THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008, passed by the learned IV-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.A.No.92 of 2008 confirming the Judgment and decree dated 02.08.2006, in C.C.No.39 of 2001 passed by the learned IV- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ibrahimpatnam.
2. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts, the petitioner/accused preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. He mainly contended that the Axe with handle with which caused injury over the body of the P.W.1 was not recovered as Material Object, but it was not considered by both the Courts. P.W.2 in his evidence admitted that previously accused initiated criminal proceedings against him and he was convicted by Criminal Court and paid fine amount, as such his wife P.W.1 filed false complaint against accused as a counter case, but it was not considered by both the Courts. The prosecution has not examined the Investigation Officer who was figured as L.W.5 in 2 the Charge Sheet and thus the Conviction and Sentence imposed by both the Courts is liable to be set aside.
3. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1 gave complaint against the petitioner/accused stating that on 04.01.2001 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner/accused grazing his sheeps in the field of P.W.1, when she questioned the same, accused beat her with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries to the P.W.1. Immediately, she went to her husband P.W.2 who was attending agricultural work at a distance of 2 kms and informed him about the incident. Both of them went to police station and gave complaint which is marked under Ex.P1. She was also referred to the medical examination. P.W.3 is the doctor who examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. The petitioner/accused was arrested and after completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed.
4. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and there is no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the petitioner/accused. Considering the entire evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of 3 Rs.2,000/- and in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.274 of 2009 and the appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. Both the Courts held that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W.3 that the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the injuries are simple and fresh i.e., within six hours from the time of examination and thus the age of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P2 is corroborated to the time of incident mentioned in the Ex.P1. It was suggested to P.W.3 that whether the said injuries are caused by falling from the heights and he deposed that the said injuries are possible in that circumstances.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused also argued that the non-seizure of stick is fatal to the case of the prosecution. They further contended that P.W.2 is not the eye-witness and P.W.4 who was shown as eye-witness turned hostile. Except the sole testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence on record. Prosecution failed to examine the constable who registered the FIR. Moreover, admittedly accused is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 i.e., elder brother P.W.2 and there was family disputes between both the parties regarding construction 4 of a compound wall about one year back. At that time, P.W.2 beat accused and accused gave complaint against P.W.2 and P.W.2 was convicted with a fine of 100/-, as such P.W.1 filed false complaint against petitioner/accused, but the motive for the offence is not considered by both the Courts.
6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the relationship between P.W.1 and the accused and also civil disputes between the parties, but the said incident of construction of a compound wall was much prior to the incident in this case. When P.W.1 questioned the accused that why he was allowing his sheep to graze in their field, he attacked her with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries as shown in Ex.P2 in detail. It cannot be said that he caused injuries in a sudden provocation or in a fit of anger. Admittedly, injuries were caused to P.W.1 by the accused. Immediately after the incident, she informed the same to her husband and both of them gave complaint on the same day. As the whereabouts of the constable who registered the FIR is not available it was vested with the Investigation Officer who conducted investigation and filed Charge Sheet. Both the Courts concurrently gave conviction for causing injuries voluntarily with a dangerous weapon under Section 324 of I.P.C. This Court 5 finds no reason to interfere with the conviction imposed by both the Courts. However, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by P.W.1, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to modify the sentence into Simple Imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to pay, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed modifying the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court into simple imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 03.03.2023 tri 6 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 274 of 2009 DATED: 03.03.2023 TRI