1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.260 OF 2006
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the
petitioners, who are the Accused Nos.1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13,
in Sessions Case No.10 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Markapur and who are the appellants in
Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004, before the learned II Additional
District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division,
challenging the judgment in the said Criminal Appeal, dated
08.02.2006
, whereunder the learned II Additional District &
Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole, allowed the appeal in part
exonerating the petitioners for the offence under Section 148 of
Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and confirmed the
sentence imposed against them by the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Markapur, dated 13.10.2004, as regards the punishment under
Section 324 of I.P.C.
2) The petitioners faced trial in S.C.No.10 of 2002
before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, on various
charges and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur,
found them guilty of the charges under Sections 148 and 324 of
I.P.C. and accordingly, after questioning them, convicted and 2
sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month each for the charge under
Section 148 of I.P.C. and further sentenced them to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of
Rs.200/- each, in default simple imprisonment for one month
each for the charge under Section 324 of I.P.C.
3) The parties to this Criminal Revision case will
hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for
the sake of convenience.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
State, represented by the Station House Officer, Pedda
Araveedu Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.23 of
2001 of Pedda Araveedu Police Station, under Sections 147,
148, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) r/w
149 of I.P.C., alleging that A.1 to A.13 and L.Ws.1 to 15 are
residents of Ramayapalem Village of Pedda Araveedu Mandal.
A.1 to A.13 belonged to Vaddera caste. The above prosecution
witnesses except L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Reddy caste.
L.Ws.7 and 12 belonged to Rajaka caste.
5) There are two rival groups in the village at
Ramayapalem. L.Ws.1 to 15 and some others belonged to other
group. There was a political rift in the village. Both the groups 3
belonged to two political parties i.e., Telugudesam Party and
Congress Party. There are strained feelings among the two
groups since 1995 due to Panchayat elections. Apart from this,
during September, 1995, the rival group belonging to accused
brutally killed the father of L.W.1. So, there are strained
feelings among the groups which reached climax. Both the
accused party and the defacto-complainant (L.W.1) party laid
their claim over Government banjar land in an extent of Ac.3-70
cents in Survey No.670, for which both the parties were not
granted with any pattas. Accused group are waiting an
opportunity to take revenge against the defacto-complainant.
They hatched a plan to do away L.W.1, if he raise any objection
over the occupation of the said land. Accused party collected
material with stones and constructed parapet wall with stones
encroaching the bore pump and public road and caused
obstruction to the public. L.W.1 on hearing the same, raised
objection.
6) While so, on 04.04.2001 at 5-00 P.M. L.Ws.2 to 5
went to bore to bring water and they found the encroachments.
Then, A.1 to A.13 formed themselves into unlawful assembly
armed with spears, sticks and stones and attacked them. A.1
pierced L.W.2 with a spear on his head and caused bleeding 4
injury. A.7 beat L.W.2 with stick on his left waist and caused
bleeding injury. A.1 beat L.W.4 with a stone below right eye
and caused bleeding injury. A.8 beat L.W.5 with a stone on the
back side of her head and caused bleeding injury. A.2 pierced
L.W.3 with a spear on his umbilical card and caused bleeding
injury. They also beat L.Ws.2 to 5 with legs and hands.
L.Ws.14 to 16 intervened and admonished accused. Then the
accused found that L.W.1-Botchu Veera Reddy was not among
L.Ws.2 to 5 and they learnt that he is proceeding to his land.
Then the accused left hurriedly to kill him. Then L.Ws.8 to 10,
who noticed the accused coming to kill L.W.1, gave signal to
L.W.1 intimating that accused are coming to murder him. L.W.1
escaped and ran away. But, all the accused attacked L.W.1
armed with spears, sticks and surrounded him to kill him. Out
of them, A.1 pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his left side stomach.
A.2 beat L.W.1 with stick on his face and chin indiscriminately.
A.13 pierced L.W.1 with spear on his right hand wrist. A.12
pierced L.W.1 with a spear on his chest. A.10 beat L.W.1 with a
stick on his back. The rest of the accused beat L.W.1 with sticks
indiscriminately. Accused left the place presuming that L.W.1
was died. L.W.2 and some others took the L.W.1 on a cart to his
house. Later, he was taken to Government hospital. L.W.1 5
came to know that L.Ws.2 to 5 were also beaten by the accused.
In the meantime, L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Dornal to see L.W.1.
