Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kanapala Naga Raju, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 23 February, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRL.R.C.NO.592 OF 2008
ORDER:-
Questioning the Judgment, dated 29-02-2008, passed by
the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur at
Tenali in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2005, the petitioner filed the
present Criminal Revision Case.
2. The petitioner faced trial in Sessions Case No.326 of 2004
on the file of the Court of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Tenali for the offence punishable under Sections.332 and 307
IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution succinctly is thus:-
(i) The petitioner is a resident of Kolluru and he was
having a Rowdy Sheet No.9 in Kolluru Police Station. He was
involved in other cases also. He is facing trial in S.C.No.593 of
2003 under Section 354 IPC. Trial in the said Sessions Case was
scheduled from 09-02-2004 to 30-02-2004 and in that case
Lws.1 to 4 were examined. The said case was posted to 24-02-
2004. Keeping in mind that Lws.1 to 4 deposed against him in
the said case, on 16-02-2004 at about 7.30 P.M he went to the
house of Pws.2 and 3 armed with a knife, abused the inmates
and tried to hack them. Due to fear, Pw.5 went to police Station
and informed the incident to Pw.1-Constable, who is on duty.
Pw.1 rushed to the spot on his motorcycle and noticed that
accused armed with knife was present and abused Pws.2 and 3
and threatened them. On seeing Pw.1, the petitioner came upon
2
him and kicked Pw.1's motorcycle, which fell down. When Pw.1
was lifting his motorcycle, the petitioner tried to hack him with a
kitchen knife. Pw.1 caught hold of the knife and then the
accused threw it aside and pushed Pw.1 and caused bleeding
injuries on his trunk and right leg. Then Pw.1 went to the police
station and reported the matter to the Sub-Inspector of Police-
Pw.7, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2004 under
Sections 332 and 307 IPC. The petitioner/accused was arrested
on 17-02-2004 and after completion of investigation and after
receipt of wound certificate, Pw.7 filed the charge sheet.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to
7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and the petitioner was examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material.
Ex.D-1-relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 was
marked on behalf of the defence.
5. After completion of trial and after elaborate discussions,
the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge while acquitting
the petitioner/accused under Section 307 IPC, convicted him
under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Additional
Assistant Sessions Judge further convicted the
petitioner/accused under Section 332 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the
substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
6. Questioning the said conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the petitioner filed
3
Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2005 before the XI Additional District
and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur at Tenali. The learned XI
Additional District and Sessions Judge after going through the
entire material on record, dismissed the Criminal Appeal by
confirming the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial
court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision
Case is filed.
7. Sri M.L.Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from number
of inconsistencies and no reliance can be placed on their
evidence. He also contended that Pws.2 and 3 are interested
witnesses and they are having grouse against the petitioner to
implicate him in a false case as they deposed against him in
S.C.No.593 of 2003.
8. On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Revision Case and sought for
dismissal of the same by confirming the conviction and sentence.
9. A perusal of the evidence reveals that there are disputes
and the earlier cases are pending between the petitioner and
Pws.2 and 3. So far as Pw.1 is concerned, he is working as a
Constable and he went to the scene of offence on the report
given by Pws.2 and 3 and moreover Pw.1 was discharging his
official duties and there is no enmity between Pw.1 and revision
petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner attacked Pw.1-
public servant who is discharging his lawful duties. In that view
of the matter, this court is of the considered view that there are
4
no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by both the
courts below. However, as the incident took place in the year
2004 i.e., 18 years back, this court is inclined to reduce the
sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence punishable
under Section 332 IPC.
10. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the courts.
However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section
332 IPC is reduced from two (2) years to one(1) year while
confirming the sentence under Section 323 IPC. Both the
sentences are directed to run concurrently. Further, the
petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court
to serve the remaining sentence.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
________________
K.SURESH REDDY,J
23-02-2022
.
TSNR
