Telangana High Court
E.Prabhakar vs The State Of A.P., on 4 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.417 OF2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 21.01.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2013 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated 13.11.2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 03.04.2024. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter on 04.04.2024 under the caption, "for dismissal". Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner inspite of listing the matter under the caption, "for dismissal". Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani 2 Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.2010, PW1/complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 04.01.2010 at 11:30 P.M., while he was working as Head Constable in Langer House Police Station as incharge at reception counter, he received a message from the control room in VHF set stating that there was a galata at Bapu Nagar. Then he sent two home guards viz., LWs.2 and 3 to the said place. When PW1 and his staff visited Bapu Nagar to apprehend the accused, the accused abused them in filthy language, beat them and ran away, due to which, PW1 sustained injury on the jaws. Basing on the same, the present crime is registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C.
5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2010, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 332 of I.P.C. But instead of convicting him, the trial Court, released the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond for 1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 3 Rs.2,000/- with one third party surety and directed him to maintain peace, good behaviour and conduct under the supervision of District Probation Officer as per Section 4(1)(3) of Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
7. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner contended that both the Courts without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective passed their respective judgments. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence, 4 none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court observed that the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is not trustworthy as they turned hostile. As per the evidence of PW1, the trial Court found that there was no previous enmity between PW1 and the accused. PW1 is not an ordinary person and he is a Police Constable in APSP battalion. At the time of the incident he was attached to CBCID and without the fault of accused, there is no chance to implicate him in a false case. Therefore, the trial Court observed that the accused caused hurt to PW1 who is a public servant while he was discharging his duties and rendered the judgment dated 13.11.2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2010.
10. The appellate Court observed that the evidence of PW1 corroborated with the version of PW6 doctor. PW6 stated that he found injuries in the form of contusions over left cheek and right cheek of PW1 which shows that the accused beat him while he was discharging his official duties. Therefore, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
11. In the case on hand, the trial Court as well as appellate Court concurrently held that the accused was found guilty for the 5 offence under Section 332 of IPC, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 04.04.2024 ESP