THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2007
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Session Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in S.C.No.12 of 2004, dated 20.10.2004, which was confirmed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati, in Crl.Appeal No.10 of 2005, dated 06.07.2007, the revision petitioner/sole accused filed the present criminal revision case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law of younger brother of P.W.1/defacto-complainant. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1, who is injured, aged about 19 years. The petitioner induced P.Ws.1 & 3 stating that he will provide job to P.W.3 at Dubai, for which, P.W.1 has to spend an amount of Rs.70,000/-. Accordingly, on 30.06.2003, the petitioner and P.W.3 left Bangalore informing P.W.1 that he is taking P.W.3 to Bangalore, instead that he took P.W.3 to Tirupati and kept him in a room, which is situated opposite to APSRTC Bus Stand and both of them stayed at that night in that room. At that time, the petitioner obtained a letter from P.W.3 addressing to his mother saying that he is safe and is going to Dubai for job. Later, on 01.07.2003 the petitioner took a room from P.W.2 for rent at Tirupati and kept P.W.3 in the said room. At about 2.00 pm., while P.W.3 was sleeping, the petitioner picked up a hard stone and beat P.W.3 on his head and mouth, resulting P.W.3 received bleeding injuries and lost his consciousness. Thinking that P.W.3 died, the petitioner went away by taking cash of Rs.1,100/- and 2 small pocket diary. On the same day, at about 4.30 pm., P.W.3 regained consciousness and opened the back door of the said room through P.W.2, who sent the injured to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for treatment.,
(ii) Later, on 02.07.2003, according to his plan, the petitioner went to the house of P.W.1 and gave a letter written by her son and made her believe that her son is going to Dubai. On 03.07.2003 petitioner telephoned to P.W.1 in the voice of P.W.3 and asked her to pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- and as P.W.1 identified the voice of the petitioner, and questioned him, the petitioner disconnected the phone call. On 04.07.2003 P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.3. Immediately, she went to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and came to know about the incident. On that, she presented a report to police, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.61 of 2003 of West Police Station and investigated. During the course of investigation, police seized hard stone and blood stained mat, arrested the accused on 06.07.2003 and seized two small pocket diaries from the possession of the accused under the cover of mahazarnama. P.W.8-Medical Officer examined P.W.3 and issued Ex.P7 wound certificate. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.60 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirupati and the same was committed to Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Session Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 3. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating 3 material. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defence.
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 and 419 r/w 511 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-under each count in default, to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under each count. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Tirupati. After considering the material on record, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide Judgment dated 06.07.2007 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed the present revision case.
6. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that though the incident took place on 01.07.2003, neither P.W.3 nor P.W.2 gave a report to police and it is only on 05.07.2003, P.W.1 gave a report to police as such, there is 4 days delay in lodging a report. In view of the said delay, he pleaded that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. He further contended that P.W.8-Medical Officer, who treated the injured did not send any intimation to the concerned police, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. He further argued that there are 4 lot of discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the trial Court without considering the same, convicted the petitioner and finally, he requested this Court to take a lenient view with regard to the sentence of imprisonment alone as the incident took place in the year 2003.
8. This Court perused the entire material on record. As seen from the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that on 30.06.2003 the petitioner left Bangalore along with P.W.3 informing P.W.1 that he is going to join P.W.3 in job. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner obtained a letter from P.W.3 and addressed the same to P.W.1 stating that he is safe and he is going to Dubai for securing a job. As such, P.W.1 did not get any suspicion on the petitioner and after coming to know about the incident through P.W.3, she gave Ex.P1 report on 05.07.2003. Therefore, the reason explained for delay in lodging the report by P.W.1 is cogent and convincing. Hence, the contention with regard to delay is hereby brushed aside. Further, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out, as P.W.2, who is the owner of the room has not reported the matter to police.
9. So far as the evidence of P.W.8 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he did not give any intimation to the concerned police about the receipt of injuries by P.W.3. Merely because P.W.8 has not sent intimation to police, the petitioner is not entitled for acquittal. Admittedly, P.W.3 was treated by P.W.8 and issued Ex.P7-Wound Certificate, which reveals that P.W.3 received as many as 7 injuries. Out of which, injury No.4 is grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that P.W.3 was addicted to drinking and on the fateful day, he took liquor and fell down and received injuries. Taking advantage of the said fall, P.Ws.1 & 3 foisted a false case against the 5 accused. As seen from the evidence of P.W.8-doctor, there was no suggestion put to him stating that the injuries received by P.W.3 are possible by a fall. As such, the said contention also is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration all these aspects, convicted the petitioner. Considering the nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction passed by both the Courts below. However, taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to the sentence of imprisonment alone.
10. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below. However, the sentence of imprisonment alone is reduced from three (03) years to period already undergone. Fine amount imposed by both the Courts below is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/- under each count. Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid to P.W.3.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 20th day of April,2022.
RPD.
6
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2007 Dated : 20-04-2022 RPD