CRLRC/1379/2008
2022 Latest Caselaw 842 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                     CRL.R.C.1379 OF 2008
ORDER:-

      Questioning the judgment passed by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, dated 09-09-2008 in

Crl.A.No.42 of 2008, the petitioner/accused has filed the present

Criminal Revision Case.

2.    The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

      (i) The petitioner/accused and defacto complainant are

cousins and there are boundary disputes between them. The

defacto complainant was examined as Pw.1. The father of Pw.1,

who was examined as Pw.5, has filed a suit in O.S.No.994 of

2005 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

against the petitioner for recovery of possession. While so, on

31-07-2004

at about 6.00 P.M Pw.1 went to the house of the

accused and informed him that the elders have agreed to

measure the disputed site and asked him to be ready for the

measurements. On that, accused picked up a quarrel with Pw.1

and brought a cricket bat and beat on his head. Thereafter, Pw.1

was taken to the hospital. Pw.9-Doctor examined him and gave

treatment to Pw.1.

(ii) Having received the intimation from the hospital, Pw.8

went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-1 statement from Pw.1.

On the basis of Ex.P-1, Pw.7 registered a case in Cr.No.101 of

2004 on the file of Pedapadu Police Station for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC. After completion of

investigation, he filed a charge sheet. The case was numbered as

SC No.165 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Eluru.

3. In support of the case of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 9 were

examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 apart from Mos.1 and 2.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the

accused. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was denied by him.

4. During the course of trial, Pws.2 and 3 did not support the

case of prosecution. As such, sofar as attack on Pw.1 is

concerned, the only witness available is Pw.1 who is an injured

person.

5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the

learned trial judge while acquitting accused for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC convicted him for a lesser

offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

6. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2008 on the file of

the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The

appellate court after an elaborate discussion dismissed the

Appeal by the impugned judgment.

7. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that admittedly there are civil disputes between the petitioner

and Pw.1 and a civil dispute is also pending between them. As

such, Pw.1 is highly interested witness and no reliance can be

placed on his testimony. It is further contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that there was no corroboration for the

evidence of PW.1 from any independent witnesses. Pws.2 and 3

who were examined as eye witnesses did not support the case of

prosecution. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner

seeks to allow the Revision Case by setting aside the conviction

and sentence.

9. Per contra, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

opposed the same contending inter alia that the evidence of

Pw.1 alone is sufficient to convict the petitioner. The version of

Pw.1 was clearly corroborated by the medical evidence.

10. This court perused the entire evidence on record. Though

the independent witnesses did not support the version of the

prosecution, the evidence of Pw.1 inspires confidence of this

court. Pw.1 is none other than the injured witness. His ocular

version has been corroborated by the medical evidence i.e., Pw.9

coupled with wound certificate-Ex.P-9. In such circumstances,

there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.1, merely

because, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and

Pw.1. As already stated above, Pw.1 is none other than injured

witness.

11. As seen from the facts and the way in which the incident

took place, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in

awarding the sentence of imprisonment, particularly as the

offence took place in the year 2004 and that too the injuries

received by Pw.1 are simple in nature. As the incident took place

in the year 2004, this court is not inclined to send the

petitioner/accused to jail after lapse of 18 years.

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

dismissed confirming the conviction imposed by the appellate

court. However, in view of the above facts and circumstances,

the sentence of imprisonment of two(2) years is reduced to

period already undergone by the petitioner/accused. Further, the

petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount paid by the

petitioner/accused, an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

thousand only) is directed to be paid to Pw.1 towards

compensation.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 15-02-2022.

TSNR