On intimation from L.W.22, L.W.23 recorded the statement of
L.W.1 and sent to the Station House Officer, Pedda Araveedu
Police Station on point of jurisdiction, which came to be
registered as a case in Crime No.23 of 2001. L.W.1 was
referred to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for expert
treatment. L.Ws.2 to 5 also came to Government Hospital,
Markapur and took treatment. L.W.24 conducted investigation,
recorded the statements of witnesses, examined the scene of
offence and prepared observation report. L.W.17 took the
photos of the scene of offence.
7) On 16.04.2001 at 8-00 A.M. L.W.24 arrested A.1 to
A.13 and they confessed about the spears and sticks used in the
commission of offence concealed amidst Japan babul trees,
which were recovered under the cover of mahazarnama in the
presence of the mahazar witnesses and the accused were sent
to judicial custody. L.W.21 treated L.ws.2 to 5 and issued
wound certificates. L.W.22 treated L.W.1 and issued wound
certificate. L.W.25 further investigated into the case and after
completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 6
8) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur,
after taking cognizance of the case and after complying
formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to
the Court of Sessions and thereafter, it was made over to
Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.
9) Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur,
after appearance of the accused and after following the
procedure, charges under Section 148 of I.P.C. against A.1 to
A.13, Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.2, A.7 and A.8,
Section 324 of I.P.C. r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.3 to A.6 and
A.9 to A.13 and Section 323 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13 and
Section 307 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.13, were framed and
explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
10) Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Markapur, during the course of trial, on behalf of the
prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.32
were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked and Ex.D.1 was
marked on behalf of the accused. After the closure of the
evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating circumstances. 7
11) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur, on
hearing both sides and on considering the evidence on record,
found A.2 to A.5, A.9 to A.11 not guilty of the offence under
Section 148 of I.P.C., found A.2 not guilty of the offence under
Section 323 of I.P.C. and further found A.3, A.6, A.9 to A.13 not
guilty of the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and
further found A.1, A.5, A.9 and A.11 not guilty for the offence
under Section 307 of I.P.C. and acquitted them under Section
235 (1) of Cr.P.C.
12) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur,
found A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty for the offence
under Section 148 of I.P.C. and further found A.1, A.7 and A.8
guilty of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and further
found A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 guilty of the offence
under Section 324 of I.P.C. and convicted them under Section
235(2) of Cr.P.C. After hearing them about the quantum of
sentence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur,
sentenced A.1, A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 148 of I.P.C. and
further sentenced A.1, A.7 and A.8 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/-
each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month 8
each for causing injuries to P.Ws.2 to 5 and further sentenced
A.6 to A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.200/-
each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month
each for causing injuries to P.W.1 and that the sentences of
imprisonment imposed against A.7 and A.8 under two counts
shall run concurrently.
13) Aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful A.1, A.6,
A.7, A.8, A.10, A.12 and A.13, filed the Criminal Appeal No.153
of 2004 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, whereunder the learned
Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the
rest of the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence under
Section 324 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful
appellants as above, filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
14) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the
point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2004, dated 08.02.2006, on the file
of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at
Prakasam Division, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety and whether it is liable to be interfered with? 9
Point:-
15) Sri A. Syam Sunder Reddy, learned counsel,
representing Sri G. Rama Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioners, would contend that according to the case of the
prosecution, P.W.1 was main injured and P.Ws.2 to 5 were other
injured. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 had no support from
independent source as P.Ws.6 to 8 turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution. Still the learned trial Court as well as appellate
Court believed the case of the prosecution. He would contend
that when the medical officer i.e., P.W.14, who examined P.Ws.2
to 5, testified that the injuries would have been caused by blunt
object, the evidence of witnesses that they are stabbed by
spears cannot stands to any reason. The evidence of P.W.1 is
also not corroborated by P.W.15 as only four injuries were found
as against overt acts attributed against these assailants. Ex.P.1
did not contain the name of A.13. However, A.13 was also
convicted. There is no possibility to P.Ws.2 to 5 to witness the
attack on P.W.1. So, without any corroboration to the evidence
of injured witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Markapur, convicted them and the learned II Additional District
and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division,
erroneously confirmed the same. The learned appellate Court 10
having held that there is no unlawful assembly, ought to have
acquitted the appellants for the rest of the charges, as such, the
Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
16) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,
representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that
the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is fully convincing and their
evidence has corroboration from medical evidence and their
evidence is convincing and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,
Markapur as well as the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, rightly gave
findings against the Revision Petitioners with regard to the
offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. as such, the Criminal
Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
17) Now, it is pertinent to refer herein the relevant
evidence adduced by the prosecution.
