Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Damaraju Ramesh And 9 Others, vs State Of A.P.,R Ep By Pp., on 18 February, 2022
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.1867 OF 2006
ORDER:-
Questioning the Judgment, dated 13-11-2006, passed by
the Principal Sessions Judge, Eluru in Criminal Appeal No.150 of
2006, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
2. The petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 11 in
C.C.No.76 of 2005 (Old CC No.130 of 2004) on the file of the
Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special Mobile
Court, Eluru. They were tried by the learned Magistrate under
Sections. 143, 324, 509 r/w.34 IPC. After completion of trial, the
learned trial Magistrate convicted Accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 11 for
the offence under Section 143 IPC and sentenced them to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
one month. Further, they were convicted under Section 326 r/w
34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of one year and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two
months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.150 of 2006 before the Court
of Principal Sessions Judge, Eluiru. The learned Sessions Judge,
Eluru dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction and
sentence imposed by the trial court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 31-07-2004 at about
6.00 P.M all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful
2
assembly, armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, stout sticks
and knives and attacked Pw.1 and caused injuries. Pws.2 to 4
witnessed the incident and rescued Pw.1 from the clutches of all
the accused and took the injured to the Government Hospital,
Eluru where the statement of the Pw.1 was recorded by the
Pw.7-Head Constable. On the basis of the said statement, a case
in Cr.No.99 of 2004 of Pedapadu Police Station was registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 324, 509 IPC.
After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet.
4. The case was taken on file as CC No.76 of 2005 on the file
of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Special
Mobile Court, Eluru.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to
9 and marked EXs.P-1 to P-9. On behalf of the defence, no oral
or documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the version
of the prsoecution witnesses. After closure of trial, the learned
Magistrate convicted the accused as aforesaid, which was
confirmed by the appellate court.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the evidence of Pw.1 was not corroborated by the
other witnesses i.e., Pws.2 to 4 and there are lot of
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of the
3
prosecution witnesses. He also contends that the ocular version
of Pw.1 does not corroborate with the medical evidence. Finally,
the learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded for an acquittal.
9. Per contra, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses is consistent and the way in which the
attack took place and the nature of injuries received by Pw.1
would show that all the petitioners formed into an unlawful
assembly and attacked Pw.1 with an intention to cause bodily
injuries.
10. This court perused the entire evidence on record.
11. As seen from the evidence of Medical Officer-Pw.5, Pw.1
has received three fractures and ocular version of Pw.1 has been
corroborated by the medical evidence. Having considered the
entire evidence on record, this court did not find any reason to
interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below.
However, taking into consideration that the incident took place
on 31-07-2004 i.e., nearly 18 years back, this court is not
inclined to send all the petitioners to jail at this length of time,
instead this court is inclined to impose additional fine amount on
the petitioners.
12. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the courts
below. The sentence of imprisonment of one year has been
modified to the period already undergone and the petitioners are
directed to pay an additional fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
4
Thousand only) each. In default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of three(3) months. Out of the fine amount, an
amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) is
directed to be paid to the defacto complainant-Pw.1.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
__________________
K.SURESH REDDY,J
18-02-2022
.
TSNR
