HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2009 OF 2006 Dated 11-6-2014 Between:
Shaik Katika Abbasvali @ Mentalodu.
Petitioner.
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 No.2009 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 30-6-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa whereunder judgment dated 9-1-2006 in S.C.No.405 of 2005 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Rayachoty is confirmed.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Rayachoty Urban filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner herein alleging that he lent Rs.10,000/- to one Shaik Raheem and the said Raheem did not pay the said amount to him. On 20-7- 2005, elder brother of Mohammad Rafi intervened in between the accused and Shaik Raheem in connection with money transactions whereunder Shaik Raheem promised to pay the amount within six months. While so, on 24-7-2005, the revision petitioner went to the house of Nazurullah and demanded to repay the amount due from Shaik Raheem and there was an altercation between them in which accused caused injuries to the said Nazurullah. On knowing about it, Mohammad Rafi (P.W.1) beat the accused with hands and legs and caused injuries. On that, the revision petitioner developed grudge against the said Mohammad Rafi and waiting for an opportunity. On the intervening night of 5/6-9-2005 at about 1 A.M., in the mid night while Mohammad Rafi was sleeping in front of his house and while his mother and sister were sleeping nearby him, the accused attacked Mohammad Rafi with an intention to kill him and hacked him on his right side of the head with a sickle and caused bleeding injuries. On the report of injured, police registered crime No.96 of 2005 and investigation revealed that the accused attacked P.W.1 with a common intention to kill him, thereby, committed offence under Section 307 I.P.C. On these allegations, eight witnesses are examined and six documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined but six documents are marked during cross- examination of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. Prosecution also got marked two Material Objects. 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.100/-. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Kadapah and IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapah on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that both the courts failed to notice that prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt of the accused. She further submitted that trial court placed much reliance on the highly interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. She further submitted that both courts failed to see that prosecution has miserably failed in proving the motive part. She further submitted that both the courts have not considered omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She further submitted that there is no legal evidence to prove the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. She further submitted that prosecuting agency has not followed legal rules and practice for recovery of M.Os.1 and 2. She further submitted that sentence of five years imprisonment is on higher side and that the conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecution has submitted that the evidence of injured is fully supported and corroborated with the eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 which is further supported by circumstantial witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5. He further submitted that even medical evidence is fully supported with the version of the injured and the contradictions and omissions relied on by defence are not at all material 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 this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
7. POINT:
According to prosecution, on the intervening night i.e., 5/6-9-2005 at about 1 A.M., the accused went to the house of P.W.1 and attacked him with M.O.1 in order to kill him due to previous differences. Out of eight witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the injured, P.W.2 is mother of injured, P.W.3 is sister of injured, P.Ws.4 and 5 are the neighbours, P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, P.W.7 is the mediator for seizure of M.O.1 and P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer.
8. Now the main objection of revision petitioner is that evidence of P.W.1 is not supported and corroborated with any independent witnesses. Here the incident was at 1 A.M., in the mid night and at that time, expecting independent witnesses is highly improbable. P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the mother and sister are natural witnesses and they fully supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. In fact, according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, after the attack, P.W.2 chased the accused to some extent but P.W.2 could not caught hold of him. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The only contradictions elicited was during cross- examination of P.Ws.3 to 5 but they are very not material. Learned trial judge has elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail and answered the objections raised on behalf of the accused with reference to the contradictions that are elicited during the cross-examination of P.Ws.3 to 5. I do not find any wrong appreciation of evidence either by the trial court or by the appellate court. According to P.Ws.4 and 5, on hearing the cries, they rushed to the spot and noticed P.W.1 with bleeding injury. One of the witnesses also stated that the accused was found running away from the scene with a knife in hand. Presence of accused at the scene of occurrence is not disputed because there is not even a suggestion to any of the prosecution witnesses disputing his presence. So, the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 is also supporting and corroborating with the version of P.W.1 with regard to presence of accused.
9. One of the contentions raised on behalf of revision petitioner is that Medical Officer has stated that this injury can be caused with an axe but M.O.1 is not an axe. This objection was raised before the trial court and the learned trial judge considering the subsequent examination of Medical officer P.W.6 whereunder he clarified his earlier version and assertively stated that injury on the body of P.W.1 is possible with M.O.1 weapon, negatived the objection raised on behalf of the accused. On a scrutiny of the evidence, I do not find any wrong appreciation by the trial judge or appellate judge and both courts have meticulously examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses in arriving at truth. I also do not find any wrong findings in the judgments of courts below and both courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and came to a right conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner.
10. One of the contentions of the advocate for revision petitioner is that prosecution has not established the motive part and therefore, the accused has to be acquitted. But the objection of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted because it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that there was an earlier incident which was the motive for the accused to attack P.W.1. Here accused admits that he received injuries in the hands of P.W.1 and that he also lodged a complaint against him, so, this shows that there was some grouse for the accused to attack P.W.1. Further, from the evidence, it is also clear that there was money transaction between P.W.1 and one Shaik Raheem and in that connection, there was some intervention by the elder brother of P.W.1. So all these aspects would disclose the motive part and both the courts have rightly accepted the version of prosecution witnesses with regard to motive.
11. Now coming to sentence part, it is the contention of advocate for the revision petitioner that five years imprisonment is on higher side and that the same may be reasonably reduced.
12. Here the accused is sentenced to suffer five years imprisonment besides fine of Rs.100/-. Admittedly, revision petitioner is not a habitual offender and there are no other criminal cases against the revision petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, nature of offence and gravity of the injury and also the fact that the incident was about 10 years back, I feel that sentence of five years imprisonment can be reduced to three years.
13. With this modification, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction but the sentence of five years imprisonment is reduced to three years.
15. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
16. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 11-6-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2009 OF 2006 Dated 11-6-2014