THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2262 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dt.31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, wherein and whereunder, the judgment dt.12.11.2014 passed in C.C. No.257 of 2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthi, in convicting the revision petitioner/accused No.2 for the offence under section 452 and 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, and also to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and Appellate Court confirmed the same.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 23.09.2006, when the de facto complainant was at his residence, accused Nos.1 to 6 were alleged to have trespassed into his house and allegedly attacked him with an Axe and 2 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 sticks due to political enmity. Accused No.2/revision petitioner hacked him with an axe on his left wrist and left thigh and further beat him with a stick indiscriminately. During the course of the said incident, his grandson/PW.9 sustained Axe injuries on his head. Based on a complaint given by PW.6, the Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No. 79 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 r/w 149 IPC and filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7.
3. To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 11 were examined and got marked exhibits P1 to P10. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.
4. Considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced by both the sides, the Trial Court, while acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 326 r/w 149 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge vide Crl. Appeal No.9 of 2015 and the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal vide judgment dt.31.08.2016 by acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3, however, convicting the accused No.2/revision petitioner as stated supra. Therefore, the 3 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 revision petitioner/accused No.2 is challenging the said judgments before this Court.
5. Heard Sri K. Sreenivas, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/Complainant. Perused the material available on record.
6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.2 that the judgments of both the courts below suffer infirmity and they are liable to be set aside as both the courts below failed to see that the evidence of PW.6/complainant is contrary to his own complaint/Ex.P2. He further contended that PW.10, who is the independent witness and the alleged eyewitness, did not support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the case of accused Nos.1 and 3 before the Appellate Court had a similar standing to that of the revision petitioner/accused No.2. As such, the Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner as well. He also contended that the testimonies of PW.1, PW.6 and PW.9 are contradictory to each other. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision petition.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State had contended that the 4 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 judgments of both the Courts below are very well reasoned, having carefully scrutinised the evidence placed before it. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition by confirming the judgments of both the Courts below.
8. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that the invoking of Section 452 of IPC requires that the accused committed the house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment or the offence of theft. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that the unlawful entry made into the property of the complainant, was done so with the intent of committing an offence. Further, it is also proven that the accused No.2/revision petitioner caused hurt voluntarily by dangerous weapons. The Appellate Court accordingly, on the basis of evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 9, which was duly corroborated with the medical evidence Ex.P4 and P5 given by PW.8/Doctor, held that it is a fit case to invoke Sections 452 and 324 IPC against the accused No.2/revision petitioner and accordingly convicted him, while acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3 for lack of evidence.
9. PW.1, who is the wife of PW.6/complainant, is an eyewitness to the incident. She deposed that when PW.6 was present at their house, all the accused trespassed into their 5 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 house and beat PWs 6 and 9 with sticks and Axe, as a result of which, both PW.6 and PW.9 received grievous injuries.
10. PWs-2 and 3, who are the panch witnesses, were examined by the prosecution. PW.2 did not support the version of the prosecution, while PW.3 concurred with the prosecution case and stated that the police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and, accordingly, obtained his signature.
11. PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch for confession and recovery, also deviated from the version of the prosecution and stated that the police did not conduct any confession and recovery panchanama.
12. PW-7, who is the son of the complainant/PW.6, was cited as another eyewitness. He deposed that while he was at Guntur, he came to know that his father/PW.6 and sister's son PW.9 sustained injuries in an attack. He denied having witnessed the incident and stated that he did not know who attacked PWs 6 and 9. As such, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.
13. PW-8/Dr. D. Swarnalatha, Medical Officer who treated PWs 6 and 9, deposed that she found simple injuries on PW.9 and grievous injuries on PW.6. She further deposed that as per 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 Ex.P4/wound certificate, PW.9 received laceration injury which might have been caused by a blunt object. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.P2/complaint, the accused along with others came to the house of PW.6 with axes and sticks. It is also noted that PW.6 deposed that his grandson sustained injuries when accused No.2/revision petitioner beat him with an Axe. Therefore, it is observed that the injury sustained by PW.9 is duly corroborated with the medical evidence on record. The statement given by PW.6 to the police during the investigation also concurs with the above facts.
14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.2 has contended that the case was foisted against the revision petitioner/accused No.2 owing to previous enmity and political differences. He further contended that PW.6 is involved in various cases and that he is a life convict. He submitted that PW.6 has the habit of exaggerating things to extract revenge against his opponents. The present case is a consequence of the political differences that the revision petitioner/accused No.2 had with PW.6. He submitted that the instant case is the result of the accused No.2/revision petitioner suspecting that the complainant/PW.6 for having pelted stones at his house a few hours prior to the alleged incident.
7 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016
15. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the testimonies of PWs.1, 6 and 8 are incriminating and in consonance with each other. This Court does not find the discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are panch witnesses, to be fatal to the prosecution case. Further, a perusal of Ex.P4 and P5/Medical certificates which have been corroborated by the evidence of PW.8, shows that the injuries have not been concocted and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.8. The mere absence of X-Ray reports, as rightly observed by the trial Court, is not a ground to disregard the fact that the aforementioned injuries have been caused by a violent attack.
16. This Court is also of the view that the Appellate Court was justified in disregarding the aspect of prior political enmity and deciding the matter on merits and the facts available on record. It is not contested by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 that he was not present at the premises of PW.6 at the time of the occurrence of the incident. Further, this Court finds no reason to believe that PW.6 would lodge a false complaint against the revision petitioner/accused No.2, only on account of prior enmity. Keeping in view the corroborative evidences as discussed above, the manner of the incident and the 8 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016 involvement of the revision petitioner/accused No.2 in causing the injuries to PWs 6 and 9, as held by both the Courts below, is justified.
17. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and the revision case is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed, confirming the judgment dt.31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge- cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2006 and nearly 17 years have elapsed, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is modified from (03) years to that of the sentence he had already undergone. The sentence of the fine amounts are not interfered with.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 02.11.2023 BDR