18) P.W.1 is no other than the defacto-complainant. In
his evidence, he spoken about the time of offence and date of
offence. According to him at 6-15 P.M., he was proceeding to
the fields to fix penal board. He came to know that there was a
galata held in the village and accused are coming to kill him.
Then, he started running. All the accused armed with spears
and sticks surrounded him. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana 11
(A.8) stabbed him with spear on the left side of the abdomen.
Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him with stick on his face.
Thammisetty Kistaiah (A.13) stabbed him with spear on right
wrist. Thammisetty Venaktaswamy (A.6) stabbed him with
spear on his left hand above the wrist. Thammisetty
Tirupathaiah (A.12) stabbed him with a spear on his chest.
Thammisetty Lakshminarayana (A.10) beat him with stick on his
back. Remaining accused beat him with sticks on the body.
19) It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is also injured
witness, that accused constructed Thette wall around the bore
well. He questioned the accused about it. By then, all the
accused were there. Then, Thammisetty Chinna Narayana (A.8)
beat him with a spear. Thammisetty Thimmaraju (A.7) beat him
with stick on his wrist left side. Accused also beat Santhamma,
Malleswari and Veerareddy. Madugula Veerareddy and Gali
Veerareddy saw the said incident.
20) It is the evidence of P.W.3 that she, Malleswari,
Santhamma and Palanki Reddy went to bore to fetch drinking
water. Palanki Reddy stated why Thette wall is installed around
the bore well. On that the accused beat P.W.2. Then she
intervened. Thammiraju (A.7) stabbed him with spear on his 12
abdomen. Accused beat Santhamma and Malleswari. Madugula
Veera Reddy was also present.
21) It is the evidence of P.W.4 that she, Palanki Reddy,
Gali Veerareddy, Botchu Santhamma and Malleswari, went to
the bore well. Accused installed Thette wall around the bore
well. P.W.2 questioned the act of the accused. Thammisetty
Chinna Narayana (A.8) beat Palanki Reddy. A.1 beat her with
stone. Malleswari also sustained injuries.
22) It is the evidence of P.W.5 that she along with
P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 went to the well. P.W.2 questioned
Thammisetty Narayana about Thette well. Then A.8 beat P.W.2.
Then she intervened. Thammisetty Chinna Narayana beat her
with stone. P.Ws.2 to 4 received injuries.
23) P.Ws.6 to 8 and 11 did not support the case of the
prosecution.
24) The evidence of P.W.9 is that the offence took place
about three years back at 6-15 P.M. They were coming from
fields. They saw all the accused armed with spears and sticks at
the fields of Tirumalasetty Venkateswara Reddy. He saw the
accused and raised cries towards P.W.1 stating that they are
coming to kill P.W.1. All the accused surrounded P.W.1. Then
he (P.W.9) ran away.
13
25) The evidence of P.W.10 is that he came to know
about the incident only. P.W.12 is a witness for observation of
the scene of offence. P.W.13 is also a witness with regard to
the arrest of the accused under the cover of mahazarnama.
26) P.Ws.14 and 15 are medical officers, who treated
the injured and issued would certificates. P.W.14 spoken to the
fact that he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and issued wound certificates.
P.W.15 spoken to the fact that he examined P.W.1 and issued
wound certificate.
27) P.W.15 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who
recorded the statement of P.W.1 and forwarded to Pedda
Araveedu Police on point of jurisdiction. P.W.17 is the
Photographer, who took the photographs of the scene of
offence. P.W.18 verified the investigation of Head Constable.
P.W.19 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered
the F.I.R. and taken part of certain investigation. P.W.20 is the
person, who took X-rays of P.W.1 and found no bone injury.
P.W.21 claimed to have done certain surgery on P.W.1.
28) According to the case of the prosecution, the
incidents were two in number. One at the bore pump where
some of the accused were alleged to have attacked P.Ws.2 to 5
and caused injuries. Another incident was happened when 14
P.W.1 was going to fields. Now, as pointed out, P.Ws.2 to 5, the
injured, categorically testified the manner of attack upon them.
Admittedly, it is a case where their evidence has no support for
independent source for the reason that P.Ws.6 to 8 did not
support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.9 and 10 have
nothing to do with regard to the incident happened at bore
pump. So, what the trial Court was expected to do was to
scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 with care and caution.
