Kunche Seeta Ramaiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp And 8 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9698 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1420 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the

petitioner namely Kunche Seeta Ramaiah, who was the de-facto

complainant (PW.1) in Sessions Case No.516 of 2007, on the file of

the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bheemavaram (for short,

'the learned Assistant Sessions Judge'), whereunder the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 09.04.2008, found

the accused (A-1 to A-8) therein, not guilty of the charges under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 R/w.149 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and acquitted them under Section

235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the

Cr.P.C').

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. The respondents Nos.2 to 9 herein as accused faced the

charges before the Court below for the aforesaid offences.

Respondent No.1 is State. The de-facto complainant is the revision

petitioner.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a postal cover on

30.11.2022 stating that there was non-service of notice on

respondent No.6 and he sought to dispose of the Criminal Revision

Case against other respondents (accused), on merits.

5. So, as the petitioner is not able to serve notice on

respondent No.6, the Criminal Revision Case against respondent

No.6 stands dismissed for default.

6. So, this Criminal Revision Case is only against respondent

Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 9.

7. The case of the prosecution, before the Court below, as per

the averments in the charge sheet filed by the Police is as follows:

PW.1, who is the resident of Vankayalapalem village on

08.12.2006 at about 10:00 PM, while feeding his cattle in the

Government allotted site admeasuring Ac.0-03 cents in favour of

his mother-in-law (Sitamahalakshmi), A-1 to A-8 came there in

two Autos, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed

with deadly weapons by sticks, iron rods and A-1 caught hold of

PW.1 and dragged him to some distance and thrown him on the

ground. Then, A-2 kicked him on his back. When PW.1 raised hue

and cry, PW.2 rushed there to rescue him. On seeing her, A-3

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

caught hold PW.2 and A-1 beat her with an iron rod on her head

with a view to kill her as a result she sustained injuries and fell

down unconscious. PW.3, who is daughter of PW.2, came there to

rescue her. A-2 caught hold her tuft of hair, fisted her on back and

also beat her with a stick on her right buttock. When PW.4, who is

the sister-in-law of PW.1, rushed to the spot, A-4 to A-8 beat her

indiscriminately and caused injuries to her right knee and right

buttock. Later, A-1 to A-8 untied the cattle and drove them

outside. On seeing PWs.5 to 8, the accused fled away. PWs. 1 to 4

went to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram. On information,

PW.12 rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded the

statement of PW.1 at 00:30 hours on 09.12.2006. On the contents

of the statement of PW.1, recorded by PW.12, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, PW.13 registered a case in Crime No.148 of 2006 under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 R/w.149 of IPC, issued FIR

to all concerned, and took up investigation. During the course of

investigation, he visited the scene of offence, got drafted the scene

observation report in the presence of mediators, and seized three

sticks and iron rod i.e., MOs.1 to 4 from the scene of offence under

the mediators report. During the course of investigation, he

recorded the statements of witnesses. On 22.03.2007 at 10:00 AM

A-1 was arrested. On 09.12.2006, A-2 was arrested. On

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

26.03.2007 at 10:00 AM, A-5 was arrested. On 14.02.2007, A-8

was arrested and they were produced in the Court for judicial

remand. The doctor, who examined PWs.1 to 4, issued wound

certificates wherein he opined that the injuries are simple in

nature. Thus, A-1 is liable for punishment under Sections 143,

147, 148, 307 and 324 R/w.149 IPC for his common object,

forming into an unlawful assembly, armed with iron rod and sticks

with a common intention to kill PWs.1 and 2 and for causing

simple injuries. A-2 to A-4 are liable under Sections 143, 147, 48,

307 and 324 R/w.149 IPC for their common object and forming

themselves into unlawful assembly and caused simple injuries to

PWs.3 and 4. A-5 to A-8 are liable under Section 143 R/w.149 IPC

for common object with other accused.

8. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Bhimavaram took cognizance of the case against the accused for

the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 R/w.149

of IPC and numbered it as PRC No.32 of 2007 and, after

compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case by an

order, dated 06.12.2007, to the Court of Session and thereby it

was numbered as S.C. No.516 of 2007. It was made over to the

Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram. On appearance

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

of the accused before the Assistant Sessions Judge, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, by following the procedure under

Section 228 Cr.P.C, framed the charges under Sections 143, 147,

148, 307 and 324 R/w.149 of IPC and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-23 and MOs.1 to 4

were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution,

accused were subjected to 313 Cr.P.C. examination with reference

to the incriminating circumstances for which they denied the same

and reported no defence evidence.

10. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides

and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on

record, found the accused not guilty of the charges under Sections

143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 R/w.149 of IPC and acquitted them

under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

11. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant/PW.1 filed

the present Criminal Revision Case.

12. Before going to frame the point for consideration, this Court

would like to make it clear that, in view of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

while exercising the power of Revision, this Court cannot convert

an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The law is well

settled to the effect that it is only when the judgment of the trial

Court is perverse and judgment was delivered ignoring the

evidence on record, this Court has limited power of remanding the

matter to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh. So,

absolutely, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to show how

the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and as to whether the

judgment was delivered ignoring the evidence on record.

13. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is, whether the judgment, dated

09.04.2008, in Sessions Case No.516 of 2007, on the file of the

Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram is perverse and

whether it is decided without looking into the evidence on record?

14. POINT: Sri Y. V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would contend that the trial Court delivered the

judgment without appreciating the evidence on record in proper

manner and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has

corroboration from the wound certificates and PW.9, the Medical

Officer, testified the same and the trial Court recorded erroneous

reason as such the Criminal Revision Case is liable to allowed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

15. Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the

respondents/accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 to 9, would contend that

the overt acts spoken by the prosecution witnesses has no

corroboration from the medical evidence on record and the

evidence is full of discrepancies and contradictions and the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge recorded sound reasons in

acquitting the accused as such there are no grounds to interfere

with the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

16. Admittedly, a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court goes

to reveal that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge gave findings

that the prosecution evidence is full of discrepancies and large set

of contradictions. PWs.1 to 4 appears to be not truthful and

trustworthy witnesses and the statement of PW.2 was recorded

after 21 days after the occurrence and according to the evidence of

Medical Officer, there were no bleeding injuries as alleged by the

prosecution witnesses and the Investigating Officer deliberately

laid charge sheet under Section 307 IPC and PW.7 the material

witness turned hostile as such the evidence is not convincing and

further the mother-in-law of PW.1 was not examined by the

prosecution to prove the material allegations as such recorded an

order of acquittal.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

17. Now, this Court has to see whether the judgment of the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge is convincing with the evidence

available on record.

18. It is not necessary to refer here the entire evidence adduced

by the prosecution. It is sufficient to look into the material

evidence on record especially with reference to the overt acts

attributed by the prosecution witnesses against the accused. Now,

coming to the evidence of PW.1 that A-1 came to him holding iron

road and beat him on his right shoulder. In the meantime, A-2

came there and kicked him on his back. Then he fell down. Then

his wife, his daughter and his sister-in-law rushed there. A-3

caught hold of his wife with both hands from his backside. A-1

beat his wife with iron rod on her head and caused bleeding injury

to her head and she fell down unconscious. His daughter Anantha

Lakshmi was beaten by A-3. A-3 beat his daughter with stick on

her buttocks. A-2 and A-3 beat her sister-in-law with sticks on her

right hand and caused injury.

19. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, A-3 caught hold of her

hands. Then A-1 beat her with iron rod on her head and caused

bleeding injury. She also sustained fracture to her right hand

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

wrist. She also sustained injury to her left shoulder and it was

covered with bandage.

20. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, A-3 abused her mother and

caught hold of her both hands and twisted towards backward. A-1

beat her mother with iron rod on her head and caused bleeding

injury. In the meantime, A-3, A-5, A-6 caught hold of her tuft of

hair and fisted on her neck. A-3 beat her with a stick on her

buttocks. A-3 beat her with stick on her neck. When PW.4 tried to

rescue her, A-4, A-7 and A-5 beat PW.4 with hands on her right

knee cap and right thigh.

21. Coming to the evidence of PW.4, PW.1 was beaten by A-1

with an iron rod. PW.1 did not receive any bleeding injuries. A-3

caught hold the hands of PW.2 and A-1 beat PW.2 with an iron rod

on her head and caused bleeding injury and she fell down

unconscious. Clothes of PW.3 were bloodstained due to bleeding

injuries. A-6 beat PW.2 with an iron rod on her head and caused

another bleeding injury. Then, A-4 beat PW.3 with sticks on right

buttock and right leg. A-5 beat PW.3 with a stick on her head and

torn her saree and blouse. A-2 beat PW.3 with a stick on her left

shoulder. A-2 beat PW.3 thrice with a stick on her left shoulder.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

A-7 beat PW.4 with stick on her right and left buttocks. She did

not receive any bleeding injury.

22. Now, as seen from the evidence of PW.9, the Medical Officer,

he examined PW.1 and found pain in wrist joint on his right side.

It is to be noticed that according to PW.1, A-1 beat him on his

right shoulder. So, the injury received by PW.1 is not

corresponding to the overt act spoken by him. Further, according

to PW.9, PW.2 complained with pain to forearm. Even there are no

corresponding injuries on the person of PW.2 with regard to the

overt acts spoken by PWs.1 and 2. Coming to the evidence of PW.9

with reference to the injuries received by PW.3, PW.3 complained

with body pain and general weakness and he did not observe any

external injury. So, even in respect of the injuries found on PW.3,

as spoken by PW.9, they are not in tune with the corresponding

overt acts attributed against the accused either by PW.1 or PW.3.

Similarly, in respect of the injuries on PW.4, according to PW.9,

she complains with abrasion on right knee joint. Even it does not

tally with the overt act. So, the evidence of PW.9 coupled with

Exs.P-16 to P-19, wound certificates of PWs.1 to 4 negatived the

case of the prosecution that the prosecution witnesses sustained

bleeding injuries or the fractures or the serious injuries as the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

case may be. So, as rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, their evidence does not get corroboration from the

medical evidence.

23. PW.10 is a mahazar witness of his observation of scene of

offence which has nothing to do with the bleeding injuries.

24. PW.11 is also a mahazar witness.

25. PW.12 was the Station House Officer, who received MLC

with intimation and recorded the statement under Ex.P-1.

26. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer.

27. It is to be noticed that the prosecution examined PWs.5 and

6, who did not support the case of the prosecution. They were

cited as direct witnesses and turned hostile. PW.7 deposed as if

PW.2 received a bleeding injury and other prosecution witnesses

were subjected to attack. So, even his evidence does not support

the case of the prosecution as no bleeding injuries were found on

the prosecution witnesses. Ultimately, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor also cross-examined PW.7 as he did not support the

case on certain aspects and even during the course of cross-

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

examination he denied the version of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

28. So, it is very clear that as rightly pointed out by the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge that the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses is full of discrepancies and contradictions. There was

delay of 21 days in recording the statement of PW.2, who was the

injured witness, by the Investigating Officer, which remained

unexplained. Even the mother of PW.1, who was said to be a

crucial witness to the case of the prosecution, was not examined.

Apart from this, when the injuries received by the prosecution

witnesses were so simple, as evident from the wound certificates,

it is not known how the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet

under Section 307 IPC. So, the Investigation was also not on

correct lines. So, having regard to the above, the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, rightly appreciated the evidence on

record. The judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge

cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, I see no merit in the

Criminal Revision Case.

29. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1420/2008

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :16.12.2022 DSH