HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.203 OF 2007 & 214 of 2007 Dated 24-4-2014 Crl.R.C.No.203 of 2007:
Between:
Nalaparthi Arjuna Rao.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
Crl.R.C.No.214 of 2007:
Between:
Pedapati Megaranjan @ Meghalu and others.
Petitioners.
And:
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 Nos.203 OF 2007 & 214 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions arise out of the same case.
2. Brief facts leading to these revisions are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of police, Payakaraopeta filed charge sheet against four accused alleging that on 11-12-1998 at about 9 P.M., all the accused went to the house of P.W.1, attacked him with sticks and iron roads and caused bleeding injuries to him. Wife of P.W.1 and one Mukkudupalli Dasu witnessed the incident and shifted the injured-P.W.1 to Primary Health Centre, Payakaraopeta for treatment and the Head Constable of Payakaraopeta on receipt of hospital intimation rushed to Primary Health Centre and recorded the statement of injured and registered it as Crime No.139 of 1999 and investigation revealed that the accused have committed offences under Sections 326, 324 and 323 I.P.C. read with 34 I.P.C. During trial, seven witnesses are examined and three documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. No witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili found A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., A.2 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and A.3 and A.4 for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced A.1 to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and sentenced A.2 to suffer one year imprisonment and sentenced A.3 and A.4 to suffer six months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, A.1, A.3 and A.4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2004 and A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2004. Learned appellate judge dismissed both the appeals confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals, A.2 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.203 of 2007, A.1, A.3 and A.4 preferred Criminal Revision Case No.214 of 2007.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Main contention of advocate for revision petitioners is that there are glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution version with regard to lodging of F.I.R. He submitted that according to Investigating Officer, P.W.1 who received injuries in the hands of accused was taken to hospital by her husband and another and on receipt of hospital intimation, Head Constable S.A.Munaf (P.W.7) proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured and the same was registered as Crime No.139 of 1998 but according to Medical Officer-P.W.6, the injured was brought to the hospital by the very same Head Constable (P.W.7) at 10-15 A.M., and this glaring mistake throws any amount of doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution case. He further submitted that according to prosecution, F.I.R. was registered at 11 A.M., whereas from the evidence of P.W.6, investigation has commenced prior to 10.15 A.M., therefore, it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that according to P.W.1 he has received three bleeding injuries at about 9 P.M., at 11.12.1998 and according to evidence, on the same day night itself, they went to hospital, but as there were none in the hospital, they came back and again went to hospital in the morning. He further submitted that, if really P.W.1 has received such bleeding injuries and grievous injury recorded by Medical officer, withstanding for such grave injuries for more than 12 hours without any medical attendance, is highly unbelievable and these aspects would throw any amount of doubt as to the correctness of prosecution case.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of P.W.1 would support and corroborate with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and out of these three, P.W.2 is an independent witnesses. He further submitted that delay in lodging F.I.R. is properly explained and both courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in these revisions is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on 11-12-1998 at about 9 P.M., all the accused went to the house of P.W.1, caught hold of his tuft and dragged him and beat him with iron rods and caused bleeding injuries and the wife of P.W.1 and one Mukkudupalli Dasu witnessed the incident. Out of 7 witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the injured, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the witnesses to the occurrence, P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 are the Investigating Officers and P.W.6 is the Medical Officer. So, the main material witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 3, out of them, P.Ws.1 and 2 are husband and wife. Injured P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that after he sustained injuries in the hands of accused, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Payakaraopeta by his wife and cousin brother and as doctors are not available in the hospital, he returned back and on the next day morning, he went to the police station and police recorded his statement and police sent him to Payakaraopeta Hospital, and from there, he was shifted to King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. In the cross examination, he deposed that this Mukkudupalli Dasu (P.W.3) is his cousin brother. According to P.W.1, the reason for attacking him is a society dispute. According to P.W.1, their villagers formed into a society, for which, A.2 is President, A.3 is a Treasurer. A.1 and A.4 are members. According to him, they have misappropriated society funds and he questioned them about misappropriation, for that, he was attacked. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the Society is a registered one but he cannot give the details. He further deposed that he has not given any police report for the alleged misappropriation. He deposed that on the date of incident, when he went to hospital, as doctors were not available, he came back to his house and remained in the house that night with injuries. He deposed that he can reach the police station from his house within thirty minutes. He deposed that he has not given any explanation for not approaching police on the same day night, having found non- availability of doctors at Hospital.
