Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bandaru Musili And 4 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp And ... on 4 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1019 of 2008
ORDER:
Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at Narasaraopet, in
Crl.A.No.394 of 2006, dated 08.07.2008, the revision petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 5 filed the present criminal revision case.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :
Revision petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 and the prosecution
witnesses are residents of Macherla Town. Revision petitioners belong to
Mutharasi community and the prosecution witnesses belong to Yadava
community and there were long standing disputes between both the
parties. While so, on 21.04.2003 at about 3.00 or 3.30 pm., Accused
Nos.1 to 5 infurtherance of their common intention, waylaid P.W.s1 to 3
and armed them with deadly weapons at Innareddy Rice Mill, Macherla.
Among them, Accused No.1 gave a blow with an axe on P.W.3, Accused
No.2 dealt a blow with an axe on P.W.2, Accused No.3 dealt a blow with
an axe on P.W.1, Accused Nos.4 & 5 beat them with sticks. Thereafter,
on seeing the other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 & 5, who came to rescue them,
all the accused ran away. After completion of investigation, police filed
charge sheet. A case in Cr.No.40 of 2003 of Macherla Town Police Station
was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 324
and 326 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge
sheet. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.232 of 2003 on the file of the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Macherla, Guntur District.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and
marked Exs.P1 to P7. The accused were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., which was denied by them. No oral and documentary evidence is
adduced on behalf of the accused.
4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Judge convicted the revision petitioners/accused 1 to 5 for the offence
under Section 326 and 326 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer
Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for
three (03) months each. Further, they were sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three (03)
months each for the offence under Section 324 and 324 r/w 34 IPC.
5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the revision
petitioners/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2006 on the file
of the Court of X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Guntur at
Narasaraopet. After considering the material on record, the learned X
Additional & District Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, vide
Judgment dated 08.07.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners
filed the present revision case.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Special
Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. At the time of arguments, I.A.Nos.1 & 3 of 2022 were filed seeking
to implead prosecution witnesses in the present revision case and to
record compromise between the parties. It is also submitted that the
parties have resolved their dispute amicably and they are living
peacefully. Therefore, in view of the said compromise both the learned
counsels request this Court to take a lenient view and compound the
offence.
8. As seen from the evidence on record, the evidence of prosecution
witnesses is consistent and there is nothing to interfere with the findings
of both the Courts below. However, the said compromise between the
parties can be taken as mitigating circumstance, while awarding the
sentence. So far as Section 326 IPC is concerned, it is a non-
compoundable offence. Since, both the parties settled their disputes and
living amicably, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in awarding
sentence. Therefore, considering the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, as the petitioners were in judicial custody for a period
of more than two (02) weeks during pendency of the trial and after
Judgment of the appellate Court, this Court is of the considered view to
reduce the sentence to period already undergone.
9. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is
allowed in part, while confirming the conviction passed by both the
Courts below, reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded under
Section 326 and 326 r/w 34 IPC to period already undergone, while
maintaining the fine amount imposed by both the courts below for the
offence under sections 324 & 326 r/w 34 IPC.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
4th March,2022.
RPD.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1019 of 2008
Dated : 04-03-2022
RPD
