1 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.639 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl. Appeal No.1135 of 2014 dt.16.04.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code imposed against the revision petitioner/accused No.2 by the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.568 of 2012 dt.25.10.2014.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.06.2012 at about 2130 hours when the complainant G. Krishna (PW-2) and Mahesh (PW-3) went to Gopi Hotel for having dinner. Accused No.1 to 3 went there and called PW.3 to come out from the Hotel and when PW-3 came out from the Hotel, the accused beat him with his hands and after coming to know the same, Vidyavan (PW-1) came to Gopi Hotel and took his brother (PW-2) Krishna to his house and proceeded to the police station 2 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015 and complained orally about the incident, for which, when PW-2 was alone in his house, the accused went to his house carrying iron rod and enquired about PW-3 and beat PW-2 with hands and an iron rod, due to which, PW-2 sustained bleeding injuries on his left leg and, thereby, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 34 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs 1 to 14 and got marked Ex.P1 to P9, and M.O.1. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Upon completion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. instead of Section 326 I.P.C., and found the revision petitioner/accused No.2 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner/accused No.2 preferred an appeal before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, vide Crl. Appeal No.1135 of 2014 and the Appellate Court vide its judgment dt.16.04.2015 confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present criminal revision is filed by the revision petitioner/accused No.2.
3 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision
petitioner/accused No.2 and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.2 had mainly contended that the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. are not made out by any reliable evidence and the witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 4 are all relatives, highly interested and discrepant in material particulars and there is no direct witness other than PW-9. He further contended that the medical records issued by PWs 10 and 11 do not disclose the names of the accused and M.O.1 (iron rod) was not recovered from the possession of revision petitioner/accused No.2. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the Appellate Court by taking into consideration the material available on record, rightly rendered its judgment by confirming the judgment of the trial Court, and no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision.
4 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015
7. A perusal of the record goes to show that PW2 is the victim and complainant and stated that he and PW-3 went to Gopi Hotel and were having meals. Accused No.1 called PW-3 from outside the Gopi Hotel and PW-3 went outside, then accused Nos.1 to 3 beat him indiscriminately, for which, PW-2 went outside and tried to rescue PW-3, but accused Nos.1 to 3 beat PW.2 also. He further stated that while he was alone present in his house at about 10.00 p.m. on the same day, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to his house and accused No.1 abused him in filthy language and accused No.2 armed with an iron rod, beat him on his left leg and went away.
PWs 1 and 3 who are circumstantial witnesses corroborated the version of PW.2 and stated that pursuant to the attack by the accused at Gopi Hotel, they dropped PW.2 at his house and went to the Police Station to report the said incident. While so, upon receiving a phone call from Hari that PW.2 was attacked by the accused and his left leg was broken, PWs 1 and 3 along with a police constable rushed to the house of PW.2 and shifted him to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 to discredit their evidence.
5 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015
8. The evidence of PW.4 is crucial as she is the eyewitness who has seen the attack by the accused, specifically accused No.2 beating PW.2 with an iron rod. She deposed that on 28.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. while she was standing in front of her house, she noticed accused No.2 beating PW.2 with an iron rod and accused Nos.1 and 3 joined accused No.2 and beat PW-2 with hands.
9. In this case, PW.2 is the victim and complainant. He stated that himself and PW.3 went to Gopi Hotel and were having meals. Accused No.1 called PW.3 from the outside the Gopi Hotel and when PW-3 went out from the Hotel, accused Nos.1 to 3 beat him indiscriminately, for which, he came out from the Hotel and try to rescue PW-3, accused Nos.1 to 3 also beat him. PW-3 is the witness who was present along with PW-2 deposed that by the time of the incident, himself and PW-2 were in Gopi Hotel to have meals, then accused No.2 came there and asked him to come out from the Hotel, for which, he came out from the Hotel. A perusal of the evidence of both witnesses shows PW-2 stated that accused No.1 called PW-3, whereas PW-3 stated that accused No.2 called him. So, there is inconsistency in the evidence of both witnesses with regard to that calling of a person.
6 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015
Likewise, coming to the evidence of PW-2, he stated that while he was alone present in his house at about 10.00 p.m. on the same day, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to his house and accused No.1 abused him in filthy language, accused No.2 armed with an iron rod beat him on his left leg and accused Nos.1 and 3 beat him with hands indiscriminately and went away. Coming to the evidence of PW.4, who is stated to be an eyewitness, deposed that on 28.05.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. while she was standing in front of her house, she noticed accused No.2 beating PW-2 with an iron rod, the accused No.2 and 3 joined accused No.1 and beat PW.2 with hands. Then the police came to the spot and stopped the accused and shifted PW.2 to the Hospital.
There is a discrepancy between the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4 with regard to the time of the attack on PW-2. PW-2 stated that the incident took place at about 10.00 p.m., whereas PW-4 stated that it was about 11.00 p.m. The further inconsistency in the testimonies is that PW.2 stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 beat him indiscriminately and went away, whereas PW-4 stated that the police came to the spot and stopped the accused and shifted PW.2 to the Hospital. Moreover, the Appellate Court, despite acknowledging that the only direct witness to the altercation at 7 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015 Gopi Hotel, i.e PW-9, did not support the case of the prosecution, raises a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the said offence. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court took note of the fact that PWs 1, 3 and 4 admitted in their cross examination that they are relatives of PW-2 but merely being relatives would not affect the prosecution's case when their evidence is consistent. However, as discussed above, there is serious inconsistency in the version of the witnesses.
10. The Court is obliged to assess the evidence on the test of probability. Though wide discretion is given to the Court to consider the matters before it, such an evidence has to be sifted carefully before recording satisfaction. It is not the quantum, but what matters is the quality. The Courts below found the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 acceptable. When the offence is heinous, the Court is required to put the material evidence under a higher scrutiny. On a careful consideration of the reasoning given by the Courts below, this Court finds that sufficient care has not been taken in the assessment of the statements made by PWs 1 to 4. Both the Courts below convicted the revision petitioner without looking into the inconsistent testimony of the crucial witnesses. The benefit of doubt would, therefore, have to be 8 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015 extended to the revision petitioner as the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the revision petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the conviction and sentence rendered by the Courts below cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl. Appeal No.1135 of 2014 dt.16.04.2015, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code imposed against the revision petitioner/accused No.2 by the learned XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.568 of 2012 dt.25.10.2014, is set aside. The revision petitioner/accused No.2 is acquitted of the charged offence. Since the revision petitioner/accused no.2 is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled. The fine amount paid by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 , if any, shall be returned to 9 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.639 of 2015 him. M.O.1 i.e. iron rod, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J 8th day of February, 2023 BDR