THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
\\
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner - appellant - complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri confirming the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.C.No.180 of 2012 on the file of the Special Magistrate Court - II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the SI of Police, Malkajgiri on 04.08.2012 at 02:00 PM stating that the accused persons belonged to upper caste and they belonged to ST caste and keeping it in their mind, the accused were harassing his family members. On 09.07.2012 at about 09:00 AM while the de-facto complainant was constructing the house and the mason and contract labourers came to his house to take up the construction work in the ground floor, on seeing them A1 and A2 who were brothers and his neighbours residing in the neighbouring house used harsh language demanding to remove the small cement particles that fell in their house or otherwise they would break the heads of the labourers. The de-facto complainant and his wife asked the labourers to remove the 2 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016 cement particles that fell in the house of the accused, but the accused A1 abused the wife of the de-facto complainant in filthy language. When the second son of the de-facto complainant was dropping his elder son at the bus-stand, meanwhile, the accused persons picked up a quarrel and A2 holding a cricket bat in his hands, threatened them. In the meanwhile, the neighbours interfered and sent them into their house. The accused were picking up quarrel with them using abusive language and threatening. The complainant's second son was working in Hitec City. The accused persons with the assistance of one Manmohan Thakur, the associate of his second son working in the same company were threatening him. When the daughter of the complainant was putting rangoli in front of the house, the accused No.1 poured water on it. The accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the complainant and cut the guava tree branches.
3. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.350 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 509 and 506 of IPC. They recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the witnesses and drafted rough sketch of the scene, apprehended A1 and A2 on 31.08.2012 and filed charge-sheet against them.
3
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016
4. The case was taken cognizance by the Special Magistrate - II, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and conducted trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10.
6. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found A1 and A2 'not guilty' for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 509, 506 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted them.
8. Aggrieved by such acquittal, the de-facto complainant preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District vide Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2013 dated 14.08.2015. The learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge on re-appraisal of the evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the Special Magistrate -II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri in acquitting the accused.
9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his appeal, the complainant preferred this revision contending that the lower appellate court confirming the acquittal of the accused was based on conjectures and surmises. The courts below went 4 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016 wrong in not believing the statement of the complainant's witnesses on the ground that PW.2 was an interested person being the wife of the complainant and prayed to revise the judgment dated 14.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents - accused.
11. Revision is the process of changing or improving or making additions to the existing law or piece of writing. Revision is an art of revising or revisiting a work done with an intent to fix the thing for betterment. A revision sometimes opens the scope of visiting a work done which might or might not attract alteration. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as on facts but the power of revision is given to a superior court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Where there is no right to appeal, the legislature provided the concept of review procedure called revision to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The purpose of revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding before any inferior court to keep the lower courts within the bounds of their authority and make them work according to well-defined principles of law. 5
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016 Revisional Jurisdiction is analogous to power of supervision and superintendence.
12. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, the trial court observed that PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is his wife and PW.3 and 4 are the neighbours of PWs.1 and 2 and PWs.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and rough sketch and PW.7 is the investigating officer. Except PWs.1, 2 and 7, no other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.3 to 6 turned hostile. Even with regard to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the trial court observed that there was a delay of 26 days in lodging the report, ExP.1 in the Police Station, Malkajgiri. The incident took place on 09.07.2012, but the police report was given on 04.08.2012. There was an abnormal delay which was not explained by PW.1 either in his complaint or in his statement. The non-explanation for the delay in lodging the Ex.P.1 in Police Station was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
13. The trial court also observed that while it was stated in Ex.P.1 that abusive words were uttered by the accused against the sons of the complainant while they were passing in front of the house of the accused, the sons of PWs.1 and 2 were neither cited nor examined by the prosecution. They were the best persons against whom the abusive words were uttered by the accused in filthy language and who had to speak about the incident. The trial court also observed 6 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016 that the alleged incident took place before the labourers and mason attending work in the house of PWs.1 and 2, but they were also neither cited nor examined by the prosecution.
14. The trial court on considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the husband and wife, observed it as interested and that their evidence could not be relied on, in the absence of independent corroboration.
15. The lower appellate court on re-appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses, observed that except the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2, there was no independent corroboration to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Due to the admitted ill-feelings between the family members of PW.1 and the accused 1 and 2, it was not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2 in the absence of independent corroboration. Both the neighbours were not in talking terms for the past ten years and several instances of quarrel took place between them as per their own evidence and on earlier occasions also, both the parties lodged complaints against each other before the Police. There was an un-explained delay in lodging the complaint before the Police. PWs.3 and 4, the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident not supported the prosecution case and denied their statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the said circumstances, it was not safe to place reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.
7
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016
16. The lower appellate court also observed that the ingredients of Section 448 of IPC were not attracted as PWs.1 and 2 had not stated in their evidence about the accused 1 and 2 committing house trespass. With regard to the offence under Section 427 of IPC, it was observed that there was no clear evidence, when the accused 1 and 2 committed mischief, causing damage to the property of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 was silent on the said aspect. There was no convincing evidence to convict the accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC.
17. The lower appellate court also observed that since there were ill-feelings between the family members of PW.1 and the accused, the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2 was not sufficient to fix the crime against the accused under Sections 504 and 509 of IPC and held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448, 427, 509, and 504 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
18. This Court does not find any illegality in the reasoning of the courts below in finding the accused persons not guilty for the offences for which they were charged and acquitting them. As such, it is considered fit, to dismiss the revision confirming the judgments of the courts below as there is no need for any improvement or to set aside the same.
8
Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016
19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri confirming the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.C.No.180 of 2012 passed by the Special Magistrate Court - II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J 9th March, 2023 nsk.