THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1617 of 2006
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, challenging the judgment, dated 08.09.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the lower appellate Court, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the A.1 and A.2 of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the record.
3. The trial Court on analysis of both oral and documentary evidence and the submissions put-forth before it, vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003, held that the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of 2 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the A.1 and A.2 as stated supra.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the trial Court, A.1 and A.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 before the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentenced recorded by the trial Court against A.1 and A.2. Hence this Criminal Revision Case by A.1 and A.2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would contend that both the Courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the A.1 and A.2 of the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. The Courts below ought not have placed reliance over the testimony of PW.1, who is highly interested witness. In view of the disputes between A.1, A.2 and PW.1, the A.1 and A.2 were falsely implicated by PW.1 in this case. In fact, PW.1 is a womanizer and having illegal contacts and he received injuries in the galata with a lady. DW.1-wife of PW.1, specifically stated that immediately after the occurrence of the offence, PW.1 informed her that his friends caused injuries in a galata, in connection with affair with a lady. The Courts below failed to consider that PW.2 and PW.3, who are crucial witnesses to the prosecution case, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the Courts below erred in coming to conclusion that since DW.1 is a sister of A.1 and A.2, she did not support the prosecution case. There are several omissions, contradictions and 3 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006 improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Courts below ought to have considered that since PW.1 being their brother-in-law, there was no necessity for A.1 and A.2 to cause such injuries to him. Learned counsel vehemently contended that there was no intention on the part of A.1 and A.2 to cause injuries and death of PW.1. At the most, the A.1 and A.2 can be convicted for causing grievous hurt and there are no ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 307 IPC. Further, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused basing on the sole and highly interested evidence of PW.1, which is erroneous and perverse. The lower appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the entire evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has supported the prosecution case and contended that there was intention on the part of A.1 and A.2 to do away with the life of PW.1, causing severe injuries i.e, removal of penis and both testicles. Both the Courts below have rightly analyzed the entire evidence on record and justified in passing the impugned judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below are neither perverse nor illegal and no interference is warranted and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
4 Dr.SA, J
Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006
7. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the points that arise for determination in this Criminal Revision Case are:
1. Whether the impugned judgment, dated 08.09.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1 and A.2 of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is liable to be set aside?
2. If so, whether A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal?
8. POINTS: As seen from the material placed on record, PW.1 is injured victim. He is the husband of DW.1 and brother-in-law of A.1 and A.2. There is evidence to establish that there was strained relationship in between the PW.1 and DW.1. The evidence of DW.1 was pressed into service to demonstrate that PW.1 is a womanizer and some of his friends had committed the offence. In the evidence of DW.1, there are no details with regard to the persons, who caused the grievous injuries to PW.1. Both the Courts below have elaborately dealt with the evidence of DW.1 and concluded that as there was strained relationship in between the PW.1 & DW.1 and that DW.1, being sister of A.1 and A.2, was pressed into service to support her brothers. Both the Courts below are justified in discarding the testimony of DW.1 by giving cogent reasons.
9. There is specific evidence of PW.1 with regard to the commission of the offence i.e, on 17.03.2003 at about 10:00 PM, A.1 and A.2 took PW.1 near Sai Baba Temple, Shadnagar, on 5 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006 Jadcherla road, and when PW.1 questioned the A.1 and A.2 as to why they brought him to that place, A.1 and A.2 caught hold his legs and pulled him down. A.2 removed the shirt of PW.1 and tied his hands with the shirt and fisted on his face and thereafter, removed his pant. Then A.1 took out a small knife (M.O.1) and cut down both testicles and penis of PW.1. Immediately, PW.1 lost consciousness and at about 1:00 AM in the midnight, he regained consciousness and slowly went to Sai Baba Temple. As per PW.7- Investigating Officer, he went to scene of offence, examined PW.4 and secured the presence of PW.3 and LW.6-M. Venkat Reddy and found the cut private organs of the injured from the scene of offence, seized them and transmitted to hospital. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, PW.1 recovered M.O.1-knife, which was used in the commission of offence. Panch witnesses i.e, PW.2 and PW.3 did not support the prosecution case. PW.4- watchman of the temple, identified the scene of offence and also spoke about finding of cut organs at the scene of offence. He also observed blood marks at the scene of offence. The evidence of PW.4 corroborates the evidence of PW.1 and establishes the place of offence as mentioned in Ex.P.1-statement given by PW.1. Nothing is brought in the cross-examination of PW.1 to disbelieve that A.1 and A.2 did not cut off the penis and testicles of PW.1. There is evidence of PW.6-Doctor, corroborating the injuries sustained by PW.1. As per PW.5, he received requisition from police, Shadnagar to forward the private parts of the PW.1-injured for realignment. After discussion with Urologist at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, he opined that the removed organs cannot be 6 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006 realigned since more than 12 hours has elapsed by that time. So the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that A.1 and A.2 as deposed by PW.1 had cut off private organs of PW.1 as stated supra.
10. It is pertinent to state that in the cross-examination of PW.1, he denied the suggestion that A.1 and A.2 are not responsible for the injuries sustained by him and that they never tried to kill him or attempted to kill him. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court had analyzed the manner in which the offence was committed, the circumstances under which those injuries were caused and the intention for causing such injuries and concluded that those injuries were caused by A.1 and A.2 with an intention to do away with the life of PW.1. Fortunately, PW.1 gained some support of nearby people and survived. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below that A.1 and A.2 caused injuries to PW.1 with an intention to cause the death of PW.1, is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is apt to state that revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, and the findings recorded are based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In the instant case, as seen from the entire evidence on record, the conclusions reached by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court are neither perverse, irrational nor there is any patent illegality, to vary the impugned judgments delivered by the Courts below. All the 7 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006 contentions raised by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in this Criminal Revision Case, do not merit consideration. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. This Court was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 vide order dated 27.09.2006 passed in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2336 of 2006. In view of the dismissal of this Criminal Revision Case, the trial Court is directed to issue Non- Bailable Warrants to the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 to secure their presence, for serving the sentence of imprisonment, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 15th September, 2021 scs