HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.417 OF 2007 Dated 20-6-2014 Between:
Nakireddy Eshwar Rao.
And:
Petitioner.
The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana …Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.417 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 30-8-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2005 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 25-11-2005 in Sessions Case No.31 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of police, Anaparthi filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner alleging that he was working as cooli in Rami Reddy Poultries at Lamxipuram and on 20-3-2003, P.W.1 went for collecting firewood to the bushes located behind Rami Reddy Poultries and there, she noticed accused removing eggs from the bushes which are stolen by him from the poultry and on seeing her, accused pleaded not to disclose the same to the owner, but P.W.1 without any response was proceeding with the firewood on her head and the accused suspecting that she may inform his owner decided to kill her and put a towel around her neck and made her to fall on the ground, beat her with cement brick stone on her face until she lost her consciousness and left her with bleeding injuries and P.W.1 after gaining consciousness reached home and informed her husband-P.W.2 who shifted her to Kakinada for treatment and on receipt of Hospital intimation, police recorded the statement of P.W.2 and registered it as Crime No.38 of 2003 and after investigation filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. On these allegations, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram conducted trial during which thirteen witnesses are examined and twelve documents are marked besides eight M.Os. on behalf of the prosecution and no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and convicted him for the said charge while acquitting him for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. Trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to suffer three years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Learned advocate for revision petitioner submitted that there are inconsistent versions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 regarding identity of the person who beat P.W.1 and the trial court and appellate court failed to give benefit of doubt to the accused. He further submitted that in the F.I.R., P.W.2 stated that unknown persons beat P.W.1 and there is no identity of the accused and both courts failed to consider this aspect. He further submitted that the accused is aged about 28 years as on the date of alleged incident and he is not a habitual offender and he is not involved in any other criminal cases and the period of three years imprisonment is high and excessive and the same may be reduced to the period already undergone and that he is in jail for about 114 days during trial.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and 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:
According to prosecution, on 20-3-2003, the accused attacked P.W.1 and beat her with big stone on her face with an intention to kill her and caused bleeding injuries due to which she lost her consciousness and accused had left her and went away. To prove charge sheet allegations, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. P.W.1 is victim-cum-injured, P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1 who gave the report to police, P.Ws.3 to 6 are the circumstantial witnesses who came to know about the incident and witnessed P.W.1 with injury, P.W.7 is the photographer who took photographs of scene of offence, P.W.8 is one of the mediator of the observation of scene of offence, P.W.9 is the mediators report drafted at 3 P.M., on 25-3-2003, P.W.10 is the Medical Officer who examined injured and issued wound certificate, P.W.11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who received hospital intimation and recorded statement of the injured, P.Ws.12 and 13 are the Investigating Officers.
Admittedly, there is no direct witness for the incident and P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed the way in which she was attacked and the way in which she received injuries in the hands of accused. According to her evidence, after she regained consciousness, she went home and informed her husband about the incident and her husband is examined as P.W.2 and he supported her version in all aspects. Evidence of P.W.1 is further supported and corroborated with the evidence of Medical Officer who is examined as P.W.10 and the wound certificate Ex.P.9. Their evidence is further supported and corroborated with the F.I.R. which is marked as Ex.P.11. The cumulative effect of the prosecution witnesses is that the injuries caused to P.W.1 are grievous in nature and they are on the face of P.W.1. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on any of the material aspects. All the witnesses are cross-examined on behalf of the accused but nothing could be elicited from them to doubt the testimony of the injured-P.W.1 and the other witnesses. Both trial court and appellate court have elaborately discussed evidence of prosecution witnesses and came to the conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by trial court or by appellate court. Admittedly, there is no specific motive for P.W.1 to foist case against the accused. From the evidence, it is clear that both P.W.1 and accused are working at the same poultry.
Considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that trial court rightly convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. though he was charged with Section 307 I.P.C. as the incident was not a pre-planned one. Learned appellate court rightly confirmed the findings of the trial court and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to the conviction for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.
Now coming to sentence part, the revision petitioner is sentenced to suffer three years imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and the same is confirmed by the appellate court. Now request of the advocate for petitioner is that since the offence was about 11 years back and as the revision petitioner is not a habitual offender and not involved in any other criminal cases, some lenient view may be taken by treating the period already undergone as punishment for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C.
Considering the evidence on record and gravity of offence and nature of injuries, I am of the view that period of 114 days is not a sufficient punishment but however, three years imprisonment can be reduced to one year taking into consideration his age and that petitioner is not habitual offender and he is not involved in any other criminal cases.
For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but sentence is reduced from three years to one year. Petitioner is entitled for set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
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 20-6-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.417 OF 2007 Dated 20-6-2014