HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.786 OF 2004 Dated 23-6-2010 Between:
And:
L.Raghunatha Reddy and others.
…Petitioners.
The State-Station House Officer, Peddavadugur Police Station, Peddavadugur, Ananthapur District and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.786 OF 2004 ORDER:
Aggrieved by the judgment passed on 9-2-2004 in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2003 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Anantapur, confirming the conviction against the petitioners-accused passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Gooty, in C.C.No.166 of 2002, on 3-7-2003, the present revision case is preferred by the petitioners.
Petitioners herein are A.1 to A.3 respectively.
Even though the case is posted to today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, no representation is made on behalf of the petitioners.
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
On 6-5-2002 at about 10 A.M., the petitioners, and others i.e. A.4 to A.6 formed into a group with common intention arming with deadly weapons and attacked the complainant with iron pipes, as a result of which he sustained injuries. In this connection, complainant presented a complaint to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddavadugur Police Station who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.25 of 2002 against the petitioners for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C.
Before the trial Court, charges for the offence under Section 148 and 324 I.P.C. were framed against the petitioners. The complainant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws.2 to 6 on his behalf and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial Court on a perusal of both oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the arguments on both sides and having observed that the prosecution established the case against the petitioners for the charges framed against them, convicted and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 148 IPC and Rs.4,000/- each for the offence under Section 324 IPC and out of total fine amount of Rs.18,000/-, Rs.4,000/- is ordered to be paid to the defacto complainant. The trial Court further observed that the prosecution failed to establish the case against A.4 to A.6 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 148 and 324 I.P.C., and thereby, acquitted them. Having aggrieved by the same, the petitioners carried the matter to the 1st appellate Court and the 1st appellate Court after reappraisal of the entire evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the petitioners. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the petitioners.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the blood stained clothes were not produced before the trial Court and apart from that, the Courts below ought to have seen that non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the Judgments of Courts below needs interference by this Court by allowing the revision.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the Courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners and there is illegality or irregularity in the judgments impugned and as such, the judgments of Courts below needs no interference by this Court.
In this case, the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 and the medical evidence is relevant for consideration. P.ws.1 and 2 stated that A1 to A3 beat P.w.1 indiscriminately with pipes, hands and legs though A1 to A6 came to the scene of offence. It is stated by P.w.1 that A1 beat him with iron pipe on his back, A2 beat him with iron pipe on his right knee and A3 beat him with iron pipe on his left leg below knee. The evidence of P.w.5 medical officer, also corroborates the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 with regard to the injuries. P.w.3 turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of P.ws.1 and 2 coupled with the medical evidence, clinchingly proves the guilt of the petitioners-accused as rightly observed by both the courts below.
Non examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that the said Investigating Officer was no more at the time of trial. Apart from that, non-marking of any exhibits is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is corroborating evidence to support the version of the prosecution as rightly observed by the 1st appellate Court.
In this view of the matter, I feel that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Judgments of the Courts below and as such, they do not warrant any interference by this Court and thereby, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Justice RAJA ELANGO Dated 23-6-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.786 OF 2004 Dated 23-6-2010