HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Between:
Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2010 Dated: 24.04.2014 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by PP. High Court, Hyderabad …. Appellant.
And Mohd. Babu Miya & Others.
… Respondents/Accused HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The State preferred this appeal not satisfied with the Judgment of the Court of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in S.C.No.330 of 2000, dt. 16.01.2009. A.1 to A.8 were tried in that case for the offences of - (a) causing the death of Mohd. Abdul Raheem (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), and (b) causing injuries to PWs.1 to 4, in the afternoon of 14.04.2000 at Mallikarjunapally of Medak district.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, brother of the deceased was in-charge of taking procession on the eve of Moharrum, and in the year 2000, his son Sattar was holding the flag in his hands and on the way of procession, A.7 took the flag from his hands, and A.3 and his father Moinuddin abused PW.1 in filthy language. PW.1 is said to have taken the flag once again from the hands of A.7, and altercation took place in that behalf. A complaint was submitted by PW.1 at 9.00 p.m. on 14.04.2000 before the P.S. Munipally stating that when PW.1 came near the bus-stand from his village, the accused attacked him at about 5.00 p.m. with sticks and chains on the pretext that he did not bring the Moharrum flag to their house and abused him in filthy language. PW.1 is said to have sustained bleeding injuries on his head and in the meanwhile his younger brothers, the deceased and PW.2 intervened and they too were beaten by the accused. PWs. 5 and 6 are said to have separated both the groups.
3. Crime No.14 of 2000 was registered by the police alleging offence under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 IPC against the accused. The injured persons, including the deceased were taken to the Hospital for treatment. While undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, the deceased died on 15.04.2000, and therefore, the provision of law in F.I.R - Ex.P.18 was changed. The requirements under law, such as preparation of scene of offence panchanama, inquest and sending the dead body to the post- mortem were completed. After the completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.
4. The case was committed to the Court of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, and numbered as S.C.No.330 of 2000. During the pendency of the trial, A.1 and A.7 were dead, and the case against them was abated. The trial Court framed necessary charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial was conducted, wherein P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.29 were filed and M.Os.1 to 7 were taken on record. Through its Judgment, dated 16-01-2009, the trial Court acquitted all the accused. Hence, the appeal by the State.
5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that as many as four injured witnesses, namely PWs.1 to 4, deposed consistently about the nature of attack and the assault by the accused and still the trial Court acquitted all the accused. He submits that there existed a clear motive for the accused in attacking physically,PW.1,on account of the fact the accused felt insulted for not bringing Moharrum flag to their house, and when PW.2 and the deceased came to the rescue of the brother of PW.1 , they too were beaten, resulting in the death of the deceased. He submits that the trial Court proceeded purely on hypothetical basis and the Judgment rendered by it deserves to be set aside and that the accused are liable to b convicted.
6. Sri Chilumula Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution as well as the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the fact that the injuries received by the accused were more serious in nature, but the proceedings were initiated against the accused only,under political pressure. He contends that the very basis pleaded by PW.1 as constituting the motive for the alleged attack, became non-existent with the admission by PW.1,that the accused were not taking part in Moharrum for the past 5 or 6 years before the incident. The learned counsel further submits that while the injuries that were noticed on PWs.1 to 4 were contusions or lacerations, the injuries that were found on various accused were the sutured and are very serious in nature. The learned counsel further submits that the complaint given by PW.1, which formed part of Ex.P.18, is very brief and bereft of details, whereas PW.1 and other witnesses have elaborately submitted the facts, and hence, the trial Court has taken the correct view in the matter and no interference is warranted.
7. The proceedings in the case started with the submission of a complaint by PW.1. It is very brief and is to the effect that when PW.1 was at the bus-stand at about 5.00 p.m. on 14.04.2000, the accused attacked him with sticks and other weapons on the ground that he did not bring the Moharrum flag to their house. Another aspect mentioned by him was that when he received bleeding injury on the head, his brothers i.e., the deceased and PW.2, came to their rescue and they too were attacked with the same weapons. No other details were furnished either as to the manner in which the accused resorted to the specific overt acts on the respective injured persons. It is also silent as to the receipt of sustaining any injuries by the accused.
8. The incident is said to have taken place at about 5.00 p.m. The complaint, however, was submitted at 9.00 p.m. In case serious injuries are received in an assault, the first thing expected from the persons injured is to report the matter to the police, so that they are sent for treatment immediately. What however happened, even according to the prosecution witnesses, is that soon after the alleged incident has taken place, PWs.1 to 4 have gone to a private Nursing Home at Sadasivapet, which incidentally was right by the side of the Police Station, however, no information was furnished to the police. After spending four hours in that manner, PW.1 submitted the complaint to the police. The accused are said to have been referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.
9. While undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, the deceased died. While there was negligence on the part of PW.1 and his brothers in submitting the complaint to the police, there was negligence on the part of the latter in not arranging for recording the dying declaration of the deceased, who was very much alive for about a day. The cause for the attack on PW.1 and his brothers by the accused is said to be the failure on the part of PW.1 to stop the Moharrum procession in front of the house of the accused and to take the flag inside their house. However, it was elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 4 that the accused were not taking part in Moharrum festival celebrations for 5 or 6 years before the incident. The allegation that A.3 went to Zaheerabad and brought the other accused for the purpose of attacking upon him i.e., PW.1, was also belied with the admission that A.1 to A.6 are living in the very same village and doing agriculture.
10. A serious lapse or misrepresentation on the part of PW.1 to PW.4 is evident from the deposition of PW.16. The case of PWs.1 to 4 proceeded on the premise that they alone received injuries on being attacked by the accused. The deposition of PW.16, the Deputy Civil Surgeon, Sadasivapet, discloses that PWs.1 to 4 received some injuries, which are not so serious, and he noticed sutured injuries on A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.6. While PWs.1 to 4 were examined by the Doctor on 14-04-2000, the accused, mentioned above, were examined on 21-04-2000. This is obviously because the police have chosen to refer the case of PWs.1 to 4 alone while leaving the injured accused to their fate.
[1]
I n State of U.P. v. Munni Ram and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the evidence on record discloses that the persons in both the groups have sustained injuries, it is not at all safe to hold some of them are guilty and let off others. There are several other lapses, which are noticed by the trial Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
L.Narasimha Reddy, J.
M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.
Date: 24.04.2014 Kv/smr) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 2010 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Dated: 24.04.2014
Kv/smr
[1] 2011 AIRSCW 386