HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1567 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.
Between:
Shaik Bixam and another.
…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 REVISON CASE No.1567 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 23-8-2006 in Crl.A.No.60 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, Suryapet whereunder judgment dated 23-3-
2005 in C.C.No.553 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet is confirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
On 30-8-2002 during morning hours, on knowing A.1 and A.2 are ploughing land in S.No.416, the complainant went there and questioned them for which both of them beat the complainant with sticks which was witnessed by Shaik Mogal and Shaik Malegon and on the report of victim, Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothanakal police station investigated and filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Learned trial judge during trial examined six witnesses and marked five documents on behalf of prosecution. No one is examined on behalf of accused and no documents are marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the revision petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Aggrieved by which, they preferred Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 to sessions Court, Nalgonda and the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet confirmed the conviction and sentence and aggrieved by which, the present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is the contention of the advocate for revision petitioner that except the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, which is also inconsistent with each other, there is no independent witnesses for the charge levelled against the revision petitioners. It is further contended that the investigating Officer has not prepared any panchanama for the scene of offence and the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses are duly proved through evidence of Investigating Officer. It is further contended that alleged incident was on 30-8-2002 but F.I.R. was registered on 29-10-2002 but explanation offered by the prosecution for the delay is highly objectionable. He further contended that there are major omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to overt acts and they were not considered by the trial court and appellate court. He further contended that provisions of Section 324 I.P.C. are not attracted, at best the material may attract offence under Section 323 I.P.C. Finally, he contended that sentence imposed for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is harsh and for all these reasons, the revision is liable to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor submitted that no contradictions are elicited during the cross examination of material witnesses and the alleged omissions and variations urged on behalf of revision petitioners are very minor in nature and they do not go into the roots of the case. He further submitted that both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the courts below.
6. 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?
7. POINT:
As per the version of prosecution, on 30-8-2002, during morning hours, at about 9 A.M., while A.1 and A.2 are ploughing the land in S.No.416 which is at the outskirts of Gorentla village, P.W.1 went there and questioned the act of A.1 and A.2 for which both of them attacked him. According to P.W.1, A.1 beat him with stick on his head and caused bleeding injury and A.2 beat him with stick on his head and back and on hearing the cries of his wife, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and on seeing their arrival, both the accused left the spot.
8. Here P.W.1 is the victim and P.W.2 is the wife of the victim. Whereas P.Ws.3 and 4 are independent persons. P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case whereas P.W.4 stated that he only arrived at the spot after the incident and that he has not witnessed the attack.
9. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that there are omissions and variations in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and those were not considered by the trial court and appellate court.
10. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and he has reiterated the contents of Ex.P.1 in his evidence. P.W.2 wife of the victim has fully supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. The only variation pointed out on behalf of revision petitioner is as to the aspect that P.Ws.1 and 2 had gone to the land in usual course or went there on knowing about A.1 and A.2 ploughing it. This aspect was raised before the trial court and the learned trial judge observed that this discrepancy is not material to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in toto. As the purpose for which P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the field is not very much material, the fact remains that both of them on noticing A.1 and A.2 ploughing the land, when questioned, they received injuries in the hands of the accused. So, the objection of the revision petitioner that omissions and discrepancies are not considered by the trial court cannot be accepted.
11. The other objection of the revision petitioner is that alleged incident was on 30-8-2002 but the F.I.R. is registered on 29-10-2002 and that the delay offered by the prosecution is highly objectionable. From the evidence, it is clear that the victim immediately gave Ex.P.1 report to the police but the fault is on the part of the police officials in not registering F.I.R. Investigating Officer who was examined as P.W.5 deposed that D.D.entry is made about the complaint received from P.W.1 and F.I.R. is registered on receipt of wound certificate. Though the procedure adopted by the police officials is contrary to the provisions, on account of that the victim cannot be blamed. In other words, for the latches of police officials, the injured cannot suffer. So, the contention of the revision petitioner on this aspect cannot be sustained.
12. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that P.W.1 received three injuries which are duly proved through medical evidence of P.W.6. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.6 that the victim P.W.1 was referred to him by police and that he examined him on 30-8-2002 at 2 P.M. So, unless there is report from the victim, it is not possible for the police to refer the injured to the hospital and this aspect was also considered by the trial court while discarding the objection of the defence. From the evidence on record, it is clear that both the revision petitioners attacked P.W.1 and caused simple injuries with a stick. According to advocate for revision petitioners as the weapon is not seized, the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is not made out and it would fall under Section 323 I.P.C. only.
13. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the attack was only with stick and the Medical Officer observed that the injuries on the body of P.W.1 are possible with blunt object. So, the evidence of injured which is corroborated with the medical evidence would clinchingly show that the attack was only with stick. Seizure of the weapon is only an adding factor for the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and that cannot be a substantive piece of evidence. So, the objection of the revision petitioner with regard to the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
14. Both the courts have rightly considered the evidence on record and came to a correct conclusion and I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence on any of the material aspects. Therefore, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court and appellate court with regard to conviction imposed against the revision petitioners.
15. Now coming to the sentence, both the revision petitioners are punished with imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.
16. It is represented that the revision petitioners are in jail for a period of one month ten days. The trial Court imposed sentence of one year with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. The offence proved against the revision petitioners is punishable under Section 324 IPC and taking nature of injury and the representation of the accused, I feel that the sentence already undergone and fine paid is sufficient punishment for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 324 IPC and modifying the sentence to that of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs.2,000/-.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 20-1-2014.
Dvs/Mrb HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISON CASE No.1567 OF 2006 Dated 20-1-2014.