HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1613 OF 2007 Dated 11-9-2014 Between:
Kundarapu Rambabu.
And:
..Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1613 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 23-11-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder judgment dated 1-2-2006 in C.C.No.600 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yelamanchili, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchutapuram filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 12-7- 2001 at about 4 P.M., he voluntarily caused injury to P.W.1 with a stick on his right hand palm and thereby, he is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.
On these allegations, five witnesses are examined and three documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both trial court and appellate erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. He further submitted that except interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4, there is no independent supporting evidence to prove the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. He further submitted that even the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, there are inconsistencies and discrepancies and both courts have erred in relying on such evidence to convict the petitioner and therefore, judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor submitted that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and simply because they are related, their evidence cannot be discarded. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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?
POINT:
According to prosecution, the incident was on 12-7- 2001 at about 4 P.M. and P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers and the accused is also resident of the same village and P.Ws.1 and 2 are supporting one party and accused are supporting another political party and on 12-7-
2001, there were elections for ZPTC and MPTC and polling booths were in M.P.E. School at Bhogapuram and at 3-30 P.M., , P.W.2 objected casting vote of one Kundrapu Sanyasamma as one Kundrapu Simhachalam, a male person was trying to cast vote in the name of the said Sanyasamma, and in that connection, there was some altercation and accused beat P.W.1.
As seen from the evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 though they are related but their testimony cannot be discarded on the ground of relationship. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these three witnesses on any of the material aspects and on the other hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is further supported and corroborated with the medical evidence. No doubt, the Medical Officer found cut injury, but in view of the location of injury i.e., between thumb and index finger, there is possibility of causing cut injury even with a hard object. Both trial court and appellate court by considering the evidence of these witnesses found the accused guilty and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. I also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the trial court and appellate court.
On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to conviction.
Now coming to the sentence part, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Now submission of advocate for petitioner is that the incident was about more than twelve years back and it was during elections. He further submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he is not involved in any other cases either prior to the incident or subsequent to this case and therefore, the period already undergone may be treated as punishment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.
As seen from the material the incident was not pre- planned one and it suddenly happened when one person tried to cast vote in the name of another. The injury received by P.W.1 is not on any vital part but it is only between thumb and index finger.
Admittedly, the petitioner is not a habitual offender. For an offence under Section 324 I.P.C., punishment prescribed is three years imprisonment, or with fine, or with both. So, as the offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both, considering the nature of injury and the manner of attack, I feel that the request of the advocate for petitioner to treat the period already undergone as punishment can be considered.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence is modified reducing six months imprisonment into the period already undergone while confirming the fine amount.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 11-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1613 OF 2007 Dated 11-9-2014