HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1333 OF 2007 Dated 10-9-2014 Between:
Thota Sambasiva Rao, @ Bujji.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1333 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 24-9- 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2012 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) , Guntur whereunder judgment dated 1-2-2002 in C.C.25 of 2001 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector of Police, Tenali Urban Circle filed charge sheet alleging that on 10-4-2000 at about 4 P.M., while P.W.1 was returning after attending to work at Sugarcane crushing machine of her father and reached near firewood stall of Velugonda Reddy, the accused came behind her and lifted her by hugging and made an attempt to commit rape and that when she pushed him aside and tried to run away, he again caught hold of her putting her on his shoulder and took her to nearby rice mill and that there also made an attempt to commit rape and when she raised cries, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there. On seeing them, accused ran away.
On these allegations, eight witnesses are examined, five documents are marked on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined but Exs.D.1 to D.12 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 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Guntur and V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F a s t Track Court) Guntur, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now, aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Learned Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is highly unbelievable and not trustworthy and her evidence is not supported by any medical evidence in respect of the injuries said to have been received by her in the scuffle. He further submitted that according to prosecution, the incident was in a busy place where there are ten residential houses but the prosecution has not examined any of the neighbours and that the accused is falsely implicated due to money disputes between the family of the victim and the accused On the other hand, learned Public prosecutor submitted that the victim was a minor of 13 years and that the attempt of rape is clearly established and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
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?
POINT:
According to prosecution, the incident was on 10-4-2000 at about 4 P.M., Here the main evidence is that of P.W.1-the victim. She clearly narrated the way in which the accused attacked her. From her evidence, it is clear that the accused lifted her and took her into the fuel depot of Velugonda Reddy and there made an attempt to commit rape and that when she escaped and tried to run away, he took her on his shoulder and carried her into nearby rice mill and there again, made another attempt to commit rape and that when she raised cries, P.Ws.3 and 4 came there and rescued her. Both P.Ws.3 and 4 have supported the version of P.W.1 and they deposed that they reached the spot on hearing the cries of P.W.1 and found the accused and rescued P.W.1 from the hands of accused. In Ex.P.1 complaint, the way in which incident happened is narrated and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is fully supported and corroborated with the contents of Exs.P.1. Though some contradictions are elicited during cross-examination, they are not very material and they do not touch the material aspects relating to the incident.
One of the contention of the advocate for revision petitioner is that evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent and trustworthy and not supported by any other evidence. But, the same cannot be accepted in view of cogent and consistent evidence of P.W.1 which is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. In fact, very same objection was raised before appellate court and the learned appellate judge on a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 discarded the objection.
From the evidence on record, I am of the view that prosecution has established charge leveled against revision petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record.
The scope of revision is very limited and only when there is apparent illegality on the face of record, then only the revisional court has to interfere with the findings of the subordinate court.
Here, the findings of both the courts are based on sound reasoning and there is nothing perversity in the approach of the trial court or the appellate court while assessing the evidence.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings and the trial court and appellate court have rightly convicted the revision petitioner.
Now coming to the sentence, considering the manner of attack, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is quite reasonable and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
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 10-9-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1333 OF 2007 Dated 10-9-2014 Dvs