HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.95 of 2007 Dated 7-7-2014 Between:
Patta Ganesh.
And:
..Petitioner.
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.95 of 2007 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision is against judgment dated 8-1- 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 2004 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, East Godvari at Rajahmundry whereunder judgment dated 9-3-2004 in S.C.No.271 of 2001 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapuram is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddapuram filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 2-12- 2000 at about 3 P.M., Sainam Chinna i.e., elder brother of the victim who was working as watchman at Kalakarula colony beat one Prasad nephew of the accused on the ground that Prasad drove the cattle and caused damage to the cement stones and later matter was placed before elders on the same day at 8 P.M., and on knowing the same, complainant and his brothers went there and in the meanwhile, accused came there and hacked complainant with a curved knife on his neck indiscriminately with a view to kill him and on the report of victim, Crime No.192 of 2000 is registered and after investigation, police found that the revision petitioner has committed offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and accordingly filed charge sheet against him which is registered as P.R.C.No.11 of 2001 and subsequently on committal, it is registered as S.C.No.271 of 2001. During trial, fourteen witnesses are examined and fifteen documents are marked on behalf of prosecution besides three Material Objects.
No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, East Godavari and the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry on a reappraisal of evidence dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
When this matter is listed on 18-6-2014, none appeared and therefore, it was directed to be posted on 30-6-2014 under the caption “for orders” and on that day, advocate for revision petitioner requested a week time and accordingly, it is directed to be posted next week and now when this matter is listed today, no one appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner.
As seen from the grounds of revision, the main grievance of the revision petitioner is that both the courts erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further contended that both the courts failed to appreciate evidence in correct perspective and that the conclusion reached are perverse and illegal.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of prosecution witnesses is quite convincing and trustworthy and that there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both courts.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
5. POINT:
According to prosecution, the alleged incident was on 2-12-2000. On that day, at about 3 P.M., when the elders have gathered at Rachabanda in connection with the incident that took place at 3 P.M., at Kalakarula colony. The accused came there with a curved knife and attacked the victim on his neck indiscriminately and caused injuries all over his body and the said attack is with an intention to kill him. Fourteen witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution. P.W.1 is the victim-injured. P.W.2 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of victim and registered F.I.R. P.W.3 is one of the mediator for observation of scene of offence and seizure of blood stained cloths and also for arrest of accused and seizure of weapons on the confession of the accused. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the eye witnesses who took injured to hospital. P.W.6 is the witness who spoke about earlier incident. P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 were also eye witnesses. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the elders who gathered at Rachabanda. P.W.12 is a circumstantial witness.
P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.14 is the Medical Officer.
Out of the fourteen witnesses, P.Ws.7 to 12 have not supported the prosecution case and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. Now the main material witnesses are P.Ws.1 to 6, 13 and 14. P.W.1-injured in his evidence has clearly deposed that the accused hacked him with a knife on his neck and also on the hand and attacked him discriminately with an intention to kill him. Admittedly, both P.W.1 and accused are residents of same village and they belong to same caste. According to P.W.1, after attacking him, accused ran away from the spot threatening the persons present there and that he was shifted to hospital. P.Ws.4 and 5 have fully supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and their evidence is further supported and corroborated with the evidence of Medical Officer-P.W.14. One of the contention of the revision petitioner is that when P.Ws.7 to 12 have not supported the prosecution case relying on the interested testimony of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 for convicting the accused is not permissible.
As seen from the judgment of the trial court, the very same objection is raised and the trial court over ruled the objection on the ground that though P.Ws.4 and 5 are related to victim-P.W.1, there are no grounds to discard their testimony and that their evidence is convincing and trustworthy.
I have closely examined evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5. As rightly observed by the trial court, P.W.1 has clearly narrated the manner in which the attack was made and his testimony is fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these three witnesses. All the three were cross examined on behalf of the accused at length but nothing could be elicited from them to throw any doubt as to the correctness of their version. Further, evidence of P.W.2 who recorded the statement of victim in the hospital and evidence of Medical Officer is fully corroborated and supported with the version of P.W.1 with regard to his injuries. As seen from Ex.P.15 wound certificate, out of four injuries, three injuries are grievous in nature and all of them are on the vital part of the body.
As seen from the evidence of P.W.14, the victim-
P.W.1 was referred to Nero Surgeon because of the neck injury. Simply because the elders at Rachabanda have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of other witnesses which is convincing and supporting with each other, cannot be discarded. Both trial court and appellate court have rightly considered the evidence of these witnesses for convicting the accused.
I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence, either by the trial court or by appellate court. The evidence on record would clearly disclose that the accused attacked P.W.1 with an intention to kill him and that he also threatened at Rachabanda with dire consequences. Even in the F.I.R., actual words used by the accused while attacking P.W.1-victim were also recorded which would reveal clear intention of the accused with which he attacked P.W.1.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion and that there are no incorrect findings on any of the material aspects.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 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 7-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.95 of 2007 Dated 7-7-2014