HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.65 OF 2008 Dated 2-9-2014 Between:
Md.Khasi and others.
..Petitioners.
And:
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through S.I. Police, PS, Pothkapally, Karimnagar District and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.65 OF 2008 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 29-10-2007 in Sessions Case No.446 of 2007 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Guntur, whereunder judgment dated 16-11-2005 in C.C.No.34 of 2004 on the file of VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Second respondent herein filed a private complaint against revision petitioners alleging that on 14-10-2000 at about 9.30 P.M., he was beaten by A.3. As the police failed to take action, he moved the court and the court took it on file and registered as C.C.No.295 of 2001 on 26- 11-2001 and thereafter, there was an incident on 31-10-2001 at about 7-30 A.M., in which, all the accused pounced upon the complainant and that A.2 pressed his neck to the adjacent wall, whereas A.1 and A.3 fisted the complainant on his face.
On these allegations, before the trial court, six witnesses were examined and two documents were marked on behalf of the complainant and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the accused.
On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, accused are convicted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, aggrieved by which, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and aggrieved by the sentence, de facto complainant preferred C.R.P.No.24 of 2006 and both appeal and C.R.P. are decided by a common order and both were dismissed. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, present revision is preferred.
None appeared for the revision petitioners.
Advocate for second respondent submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
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:
As seen from the grounds urged in the revision, the contention of the petitioners is that P.W.2 is a henchman of injured P.W.1 and accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the court below convicted the revision petitioners which is upheld by appellate court. It is also contended that other witnesses P.W.3 is not at all present and his presence is highly improbable and there are discrepancies in the evidence and relying on the testimonies of such witnesses, courts below convicted the revision petitioners and therefore, judgments of courts below are liable to be set aside.
From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that there are disputes between them. P.W.2 is an eye witness who deposed and supported the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the incident on 31-10-2001. P.Ws.3 and 4 are also eye witnesses and they also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these four witnesses which is supported and corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.6. Considering the same, trial court convicted the accused. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court on any of the material aspects.
From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that A.1 to A.3 i.e., revision petitioners attacked P.W.1 on 31-10- 2001 when he was plastering his compound wall and caused simple injuries. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the other eye witnesses are henchmen of the victim and their evidence cannot be accepted and there is absolutely no material to support their version. But there is no evidence on defence side to support this argument. The only documents marked on behalf of accused, that too, at appellate stage are the judgment and charge sheet in respect of earlier proceedings between the parties but they no way show that eye witnesses are henchmen of complainant. Considering the evidence on record, both trial court and appellate court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Even the punishment imposed is Rs.1,000/- fine only and no sentence of imprisonment is awarded.
Considering the same, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 2-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.65 OF 2008 Dated 2-9-2014