Maramreddy Venkata Reddy, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7400 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1139 OF 2008

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397(1)

and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the

Cr.P.C') on behalf of the petitioner (A-1), as against the judgment,

dated 26.05.2005, in Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2002 on the file of

the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole,

Prakasam District (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions

Judge'); where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioner along with

others (A-2 and A-3) confirming the Calendar and Judgment of the

learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili (for short, 'the

learned Judicial Magistrate'), in C.C. No.409 of 2000, dated

23.09.2002, under which the learned Judicial Magistrate found

the petitioner along with other accused guilty of the offence under

Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and

sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to

suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months each.

2. The petitioner along with other accused faced trial in C.C.

No.409 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

First Class, Podili, for the offences under Sections 323 and 506(2)

IPC and the trial Court exonerated the petitioner and other

accused for the charge under Section 506(2) IPC and convicted

and sentenced the petitioner along with other accused under

Section 323 IPC as above.

3. The case of the prosecution, according to the charge sheet

filed before the trial Court pertaining to Crime No.20 of 200 of

K.K.Mitla Police Station under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, is as

follows:

LW.1, Neelam Rayalu, is a resident of Yedurallapadu village.

on 03.06.2000 at 04:00 p.m. he went to A-1 for obtaining caste

certificate and nativity certificate for his son and asked him for the

same and without any fault A-2 and A-3 abused LW.1 and

threatened him with dire consequences in a drunken stage and

abetted petitioner (A-1) to refuse to sign the certificate. While he

was leaving the place, A-2 and A-3 caught hold of his shirt and

dragged him. All the accused abused LW.1 in filthy language and

beat him with hands and legs indiscriminately. A-1 Also beat LW.1

with chappal indiscriminately. LW.1 turned up to K.K.Mitla Police

Station and presented a report about the occurrence. LW.7, S.I. of

Police, K.K.Mitla Police Station, registered it as a case in Crime

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

No.20 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC on

12.06.2000 at 05:00 PM and issued FIR. During the course of

investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the same

and prepared rough sketch. He also examined the witnesses.

According to the investigation, no case is made out as against

other accused, as such three names are deleted. Hence, the charge

sheet.

4. At this stage, this Court would like to make it clear that

according Ex.P-1 report lodged by the victim, there are 6 names

and the Police laid the charge sheet as against 3 persons, who are

none other than the petitioner and 2 others. In that view of the

matter, the Investigating Officer described the first petitioner as

A-1, second petitioner as A-3 and the third petitioner as A-6 in the

charge sheet. But before the trial Court, they were treated A-1 to

A-3, as such, the revision petitioner herein is described as A-1.

5. On filing the charge sheet, learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 323 and

506 IPC and on appearance and on complying the provisions of

Section 207 Cr.P.C., the trial Court framed charges under Sections

323 and 506(2) IPC, after examining them under Section 239

Cr.P.C. and explained the charges to them in Telugu, for which

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course

of trial before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to

6 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. They were

examined before the trial Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about

the incriminating circumstances for which they denied the same.

6. Learned Judicial Magistrate on hearing both sides and on

considering the oral and documentary evidence found the

petitioner herein, who is A-1, along with A-2 and A-3 not guilty of

the charge under Section 506(2) IPC but found them guilty of the

offence under Section 323 IPC and accordingly, after questioning

about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for three

months each.

7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present

petitioner (A-1) along with other accused, filed Criminal Appeal

No.208 of 2002, on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions

Judge, Ongole and the learned Addition Sessions Judge, on

consideration of the evidence on record, after hearing both sides

found no merits in the Appeal, as such dismissed the same.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the appellate Court in

Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2002, dated 26.05.2005, the present

petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case.

9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.208 of

2002 suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in

dismissing the Criminal Appeal?.

10. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

while adverting to the grounds of revision would further contend

that there was no medical evidence to prove the offence under

Section 323 IPC against the petitioner and the prosecution did not

prove the so called hurt caused to PW.1 by the petitioner and the

learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the contention

of the petitioner before the appellate Court and the petitioner is a

Village Administrative Officer, who had no power at all to issue

caste certificate and the evidence of PW.1 is not believable and it

suffers with contradictions, as such the Criminal Revision Case is

liable to be allowed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

11. Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned counsel, representing the

learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgment of the

learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that the

evidence of PWs.1 and 5 is consistent and as the offence proved

against the petitioner was under Section 323 IPC, there need not

be any medical evidence and the judgments of the Courts below

are sustainable under law and facts, as such the Criminal

Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

12. As seen from Ex.P-1, a tailored report lodged by PW.1, it

contains the names of 6 persons as accused and Police filed the

charge sheet against the petitioner herein and two others.

