K.C.Venkatesu vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1885 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2007

ORDER:

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Principal Assistant Session Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, in

S.C.No.12 of 2004, dated 20.10.2004, which was confirmed by the

learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Tirupati, in

Crl.Appeal No.10 of 2005, dated 06.07.2007, the revision petitioner/sole

accused filed the present criminal revision case.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :

The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law of younger brother of

P.W.1/defacto-complainant. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.1, who is injured,

aged about 19 years. The petitioner induced P.Ws.1 & 3 stating that he

will provide job to P.W.3 at Dubai, for which, P.W.1 has to spend an

amount of Rs.70,000/-. Accordingly, on 30.06.2003, the petitioner and

P.W.3 left Bangalore informing P.W.1 that he is taking P.W.3 to

Bangalore, instead that he took P.W.3 to Tirupati and kept him in a

room, which is situated opposite to APSRTC Bus Stand and both of them

stayed at that night in that room. At that time, the petitioner obtained a

letter from P.W.3 addressing to his mother saying that he is safe and is

going to Dubai for job. Later, on 01.07.2003 the petitioner took a room

from P.W.2 for rent at Tirupati and kept P.W.3 in the said room. At

about 2.00 pm., while P.W.3 was sleeping, the petitioner picked up a

hard stone and beat P.W.3 on his head and mouth, resulting P.W.3

received bleeding injuries and lost his consciousness. Thinking that

P.W.3 died, the petitioner went away by taking cash of Rs.1,100/- and

small pocket diary. On the same day, at about 4.30 pm., P.W.3 regained

consciousness and opened the back door of the said room through

P.W.2, who sent the injured to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for treatment.,

(ii) Later, on 02.07.2003, according to his plan, the petitioner

went to the house of P.W.1 and gave a letter written by her son and made

her believe that her son is going to Dubai. On 03.07.2003 petitioner

telephoned to P.W.1 in the voice of P.W.3 and asked her to pay an

amount of Rs.70,000/- and as P.W.1 identified the voice of the petitioner,

and questioned him, the petitioner disconnected the phone call. On

04.07.2003 P.W.1 received a phone call from P.W.3. Immediately, she

went to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and came to know about the

incident. On that, she presented a report to police, who registered the

same as a case in Cr.No.61 of 2003 of West Police Station and

investigated. During the course of investigation, police seized hard

stone and blood stained mat, arrested the accused on 06.07.2003 and

seized two small pocket diaries from the possession of the accused under

the cover of mahazarnama. P.W.8-Medical Officer examined P.W.3 and

issued Ex.P7 wound certificate. After completion of investigation, police

filed charge sheet. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.60 of 2003 on

the file of III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tirupati and the

same was committed to Sessions Court and numbered as S.C.No.12 of

2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Session Judge,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.

3. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and

marked Exs.P1 to P7 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 3. The accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating

material. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the

defence.

4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under

Section 307 and 419 r/w 511 IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three (03) years under each count and also

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-under each count in default, to suffer Simple

imprisonment for a period of three (03) months under each count. Both

the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2005 on the file of

the Court of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Tirupati.

After considering the material on record, the appellate Court dismissed

the appeal, vide Judgment dated 06.07.2007 confirming the conviction

and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the

revision petitioner filed the present revision case.

6. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that though

the incident took place on 01.07.2003, neither P.W.3 nor P.W.2 gave a

report to police and it is only on 05.07.2003, P.W.1 gave a report to

police as such, there is 4 days delay in lodging a report. In view of the

said delay, he pleaded that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3. He further contended that P.W.8-Medical Officer, who

treated the injured did not send any intimation to the concerned police,

which is fatal to the case of prosecution. He further argued that there are

lot of discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the trial

Court without considering the same, convicted the petitioner and finally,

he requested this Court to take a lenient view with regard to the sentence

of imprisonment alone as the incident took place in the year 2003.

8. This Court perused the entire material on record. As seen from the

evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution that on 30.06.2003 the

petitioner left Bangalore along with P.W.3 informing P.W.1 that he is

going to join P.W.3 in job. It is the further case of the prosecution that

the petitioner obtained a letter from P.W.3 and addressed the same to

P.W.1 stating that he is safe and he is going to Dubai for securing a job.

As such, P.W.1 did not get any suspicion on the petitioner and after

coming to know about the incident through P.W.3, she gave Ex.P1 report

on 05.07.2003. Therefore, the reason explained for delay in lodging the

report by P.W.1 is cogent and convincing. Hence, the contention with

regard to delay is hereby brushed aside. Further, the entire case of the

prosecution cannot be thrown out, as P.W.2, who is the owner of the

room has not reported the matter to police.

9. So far as the evidence of P.W.8 is concerned, learned counsel for

the petitioner states that he did not give any intimation to the concerned

police about the receipt of injuries by P.W.3. Merely because P.W.8 has

not sent intimation to police, the petitioner is not entitled for acquittal.

Admittedly, P.W.3 was treated by P.W.8 and issued Ex.P7-Wound

Certificate, which reveals that P.W.3 received as many as 7 injuries. Out

of which, injury No.4 is grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that P.W.3 was addicted to drinking and on the

fateful day, he took liquor and fell down and received injuries. Taking

advantage of the said fall, P.Ws.1 & 3 foisted a false case against the

accused. As seen from the evidence of P.W.8-doctor, there was no

suggestion put to him stating that the injuries received by P.W.3 are

possible by a fall. As such, the said contention also is liable to be

rejected. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge after taking into

consideration all these aspects, convicted the petitioner. Considering the

nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

conviction passed by both the Courts below. However, taking into

consideration the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this

court is inclined to take a lenient view with regard to the sentence of

imprisonment alone.

10. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below.

However, the sentence of imprisonment alone is reduced from three (03)

years to period already undergone. Fine amount imposed by both the

Courts below is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/- under

each count. Out of the said fine amount, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is

ordered to be paid to P.W.3.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J 20th day of April,2022.

RPD.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1048 of 2007

Dated : 20-04-2022

RPD