HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.827 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014 Between:
Kondepudi Venkata Ramana @ Ramana.
Petitioner.
And:
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.827 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 1-5-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada whereunder judgment dated 28-8-2006 in Sessions Case No.290 of 2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta filed charge sheet alleging that on 16-11-2004, there was a quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 in which the accused threatened that he would set fire to the thatched house of P.W.1 if she failed to continue the sexual contact with him. On 18-11- 2004 at about 8 P.M., when the parents of P.W.1 went to the village elders to report against the accused for his misbehavior towards P.W.1, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and picked up a quarrel with her, then took out kerosene lamp and sprinkled over the thatched house and set fire and ran away. As a result, the house belonging to parents of P.W.1 and neighbouring thatched house of B.Bullemma have completely burnt and there was a loss of articles worth Rs.30,000/- in each house.
On the report of P.W.5, police registered crime No.151 of 2004 and investigation revealed that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 are examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked on behalf of prosecution besides five Material Objects. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined but during cross examination of P.W.3, Ex.D.1 is marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, East Godavari District and VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada 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 there is no evidence connecting the accused with the offence. He further submitted that only on suspicion, report is given against the accused and police without conducting proper enquiry filed charge sheet against him. He further submitted that on the basis of suspicion, a person cannot be convicted and to punish a person, there must be positive, cogent and convincing evidence. He further submitted that investigating agency has not collected finger prints on the material objects and only on the basis of hearsay evidence, the accused is convicted. He further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the charge leveled against the revision petitioner and that he is entitled for acquittal.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5 would clinchingly show that the revision petitioner set fire to the thatched house of P.W.1 and another and both trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
6. 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?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on 18-11-2004, at about 8 P.M., the accused set fire to the parents’ house of P.W.1. Out of nine witnesses examined, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the material witnesses. P.W.1 deposed that she lived with her husband for three years, and thereafter, they have been living separately and after separation with her husband, she developed illicit intimacy with the accused and during that illicit intimacy, there were some disputes between them. She deposed that due to those disputes, she went away to her parents’ house, stayed there since three days prior to the incident. She deposed that on the date of incident at about 8 P.M., the accused came to her and asked her to come back for which she did not agree and on that, the accused took up a kerosene lamp from the house and poured kerosene on thatched house of parents and set fire. She deposed that as a result, her parents’ house was burnt and articles inside the house were also burnt. She deposed that her neighbour’s house was also burnt and their belongings were also burnt. In the cross- examination, except putting suggestions, nothing was elicited from her and her neighbour whose house was also burnt. She is examined as P.W.2 and she deposed that the accused set fire to the house of parents of P.W.1 and it also extended to her house and articles worth of Rs.35,000/- were burnt in the said fire. She also deposed about the disputes between the accused and P.W.1 and that P.W.1 is staying with her parents since three days prior to the incident.
8. In the cross examination, she asserted that she has seen the accused setting fire to the house of parents of P.W.1. Except putting suggestions, nothing more was elicited from her.
9. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the persons who arrived on hearing the cries of P.Ws.1 and 2 and took steps to put off fire. P.W.4 deposed that when he gathered there, people were discussing that the accused set fire to the house of parents of P.W.1 due to his disputes with P.W.1. P.W.5 deposed that accused was found running away from the spot when he arrived there.
10. Now the objection of the revision petitioner is that there is no evidence connecting the incident to the accused. But the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 would clearly show that accused is the person who set fire to the house of parents of P.W.1 on 18-11-2004. One of the contentions of the revision petitioner is that the victims i.e., parents of P.W.1 are not examined and that when the house is belonging to them, their examination is very much necessary. Here, P.W.1 who is the daughter is also living in that house at the time of incident. Therefore, non-examination of parents of P.W.1 is no way fatal and the objection of the revision petitioner cannot be sustained.
11. The other witnesses are mediators, Fire Officer and Investigating Officer and their evidence is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.
12. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that the accused set fire to the house of parents of
P.W.1 and due to which fire extended to the house of
P.W.2 and both houses have completely burnt and there was loss of articles worth of Rs.30,000/- in each house.
Both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
13. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed evidence on record with reference to every objection raised on behalf of accused. I do not find any wrong appreciation or any perversity in the findings of the courts below for convicting the revision petitioner.
14. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to conviction.
15. Now coming to the sentence, trial court imposed seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. which is confirmed by the appellate court.
16, Now it is the submission of the advocate for revision petitioner that imprisonment of seven years is on higher side and the same may be reduced reasonably.
17. There is no minimum punishment for the offence under Section 436 I.P.C. This offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine. Considering the facts of the case and nature of offence and the relationship between the accused and P.W.1, I feel that this seven years imprisonment is on higher side and two years imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
18. For the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction, but sentence of seven years imprisonment is reduced to two years while confirming the fine amount. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
19. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.827 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014