Gokaramma, Mallamma and Narayanamma went to the house of Surpanch Kistappa, who questioned him for impleading her brother’s son namely; Surya Goud and some others of her caste people in a criminal case. A1 bounced upon her and beat her with stick and caused bleeding injury on the head while the remaining accused-A2 to A4 beat her with hands and kicked with legs and that the incident was witnessed by Gokaramma, Mallamma & Naryanamma and that on the report of P.W.1 presented at 9:00 A.M., case is registered and investigated, which revealed that A1 is liable for punishment under Section 324 IPC and A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC. On these allegations, trial Court conducted trial, during which, 7 witnesses are examined and four documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and two witnesses are examined and six documents are marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge found all the accused guilty and convicted A1 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, convicted A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, they preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar and III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the judgments of the Courts below, accused preferred the present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The main contention of Advocate for revision petitioners is that there are disputes between the parties and cases and counter cases, which are evident from the evidence of D.Ws.1 & 2 and documents Exs.D1 to D6, but the Courts below have not considered this aspect. Learned counsel further contended that specific allegation against A2 to A4 is that they beat the injured with hands, therefore, convicting them for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC is incorrect. He further contended that weapon is not seized and there is no evidence to show that the injuries are caused with a weapon, therefore, Section 324 IPC is not attracted even against A1. He submitted for these reasons, the judgments of the Courts below have to be set aside.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that A1 is convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the other accused for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. He submitted once A1 is found for the offence under Section 324 IPC, the other accused who are charged for the offence of common intention are liable for the same offence and that the Courts below have not committed any error.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the Judgments of the Courts below are proper, correct and legal?
7. Point:- According to prosecution, the incident was on 25-
07-2002, at about 7:30 A.M and report was given at about 9:00 A.M. To prove the allegations against the revision petitioners, prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. P.W.1 is the injured-defacto-complainant. P.Ws.2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses. P.W.5 is a mediator for observation of scene of offence, P.W.6 is the medial officer and P.W.7 is the investigating officer. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that she went to the house of A1 to question him for implicating her brother’s son in a criminal case, for which he became wild and beat her with a stick on her head and that the other accused beat her with hands. This part of evidence is supported by P.Ws.2 to 4 who are independent witnesses. The only objection of the revision petitioners is that the alleged weapon i.e., stick is not seized and no incriminating material is found at the scene of offence at the time of scene observation report, therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be accepted. The very same point is raised before the Courts below and both the Courts on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 observed and simply because stick is not seized and their evidence can not be brushed aside. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence by the Courts below.
8. The other contention of the revision petitioners is that there are counter cases and to prove the same D.Ws.1 & 2 and documents Exs.D1 to D6 are marked, but the Courts below have not considered this part of evidence. The trial Court in it’s judgment at Para No.16 has dealt with the evidence adduced on behalf of accused both oral and documentary and discarded the same on the ground that there is no intention for P.W.1 to falsely implicate A1 to A4. The trial Court observed if really P.W.1 is interested in implicating falsely, she ought to have implicated D.W.2 also who is the follower of A1. The learned trial Judge rightly considered the evidence on record adduced on behalf of both parties and came to right conclusion and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence.
9. Both the Courts concurrently held that the 1st accused committed offence under Section 324 IPC and A2 to A4 committed offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. I do not find any illegality in any of the findings arrived at by the trial Court and the appellate Court. There is nothing perverse in the findings of the trial Court and appellate Court while appreciating evidence on record. In a revision, when there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the findings of the Courts below, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court and appellate Court. Both the Courts have imposed fine only and they have not sentenced the revision petitioners with any imprisonment. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.
10. For these reasons, the revision is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:24.01.2014 mrb