HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1145 OF 2007 Dated 11-9-2014 Between:
Naguluri Rosaiah.
And:
..Petitioner.
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.1145 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 19-7- 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2006 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Prakasam Division, Markapur, whereunder judgment dated 28-8-2006 in S.C.No.50 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Darsi, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Darsi filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that on 19-4- 2003 at about 8.15 P.M., when P.W.2 went to their jewellery shop run by P.W.1 at Darsi, on that day, P.W.1 closed the shop and taken silver, gold articles and cash of Rs.18,000/- in a bag and left the shop with P.W.2 i.e., his wife who was holding a suit case, by walk and when they reached near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, on Kurichedu road, two offenders came and crossed them and pulled the suit case from the hands of P.W.2 and also pulled the bag from the hand of P.W.1 and when P.W.1 resisted the culprits over powered and stabbed on the right wrist of P.W.1 with a knife and when P.W.2 intervened, she was also stabbed with knife on back and stomach and thereafter, carried away the stolen valuables and P.W.2 cried, then P.Ws.3, 4 and 10 rushed to the spot and tried to apprehend the accused. Culprits also stabbed them and while escaping, they abandoned bag and suit case by taking away valuables. On the report of victim, police registered F.I.R. and during investigation, revision petitioner and other accused were arrested on 10-10-2003 in the presence of mediators P.Ws.12 and 13 and on their confession, stolen gold and silver articles from the possession of A.1 and 16 pairs of silver anklets and four pairs of ear studs from the possession of A.2 were recovered.
On these allegations, trial was conducted, during which, eighteen witnesses were examined and fifteen documents were marked besides three material objects and no witness was examined and no document was marked on behalf of the accused. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioner and other accused guilty for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer seven years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and aggrieved by the same, both of them preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Prakasam and VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Markapur, on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that scene of offence is shifted to Anjaneyaswamy temple from the place of actual attack. He further submitted that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of eye witness with regard to the manner in which the culprits attacked the victims.
He further submitted that identification of accused was long after the incident in a test identification parade and he further submitted that recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 is planted only for the purpose of case and these aspects are not considered by the trial court and appellate court and therefore, conviction recorded against the revision petitioner is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that there is no corroboration for the evidence of prosecution witnesses on any of the material aspects and the petitioner is innocent.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious offence of 397 I.P.C. and both trial court and appellate court after elaborate discussion of evidence of prosecution witnesses, found him guilty 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 19-4-2003 at about 8.15 P.M., out of 15 witnesses, examined, P.Ws.1 and 2 are husband and wife from whom, the property was robbed. P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 10 are the witnesses who came in rescue of the victims- P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.12 and 13 are the mediators in whose presence, the revision petitioner and other accused are arrested and the remaining witnesses are official witnesses and circumstantial witnesses.
The main grounds urged are that there is a shift of scene of offence and both witnesses gave inconsistent version. P.W.1 deposed that he is running a jewellery shop at Kurichedu Road Darsi and on the date of incident at about 8.30 P.M., while himself and his wife after closing their shop, were going to their house with gold and silver articles and cash and after they covered some distance, two persons came and tried to snatch away the suit case from the hands of his wife and bag containing gold and silver articles from his hand and when they resisted, both culprits stabbed him and his wife and took away bag and suit case.
He further deposed that on hearing their cries, Chowdaiah and others came in their rescue and that the accused persons also stabbed the said person and the remaining persons who came in their rescue.
P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines.
Now according to advocate for revision petitioner, place of incident was shifted to Anjaneyaswamy temple from the real place of incident. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that shop is near Anjaneyaswamy temple and after passing some distance from the shop, this incident happened. No doubt, exact place of incident is not spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2.
As seen from the material, the culprits ran away and there was a report and the suit case was left at one place, but that cannot be a ground to consider that the petitioner is implicated. When P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence identifying him as the person who made attack and caused injuries, this discrepancy with regard to exact place of incident is not very much material. Further, as seen from the evidence, as on the date of incident, P.W.2 was pregnant and making attack for the booty against wife and husband and also attacking the persons who tried to intervene, in my view, is a serious offence and a small discrepancy with regard to place of incident cannot weigh, particularly, when there is no possibility of implicating the accused.
Admittedly, the revision petitioner is not a known person and therefore, implicating him for the sake of case cannot be imagined.
From the evidence, it is clear that part of property that was lost was recovered from the petitioner and this is a positive proof supporting the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the incident.
The other grounds urged is that there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. As already referred above, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent with regard to the nature of attack and manner of attack and there may be small discrepancies with regard to exact place where incident took place but that cannot be a ground to discard entire evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
The next objection raised is that material objects are planted for the purpose of this case. This contention cannot be accepted because P.Ws.1 and 2 identified their articles and they cannot plant these items for the sake of the case to help the police. When the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13-mediators disclose that these items are recovered from the accused on the confession and P.Ws.1 and 2 identified them as the property that they have lost on the date of incident, the objection of the revision petitioner cannot sustain.
As seen from the material, both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed each and every objection raised on behalf of revision petitioner and rightly negatived them basing on the evidence available on record. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or appellate court and also do not find any incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
On a scrutiny of material, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both courts with regard to conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by appellate court.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
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 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1145 OF 2007 Dated 11-9-2014 Dvs