HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.1379 OF 2008
ORDER:-
Questioning the judgment passed by the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, dated 09-09-2008 in
Crl.A.No.42 of 2008, the petitioner/accused has filed the present
Criminal Revision Case.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) The petitioner/accused and defacto complainant are
cousins and there are boundary disputes between them. The
defacto complainant was examined as Pw.1. The father of Pw.1,
who was examined as Pw.5, has filed a suit in O.S.No.994 of
2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru
against the petitioner for recovery of possession. While so, on
31-07-2004
at about 6.00 P.M Pw.1 went to the house of the accused and informed him that the elders have agreed to measure the disputed site and asked him to be ready for the measurements. On that, accused picked up a quarrel with Pw.1 and brought a cricket bat and beat on his head. Thereafter, Pw.1 was taken to the hospital. Pw.9-Doctor examined him and gave treatment to Pw.1.
(ii) Having received the intimation from the hospital, Pw.8 went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-1 statement from Pw.1. On the basis of Ex.P-1, Pw.7 registered a case in Cr.No.101 of 2004 on the file of Pedapadu Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet. The case was numbered as 2 SC No.165 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru.
3. In support of the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 9 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 apart from Mos.1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was denied by him.
4. During the course of trial, Pws.2 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution. As such, sofar as attack on Pw.1 is concerned, the only witness available is Pw.1 who is an injured person.
5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial judge while acquitting accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC convicted him for a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
6. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The appellate court after an elaborate discussion dismissed the Appeal by the impugned judgment.
7. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
3
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly there are civil disputes between the petitioner and Pw.1 and a civil dispute is also pending between them. As such, Pw.1 is highly interested witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no corroboration for the evidence of PW.1 from any independent witnesses. Pws.2 and 3 who were examined as eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the Revision Case by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
9. Per contra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same contending inter alia that the evidence of Pw.1 alone is sufficient to convict the petitioner. The version of Pw.1 was clearly corroborated by the medical evidence.
10. This court perused the entire evidence on record. Though the independent witnesses did not support the version of the prosecution, the evidence of Pw.1 inspires confidence of this court. Pw.1 is none other than the injured witness. His ocular version has been corroborated by the medical evidence i.e., Pw.9 coupled with wound certificate-Ex.P-9. In such circumstances, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.1, merely because, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and Pw.1. As already stated above, Pw.1 is none other than injured witness.
4
11. As seen from the facts and the way in which the incident took place, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in awarding the sentence of imprisonment, particularly as the offence took place in the year 2004 and that too the injuries received by Pw.1 are simple in nature. As the incident took place in the year 2004, this court is not inclined to send the petitioner/accused to jail after lapse of 18 years.
12. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the appellate court. However, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of two(2) years is reduced to period already undergone by the petitioner/accused. Further, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused, an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is directed to be paid to Pw.1 towards compensation.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 15-02-2022.
TSNR