29) As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, he attributed
overt acts against the attack on him, against A.8 and A.7. As
evident from the evidence of P.W.14, coupled with Ex.P.10 there
were two injuries i.e., lacerated injury over the vertex and
lacerated injury over the left side of iliac crest. Coming to the
evidence of P.W.3, he attributed overt acts against A.7 as
stabbed him with spear on his abdomen. As seen from the
evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.11, he found lacerated
injury on the middle of the abdomen of the witness. P.W.4
attributed overt acts against A.1 as beaten her with a stone. As
seen from the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.12, he
found lacerated injury below the right eye. Further P.W.5
attributed overt act against Thammisetty China Narayana. As
seen from the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with Ex.P.13, there 15
was a lacerated injury on the right back of parietal region of the
witness. So, the ocular testimony of P.Ws.2 to 5 has
corroboration from the medical evidence.
30) The contention of the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioners is that when the evidence of P.W.14 and the
Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.15 reads that the injuries would have been
caused by the blunt objects, the evidence of injured witnesses
that they were stabbed by spears cannot stands to any reason.
In this regard, this Court would like to make it clear that it is the
learned defence counsel before the trial Court, who elicited in
the cross examination of P.W.14 that the injuries mentioned in
Exs.P.10 to P.13 may be possible by fall on the sharp edged
object and fall on rough surface. So, spear is a sharp edged
object. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is that spears and stones
were used in causing injuries to them, as the case may be. So,
the contention of the Revision Petitioners in this regard is not
tenable.
31) As regards the injuries caused to P.W.1, it is proved
from the evidence of P.W.15 coupled with Ex.P.16. The
contention of the Revision Petitioners is that when P.W.1 spoken
about six assailants by naming them, but there were only four
injuries, as such, his evidence is false. It is very difficult to 16
accept such a contention. This Court would like to make it clear
that when P.W.1 deposed that even stick was used on his back
by A.10, etc. Merely because, there were only four injuries on
the person of P.W.1, as against the overt acts attributed six in
numbers, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. If
really, P.Ws.1 to 5 had any intention to improve the case,
definitely, they would have attributed more overt acts against
other accused.
32) Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, this
Court is of the considered view that their evidence has
corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 coupled with
their respective would certificates. Simply because P.Ws.6 to 8
turned hostile, the case of the prosecution cannot be
disbelieved. During the course of cross examination of P.Ws.1 to
5, nothing is elicited to disbelieve their testimony. As evident
from the trend of cross examination of P.W.1, accused did not
dispute the injuries received by P.W.1. So, the fact that P.W.1
received four injuries is not in dispute.
33) The defence of the accused is that P.W.1 has illegal
contacts with Audilakshamma and her husband is Tirumalareddy
Venkateswarlu and Tirumalareddy Venkateswarlu got beaten
him through some others and he (P.W.1) foisted the case 17
against the accused and accused did not beat them. It is rather
surprising to know that injured would spare real culprits.
34) Another contention of the Revision Petitioners is that
the trial Court convicted A.13, though his name was not
mentioned in the F.I.R. It is very difficult to accept the said
contention for the reason that the name of A.13 is clearly
mentioned in the F.I.R. as Krishnaiah.
35) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Markapur, goes to reveal that the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur considered the evidence of
prosecution witnesses with care and caution and he made every
effort and he carefully analyzed the evidence on record and
ordered conviction against the present Revision Petitioners. The
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole
at Prakasam Division, having analyzed the evidence on record,
found that under the circumstances the offence under Section
148 of I.P.C. cannot be said to be established. As against the
findings of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division, there is no revision before
this Court.
18
36) So, the scope of this revision is as to whether the
Revision Petitioners are liable to be convicted for the offence
under Section 324 of I.P.C. only? Having gone through the
evidence on record and judgment of the learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ongole at Prakasam Division,
this Court is of the considered view that the said judgment
cannot be said to be suffered with any illegality, irregularity and
impropriety.
37) Under the circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that insofar as conviction and sentencing of the
Revision Petitioners for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C.,
the evidence on record warrant the same. Hence, the Criminal
Revision Case filed by the Revision Petitioners must fail.
38) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
39) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately
under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court
to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall
take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against
the petitioners/appellants in S.C.No.10 of 2002, dated
13.10.2004 and to report compliance to this Court. 19
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 01.12.2022.
PGR 20
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.260 OF 2006
Date: 01.12.2022
PGR
