Kongam Sanyasi Reao And 4 Others, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1347 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                    CRL.R.C.424 OF 2007
ORDER:-


     Questioning the Judgment, dated 23-03-2007, passed by

the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram in Criminal Appeal No.90 of

2004, the petitioners/ Accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 filed the

present Criminal Revision Case.


2.   The petitioners along with others were Accused in Sessions

Case No.38 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions

Judge, Vizianagaram. They were tried by the learned Assistant

Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections. 147,

307, 332, 333 r/w 149 IPC.


3.   After completion of trial, the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge convicted the petitioners/ Accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 10

for the offence under Section.332 IPC and sentenced them to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each

besides to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for two months each.


4.   Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2004 before the Court

of Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Sessions Judge,

Vizianagaram while dismissing the Appeal filed by the revision

petitioners, confirmed the conviction imposed by the trial court

for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC, but modified

the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year instead of
                                   2




two years as was imposed by the trial court and kept in tact the

fine amount.


5.      The case of the prosecution is that on 23-03-1999 at about

10 A.M A-1 visited L.Kota Police Station and sought permission

to organize ram fights in Goljam Village from 24-03-1999 to

26-03-1999

stating that it was a convention in connection with

Srirama Navami festival, for that the Sub-Inspector of Police

refused to accord permission and in turn Sub-Inspector of Police

reprimanded A-1 that in case they are going to conduct the ram

fights, they are liable for punishment as per law. A-1 had

indulged argument with Sub-Inspector of Police and stated that

one cannot deter him for proceeding with the ram fight and if

any body interfered, he will kill them. Later, all the accused

under the active connivance of A-1 along with others in the

gathering of 200 persons protested for stopping the ram fight

and at the instigation of A-1, all the accused beat the Sub

Inspector of Police, A.S.I of Police, two Head Constables and

three Constables. Later, Sub Inspector of Police, S.Kota

intervened and rescued the police personnel and took all the

injured to the S.Kota Government Hospital and on the intimation

of Medical Officer, police visited the hospital and recorded the

statements of injured police personnel and registered a case for

the offence punishable under Sections 147, 307, 333 and 332

r/w.149 IPC. After investigation, police filed charge sheet against

the accused.

6. The case was taken on file as SC No.38 of 2000 on the file

of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to

23 and EXs.P-1 to P-23 besides Mos.1 to 11 got marked. On

behalf of the defence, none were examined, but Exs.D-1 to D-8

were marked.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the version

of the prosecution witnesses. After completion of trial, the

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram convicted the

accused as aforesaid, which was partly confirmed by the

appellate court.

9. Heard both sides.

10. This court perused the entire evidence on record.

11. As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 to 8, it is crystal clear

that on the date of incident, they were on bandobust duty; that

Accused No.1 and others beat Pws.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18 with a

stone on their right ears; that the evidence of Medical Officer,

who was examined as Pw.19, would also clearly goes to show

that the police personnel received injuries and, therefore, the

evidence of prosecution witnesses is quite trustworthy inspite of

the fact that there are some discrepancies therein and it must be

accepted to be true and correct. Therefore, 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 23-03-1999 i.e., nearly 23 years back, this court is inclined to

take a lenient view with regard to sentence of imprisonment.

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

dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the courts

below. However, the sentence of imprisonment has been

reduced from one (1) year to period already undergone by the

petitioners/accused. So far as fine is concerned, the same is

unaltered.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 16-03-2022.

TSNR