8. According to prosecution, Ex.P.1 is the statement of the injured, on the basis of which, criminal law was set into motion. According to Ex.P.1, he received four bleeding injuries. There is no whisper in Ex.P.1 about P.W.1 approaching Hospital on the night of incident.
9. On the other hand, it is specifically stated in 161 Cr.P.C. statement that P.Ws.2 and 3 took him to Payakaraopeta Hospital on that night and on the next day morning came to the police station and gave statement. This part of discrepancy was elicited during cross examination of P.W.1. Wife of P.W.1 who was examined as P.W.2 deposed that after the incident, she took P.W.1 to the Hospital and as no doctors were available, on the next day morning, she took P.W.1 to Police Station. She deposed that there are residential houses in and around her house and neighbours did not gather at the time of incident. P.W.1 also stated that neighbours did not gather at the time of the incident. P.W.2 stated in her cross examination that Payakaraopeta hospital is a big hospital.
P.W.3 deposed that he and P.W.2 took P.W.1 to Hospital on the night of incident and as no doctors were available, they came back and went to police station on the next day morning. P.W.7 Head Constable who first recorded statement of P.W.1 deposed that on 12-12-1998 P.W.1 came to Police Station and reported about the incident and that he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered F.I.R. and thereafter, referred the injured to Government Hospital, Payakaraopeta. He deposed that he sent the injured to Hospital at about 11-30 A.M., But according to the evidence of P.W.6, she examined P.W.1 at 10-15 A.M., who was brought by Head Constable 646 of Payakaraopet Police Station. According to her evidence, case was referred to K.G.H.Hospital for expert treatment. In the cross- examination, she deposed that she cannot say whether any first aid was given to P.W.1 prior to her examination. P.W.4 who conducted investigation stated that he received case file on 13-12- 1998 and that he visited the scene of offence and examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. He deposed that there are residential houses of K.Apparao, Simhachalam and Chekkaiah at the scene of offence but he has not examined those persons.
10. According to prosecution, this P.W.1 was referred to K.G.H.Hospital for expert treatment and no material is placed for the treatment said to have given to P.W.1 at K.G.H. According to P.W.6, she gave opinion basing on the X-Ray reports. Those reports are not filed and marked and the Investigating Officer has not collected any material from the K.G.H. and no doctor is examined from K.H.G. Admittedly, F.I.R. is registered at 11 A.M.
P.W.1 was examined by Medical Officer at 10.15 A.M., itself who was produced before her by Head Constable 646. According to P.W.7, after registering F.I.R., he referred the injured to Hospital. These two versions do not match and on the other hand, they contradict with each other. If the evidence of P.W.6-Medical Officer is accepted, the contention of advocate for revision petitioners that investigation has commenced even before registration of F.I.R. has to be accepted. If the evidence of P.W.7 is to be accepted, the version of Medical Officer has to be discarded. Admittedly, there are residential houses at the scene of offence and admittedly, inmates of these residential houses are not examined. No explanation is offered from the prosecution for non- examination of inmates of these houses who are independent witnesses. According to P.W.1, in spite of raising cries, no one came out from the residential houses. But the statement of P.W.1 is not convincing because in colonies and villages, it is quite common of gathering even for small incident. But here when such an incident of four persons attacking one person with sticks and iron road and causing bleeding injuries, inmates of residential houses not coming out of their houses in spite of cries from the injured, is highly improbable and not convincing. From the cross-examination on behalf of accused to P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that there are some disputes between these two parties and there were cases and counter cases. In such circumstances, non- examination of independent witnesses is really fatal to the prosecution case.
11. According to prosecution version, the incident was outside the house of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, he has received 3 to 4 bleeding injuries and out of them, one injury had bleeding. Investigating Officer has not noticed any blood stained earth at the scene of offence. On the aspects referred above, there is any amount of doubt as to the correctness of prosecution case and both trial court and appellate court have lost sight of these aspects and convicted the revision petitioners accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is with inconsistent versions.
12. For these reasons, I am of the view that both the trial court and appellate court have committed error in convicting the revision petitioners and judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside.
13. In view of my foregoing observations and findings, these two revisions are allowed by setting aside the judgments of the courts below. Fine amount shall be refunded.
14. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 24-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.203 OF 2007 & 214 of 2007 Dated 24-4-2014