THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1024 of 2007 Date:01.08.2014 Between:
Kollu Subbarayudu . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the 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.1024 of 2007 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 02-06-2007 in Crl.A.No.63/2003 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur whereunder judgment dated 10-04-2003 in Sessions Case No.300/2000 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur was confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Duvvur filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 09-12-1999, at about 8:00 A.M., while P.W.1 was going to her flower garden, situated to the northern side of her house and when she reached the redgram crop field of accused, the accused way laid her, abused her in filthy language, used words insulting her modesty and saying so he brought one bottle containing insecticide poison and demanded her to consume and die otherwise he would stab her and kill saying so put that bottle in her hand and due to fear she consumed little portion of it and that accused went away towards Katikapalli Village. On the report of P.W.1, F.I.R was registered and investigated into, which revealed that revision petitioner is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 506, 509 and 307 IPC. On these allegations, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur examined seven witnesses and marked nine documents on behalf of prosecution besides one material object.
On behalf of revision petitioner, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 506, 509 & 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Rs.2,000/- fine for the offence under Section 506 IPC and no separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 509 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner preferred appeal to the Court of Session and II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence.
3. No arguments are advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner in spite of posting the case under the caption for orders.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses and that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
5. The revision petitioner challenged the appellate Court judgment on the ground that the learned Judge failed to see that the witnesses have given contradict versions with regard to motive and that there is no independent evidence to support the version of P.W.1. It is further contended that due to property disputes, the case is foisted against the petitioner and therefore, the judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court are not sustainable.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether Judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
7. Point:-According to prosecution, on 19-12-1999, while P.W.1 was proceeding to her flower garden, the accused stopped her in his filed, abused her and demanded her to consume insecticide poison and due to fear from the accused, she swallowed a little bit of pesticide and thereby, the accused has committed offences under Sections 506, 509 & 307 IPC. Out of seven witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the complainant-victim, P.Ws.3 & 4 are parents of the complainant, P.W.5 is the brother of complainant, P.Ws.2 & 5 are the medical officers and P.W.7 is the investigating officer. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence supporting the F.I.R contents and the way in which, the accused attacked her and how she consumed pesticide due to fear from the accused. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of accused, but nothing could be elicited from her to doubt her testimony. Her evidence is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.3 & 4, who took her to the medical officer-P.W.2. This P.W.2 is a local Doctor and he deposed that after giving first aid, the victim was referred to Government Hospital. P.W.6 is the medical officer who gave treatment deposed about the treatment given to P.W.1. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that victim consumed some pesticide, which is supported with the version of F.I.R. One of the objection raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is that no independent witnesses are examined. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that at the time of incident, there were none in the neighbouring fields and the offence was committed in isolation. So when nobody has witnessed the incident, the objection that independent witnesses are not examined cannot hold any water. Both trial Court and appellate Court have scrutinized the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses meticulously and accepted them as there are no contradictions or omissions in their evidence. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is fully supported and corroborated with the documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 including F.S.L report and there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the Courts below. Both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the accused and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
8. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner.
9. Trial Court shall take steps for apprehension of accused for undergoing unexpired portion of sentence.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:01.08.2014 mrb