HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.126 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014 Between:
Pulgam Pochaiah.
And:
Petitioner.
The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.126 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 14-11-2006 in Sessions Case No.133 of 2006 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad whereunder respondents 2 to 8 are acquitted for the offences charged against them.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of police, Asifabad filed charge sheet against respondents 2 to 8 herein alleging that deceased and accused are residents of Rapally village and the deceased filed civil suit against the accused in respect of land disputes and the suit was decreed in his favour and on the date of incident, the deceased went to the land to clear thorny bushes, then all the accused attacked him with sticks and caused his death. P.W.2 who went to the land to give Tiffin to the deceased, saw the incident and raised cries and on hearing the same, P.W.3 working in the neighbouring land came there and witnessed. Investigation revealed that all the accused committed offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, 16 witnesses are examined and 31 documents are marked besides five Material Objects. On behalf of accused, no witnesses are examined but Exs.D.1 to D.5 are marked during the cross examination of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 ,5 and 6 respectively. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions judge held that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them from all the charge leveled against them. Aggrieved by the same, P.W.1 the de facto complainant preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that trial court failed to consider that prosecution has proved guilt of the accused by examining 16 witnesses, out of them, P.Ws.2 to 5 and 12 have clearly stated about the incident. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 and 12 is supported and corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses but because of the minor contradictions, the trial court has discarded their testimony and the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgment of the trial court is legal, correct and proper?
6. POINT:
According to prosecution, the incident was on 11-6- 2005 in the morning hours. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant and brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W.4 has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.5 is a distant relation of P.W.2. P.W.6 is the person who rushed to the deceased on hearing the cries of P.W.2. P.W.7 is the photographer. P.Ws.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.13 is the police official who registered F.I.R. P.W.14 is the Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem. P.Ws.15 and 16 are investigating Officers.
7. According to prosecution, there was a civil dispute in respect of the land and after the civil suit is decreed, the deceased went to the land on 11-6-2005 to clear bushes and at that time, the accused attacked the deceased. According to prosecution, P.W.2 who went to the land to give Tiffin to her son i.e., deceased, witnessed the incident. According to prosecution, brother of the deceased gave complaint and he came to know about the incident through P.W.3. In Ex.P.1, there is no reference about the presence of P.W.2 witnessing the incident. On the other hand, according to its contents, P.W.2 informed P.W.1 that A.1 to A.3 had killed the deceased.
8. Though some names of the witnesses are referred in Ex.P.1 complaint, the presence of P.W.2 is not mentioned. Considering this aspect, the trial court held that P.W.2 is a chance witness and her presence at scene of offence is doubtful. With regard to the other witnesses, even according to prosecution, they have arrived at the spot on hearing the cries of P.W.2. There are contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses and the material contradictions are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5. According to prosecution, accused attacked the deceased with an axe and he was beaten with axe and caused the death. But the medical evidence of P.W.14 disclose that the death was due to strangulation. So, the medical evidence is not in conformity with the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.3 the person who was working in the neighbouring land deposed that A.1 hit the deceased with blunt portion of the axe whereas A.4, A.6 and A.7 are standing on the bank of vorre. He further deposed that A.2 and A.5 strangulated the deceased by using towel. There are several inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of important witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 on each and every material aspect. Learned trial judge has meticulously considered each and every sentence of the evidence of these witnesses and held that their evidence is not convincing and not trustworthy. Admittedly, State has not preferred any appeal.
9. On a scrutiny of the material on record, I do not find any incorrect findings in the judgment of the trial court on any of the material aspects. On the other hand, learned trial judge has rightly discarded the evidence of main prosecution witnesses in view of the glaring inconsistencies. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court which are based on evidence.
10. For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
11. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 21-4-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.126 OF 2007 Dated 21-4-2014 Dvs