THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 956 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment, dated 28.11.2005 passed in Crl.A.No.93 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C.No.602 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, and thereby acquitted the accused, who is the 1st respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.
2. The facts, in issue, are as under:
The defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim is the Secretary cum Correspondent of Noble High School, Nizamabad. The incident was occurred on 04.06.2001 at 6.25 p.m. near Rotary School Quilla Road, Nizamabad. On the date of occurrence, the defacto- complainant Md.Ibrahim was proceeding on a scooter from Bodhan 2 JS, J Crlrc_956_2007 bus stand to Quilla road and when he reached the Rotary School, Nizamabad, the accused came across the scooter along with four persons and stopped the vehicle. The accused fisted on the face of defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim with considerable force. The said Ibrahim sustained bleeding injury on his mouth and lost his teeth. The accused assaulted the defacto-complainant and caused injury on account of pre-enmity. The defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim gave a written report to the police regarding the incident. PW2 Md.Rafeq, PW3 Muntaz Khan and one Sarvar witnessed the incident. Police sent the injured Ibrahim to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. The S.I. of Police, II Town Nizamabad registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.34 of 2001 for the offence under Section 325 IPC and investigated into. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also inspected the scene. The Medical Officer, who treated the injured Ibrahim issued wound certificate stating that he sustained grievous injury. The accused was surrendered before the Court on 06.06.2001 and he was released on bail. The S.I. of Police, II Town, Nizamabad filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 325 IPC.
3. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, found guilty of 3 JS, J Crlrc_956_2007 the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. On appeal filed by the 1st respondent, the appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, allowed the appeal and accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner.
5. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on 07.04.2022, 22.04.2022 and 24.06.2022. On 08.07.2022 also, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for dismissal". On 28.07.2022 also, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of petitioner. Even on 29.08.2022 though the matter listed under the caption "for dismissal", there is no representation for the petitioner. Perused the record. 4
JS, J Crlrc_956_2007
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the 1st Respondent by disbelieving the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and also by finding that the medical evidence does not fit into prosecution case, either with regard to the injuries caused nor the time of examination.
7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further would submit that as per Ex.P1 the incident was occurred at about 6.25 p.m., PW1 lodged first report at 7.00 p.m. and PW6 Sub Inspector of Police referred him to Government Hospital but according to PW4 Civil Assistant Surgeon and Ex.P2 issued by her, it shows that PW1 was examined at 6.00 p.m. which indicates that PW.1 was injured much prior to the time of incident mentioned in the first report and by which only inference that can be drawn is that taking advantage of the injuries caused to him in some other transaction, a false case has been foisted against the accused.
8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further contended that apart from Ex.P2, Ex.P3 medical certificate issued by PW.5 also falsifies the prosecution case. According to PW.5 he examined PW1 at 6.45 p.m. and he opined that there was a fracture of left maxilla and zygomate bones on left side. But he did not mention 5 JS, J Crlrc_956_2007 at about any loss of tooth, thus the evidence of PW.1 that he lost his tooth is not substantiated by any material evidence nor in Ex.P2 and P3 it is mentioned about the same. Further it is the case of the 1st respondent that there is also abnormal delay in report reaching the Magistrate. FIR was registered on 04.06.2001 at 7 p.m. and the report reached to Magistrate with a delay of two days i.e. on 06.06.2001 at 10.30 a.m. There is non-explanation of injuries on accused. In fact, PW6 Investigation Officer admits that the accused also received injuries and lodged report against PW.1 and he referred the accused to Government Hospital also. In-spite of that there is no explanation as to why crime was not registered basing on the report lodged by accused against PW.1 and ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision case filed by the petitioner against the judgment of acquittal of the 1st respondent in Crl.A.No.93 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), at Nizamabad.
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the appellate Court had extensively dealt with the evidence adduced before the trial Court. The findings of the appellate Court in paragraph No.31 of the impugned judgment are necessary to be reproduced herein for better appreciation of the matter. 6
JS, J Crlrc_956_2007 "In this case prosecution has not proved the motive for the offence in contra the accused in the cross examination of PW.1 elicited that the wife of the accused is having dispute with the P.W.1 which shows that the every possibility of falsification of the case against the accused by PW.1, it is already held that the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of PWs.4 and 5. The ocular evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence and it is also held that the time of incident is not proved there is every suspicion over the time of incident as alleged by the PW.1. In view of the above discussions that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the time of incident and also sending the FIR to the Court in delay of 2 days and also failed to prove the motive for the offence in contra as per the admission of PW.1 and the PW6 Investigating Officer. There is every suspicion over the case of the prosecution. Therefore the benefit of doubt over the suspicion of the prosecution case shall be given to the accused. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case against the accused for the charge under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt."
10. Thus, while recording the order of acquittal, the learned appellate Court gave cogent reasons, based on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record by both the parties. Absolutely, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned appellate 7 JS, J Crlrc_956_2007 Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 11th November, 2022 Ksk