THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.178 OF 2008 Between:-
Pamarthi Lakshmana Rao.
…Petitioner/Appellant/Accused.
And State of A.P., rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.178 OF 2008 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against Judgment dated 7- 2-2008 in Criminal Appeal No.235 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru, whereunder, the Judgment dated 26-09-2007 in C.C.No.258 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem is confirmed in respect of conviction, but sentence of six months imprisonment is modified to four months imprisonment.
Brief facts, leading to this revision are as follows:- Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem filed charge sheet alleging that on 13-3-2004 at about 3.30 PM., the Prohibition and Excise police arrested father of the accused and seized 75 arrack sachets and while drafting the mediators report, the accused obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties and used force against Pw.2. On that, F.I.R., is registered and investigation revealed that the accused committed offence under Section 353 of I.P.C.
On these allegations, five witnesses are examined and five documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused. On an over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence of six months simple imprisonment into four months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, present revision is filed by the revision petitioner.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both the Courts below placed reliance on the highly interested testimony of Pws.1, 2, 4 and 5 and though the independent witness Pw.3 has not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of official witnesses was accepted. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 353 of I.P.C., are not at all attracted and that there are inconsistent versions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and without considering these aspects, both the Courts, convicted the revision petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that for any reason his argument is not accepted, since the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and he has no criminal record, some lenient view may be taken and requested that the period already undergone by the petitioner may be treated as punishment.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in an offence of obstructing public servant from discharging his official duties and both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner 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 is whether the Judgments of Courts below are legal, proper and correct ?
Point: According to prosecution, on 13-3-2004, the Prohibition and Excise Police went to the house of the accused and when they tried to arrest father of the accused, revision petitioner obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties and used criminal force against them. To prove the said allegations, five witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. Pw.1 is the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Tanuku, Pw.2 is Prohibition and Excise Constable, Tanuku. Pw.3 is a mediator who accompanied the police, Pw.4 is Sub Inspector of Police who registered the F.I.R., and conducted investigation and Pw.5 is the Head Constable of Prohibition and Excise, who accompanied Pws.1 and 2. The main contention of the Advocate for revision petitioner is that except the interested testimony of the official witnesses, there is no independent evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the revision petitioner. Pws.1, 2 and 5 are the Excise Officials and according to them, they along with mediators proceeded to the house of the father of accused in connection with an excise case and the mediator who is examined as Pw.3 has not supported the prosecution case.
From the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 5 it is clear that the accused obstructed these three witnesses when they arrested his father who is involved in an excise case. Pw.2 deposed in his evidence that while they were drafting mediators report with the assistance of the mediators, the accused, who was not in the house, came from out side and pushed the Head Constable (Pw.5) away and when he tried to prevent that act, he beat him on his back.
From this evidence, it is clear that criminal force was used by the accused against public servant and both the trial Court and appellate Court after considering the evidence of these three witnesses held that the petitioner committed offence under Section 353 of I.P.C. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial Court or by appellate Court. I also do not find any in correct findings in the Judgment of the Courts below on any of the material aspects particularly with regard to use of criminal force against public servant. Considering the material on record, I am of the view that both the trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now, coming to sentence part, the trial Court imposed six months simple imprisonment and the same is reduced to four months simple imprisonment by the appellate Court. Advocate for the petitioner requested that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner may be treated as punishment on the ground that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he is not involved in any criminal case either prior or subsequent to this incident. It is further represented that the petitioner is married and he got wife and children and he has to look after their welfare.
As seen from the record, the incident was in March, 2004 i.e., nearly more than 10 years back. Considering the nature of offence and the fact that the incident was occurred about 10 years back, I feel that the request of the Advocate for revision petitioner can be considered.
For these reasons, the sentence of four months simple imprisonment imposed by the appellate Court is modified and reduced to the period already undergone for the offence under Section 353 of I.P.C.
With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
S.RAVI KUMAR,J Date: 22-09-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.178 OF 2008 Date: 22-09-2014 Shr.