U.Naga Raju, Guntur Dt., vs State Of Ap. Rep. Pp And 8 Otrs.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 559 AP

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY


         CRIMINAL REVISIION CASE No. 1745 OF 2014
            (Taken up through video conferencing)

JUDGMENT:

Questioning the order dated 21-07-2014 in Crl.M.P.No. 336 of

2014 in S.C.No. 4/S/2014 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur (for short, 'the

Court below'), the petitioner-accused No. 8 filed the present revision

before this Court. By virtue of the said order, the petition filed by the

petitioner-accused No. 8 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking to discharge him, was

dismissed.

2. Heard Sri M.Chalapati Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner-accused No. 8, and learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08-04-2013 at evening,

accused Nos. 1 to 7 went to M/s. Sri Lakshmi Ganapathi Bar and

Restaurant which belongs to the petitioner-accused No. 8. Accused

Nos. 1 to 7 consumed liquor and came out from the bar at about 9

p.m. and they were causing public nuisance by teasing the passers by

women. At about 9.15 p.m., de facto complainant-P.W.1 and her

mother Bethala Kantha Suneela @ Suseela (hereinafter referred to as

'the deceased') were returning home. When they reached near M/s.

Lakshmi Ganapathi Bar and Restaurant, accused Nos. 1 to 7, having

consumed liquor, were causing public nuisance. In pursuance of their

common intention, accused No. 1 dashed against the shoulder of

P.W.1. When P.W.1 questioned the lewd behavior of the accused,

accused No. 1 started teasing her and accused Nos. 2 to 7 verbally

and physically assaulted her and outraged her modesty by touching

her body and chest. Then, the deceased came and slapped accused

No. 1. Then, accused Nos. 1 to 7 picked up quarrel with the

deceased. Accused Nos. 1 to 7, in pursuance of their common and

cruel intention to kill the deceased, accused Nos. 1 to 4 abused her,

caught hold of her tuft and threw her towards the road into a running

lorry bearing No. AP 26 X 5335, which was passing towards Gandhi

Chowk with a load of sand, with a view that the deceased would

certainly fall underneath the rear tyres and die by all means. It is

further alleged that while this galata was happening, the petitioner-

accused No. 8 came out from the bar and abetted accused Nos. 1 to

7 by uttering words "kill her". The deceased, due to hit and ran over

of the lorry tyres on her, sustained severe injuries. Immediately, the

deceased was taken to hospital and while undergoing treatment, the

deceased succumbed to injuries on 09-04-2013 at 00.30 hours.

On a report given by P.W.1, the police registered a case in

crime No. 37 of 2013 of Tenali I Town Police Station for the offences

under Sections 354, 354-A, 302 and 509 read with Section 34 and

114 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 (1) (x) (xi)

and 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Cates and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act,

1989. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet.

Subsequently, the case was committed to the Court below and the

same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 4/S/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 8 contends that

though the statements recorded from the witnesses during the course

of investigation supported the case of prosecution, more particularly

the role of the petitioner-accused No. 8, the de facto complainant i.e.

P.W.1 has not at all stated anything against the petitioner either in

Ex.P1 report or in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and

164 of Cr.P.C. It is further contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that even in test identification parade, P.W.1 did not

identify the petitioner and that P.W.1 did not even speak about the

presence of the petitioner in any of her statements.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

vehemently opposed stating that the way in which accused Nos. 1 to

7 committed the offences is very serious in nature and no lenience

can be shown to the petitioner. He, therefore, sought to dismiss the

present revision.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the trial against accused Nos. 1 to 7 has been completed

and the case against the petitioner was separated and the same was

numbered as S.C.No. 113/S/2017. Learned counsel produced a copy

of the judgment dated 17-05-2019 in S.C.No. 4/S/2014 passed by the

Court below. A perusal of the said judgment would show that P.W.1

was the only witness who is examined to speak about the incident

and she was shown as an eyewitness. It is recorded in the said

judgment that P.W.1 did not state anything against the petitioner

either in Ex.P1 report or in her statements recorded under Sections

161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. It is also recorded in the said judgment that

P.W.1 did not identify the petitioner in the test identification parade.

It is specifically deposed by P.W.1 that only four persons participated

in the alleged incident. Taking into consideration all the above

aspects, the Court below acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 7 by judgment

dated 17-05-2019 in S.C.No. 4/S/2014.

7. While exercising power under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court

has to consider the probabilities of the case, the total effect of

evidence and the documents produced before the Court. As seen

from the material available, P.W.1-de facto complainant neither spoke

to the presence of the petitioner nor attributed any role to the

petitioner either in Ex.P1 report or in her statements recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. Further, P.W.1 did not identify the

petitioner during the test identification parade. It is the specific case

of P.W.1 that only four persons participated in the alleged incident.

The prosecution has not been able to establish, by producing valid

legal material, that the petitioner-accused No. 8 had abetted accused

Nos. 1 to 7 by uttering 'kill her' whereas the Court below, on the

wrong presumption, had dismissed the discharge petition. Hence,

this Court has to necessarily interfere with such wrong presumption

and mis-appreciation of materials by the Court below. Consequently,

for the reasons stated above, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

8. The order dated 21-07-2014 in Crl.M.P.No. 336 of 2014 in

S.C.No. 4/S/2014 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, is accordingly set

aside and the petitioner-accused No. 8 stands discharged from the

case in S.C.No. 113/S/2017 on the file of the Court of Special

Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Guntur.

9. The criminal revision case is allowed. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.

_____________________ Date: 02-02-2022. JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY JSK

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1745 OF 2014

DATE: 02ND FEBRUARY, 2022

JSK