According to the charge sheet, during the course of investigation,

Police did not find any material against the other accused as such,

their names were deleted. Now, turning to the evidence of PW.1,

who was the de-facto complainant before the trial Court, he

deposed that 03.06.2000 he went to the room of A-1 and

requested him to issue caste certificate to his son. A-1 to A-3 were

found in drunken state. A-1 refused to issue caste certificate. Then

he returned and was standing on the road, A-3 came there and

informed him that A-1 asked him to come for issuing caste

certificate. Then he told him that he would come tomorrow. Then

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

A-3 caught hold of his shirt and questioned him why he did not

come there. Then A-2 pulled him by holding his short. At that

time, one Tirupathi Reddy, Police Constable was sitting in the

barber shop in the bus stand. On seeing the incident, he came

there and chastised the accused and advised him to give report to

the Police. Then, A-2 and A-3 brought A-1. A-1 abused him in the

name of his caste and beat him with chappal. Villagers witnessed

the incident. Police Constable Tirupathi Reddy also left the scene.

Then he went to the Ongole and approached the Superintendent of

Police and presented report. Ex.P-1 is his report. As nobody took

action on his complaint, he approached the Superintendent of

Police on 03.06.2000.

13. Turning to the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, the so called other

witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution and

turned hostile.

14. PW.5 was the constable, who was shown as witness to the

occurrence stated that on 03.06.2000 he was sentry in the Police

Station. At about 04:00 pm, he received information that there

was galata going on in the bus stand of K.K. Mitla. Then, he went

there and found A-1 to A-3 beating PW.1 with hands and legs.

They were also abusing him in filthy language. Then he went there

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

and pacified the issue. He took PW.1 to the Police Station but

PW.1 left the Police Station without giving any report.

15. PW.6 is the Investigating Officer who supported the case of

the prosecution and has spoken about the investigation.

16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

as PWs.2 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the

conviction of the petitioner before the trial Court is not proper.

17. It is evident from the depositions of PWs.2 to 4 that they did

not support the case of the prosecution. It was never the defence

of the petitioner before the trial Court that PW.5 was interested

witness. PW.5 was a responsible constable, who supported the

case of the prosecution. Simply because PWs.2 to 4 did not

support the case of the prosecution, the other available evidence

cannot be thrown out. So the proper course before the trial Court

was to see as to whether the evidence of PW.5 was supporting the

evidence of PW.1. The trial Court, as evident from the judgment,

took into consideration the fact that PW.5 has no reason

whatsoever to depose false against the accused. So the trial Court

rightly held that there was consistency between the evidence of

PWs.1 and 5.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

18. Turning to the contention of the petitioner that the scene of

offence was shifted, said contention is also not tenable for the

reason that PW.1 narrated in Ex.P-1 that the galata was started at

the house of A-1 when he went there with request to issue caste

certificate. Because A-1 to A-3 were in a drunken stage, then he

went to the road and standing, A-2 and A-3 came there and

requested him to come to A-1, for which he refused. Then they

beat him and A-1 also came there and beat him. This version was

supported by the evidence of PW.5, as he deposed that he found

A-1 to A-3 beating PW.1 on road. So a close analysis of the

evidence means would not support the contention of the petitioner

that the scene of offence was shifted to some other place from the

Police Station.

19. Petitioner herein was a Village Administrative Officer.

Admittedly, to decide the offence in question, the competency of

A-1 to issue caste certificate is not the criteria. PW.1, as A-1 was

the Village Administrative Officer and nearest Revenue person,

went to the house of A-1 to get caste certificate. Though, he did

not make any application to M.R.O. to get caste certificate but the

presence of PW.1 at the house of A-1, when A-1 to A-3 together

were there cannot be doubted, in my considered view.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

20. Coming to the delay in lodging Ex.P-1, there was a

foundation laid in Ex.P-1 that as nobody were there to take any

action PW.1 went to the Superintendent of Police and presented

the report. The contents of Ex.P-1 reveal the date of offence as

03.06.2000. There was an endorsement of the Superintendent of

Police directing the concerned Station House Officer, even by

giving telephonic instructions, to take necessary action. So, there

was a proper foundation in the evidence of PW.1. There was proper

explanation in the evidence of PW.1 that as Ex.P-1 was presented

to the Superintendent of Police, there was delay in registration of

FIR. Even the endorsement on Ex.P-1 contains the endorsement of

the Superintendent of Police. It is settled law that mere delay in

lodging a report cannot be taken as fatal to the prosecution. It can

only be where there was animosity between the complainant and

the accused and where the offence was reported from a faction

ridden village there could be some possibility to improve the case

of the prosecution and to fabricate false story. So, it is not the case

of the petitioner that there were any ill-feelings between him and

PW.1. So, the mere delay in lodging Ex.P-1 is not fatal to the case

of the prosecution, especially when the delay was properly

explained. Both the Courts below took into consideration this view

and negatived the contention of the present petitioner.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

21. Another contention of the revision petitioner is that there is

no medical evidence to prove the offence against the petitioner.

This Court is of the considered view that it is not the case of the

prosecution that on account of the attack made by A-1 to A-3 with

hands and legs on PW.1, he received any contusions, abrasions or

any other wounds. For the purpose of Section 323 IPC, causing

hurt is sufficient. According to Section 319 IPC, whoever causes

bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause

hurt. So, to substantiate voluntarily causing hurt as contemplated

under Section 323 IPC, mere pain suffered by PW.1 is sufficient.

Under the circumstances, simply because there was no medical

evidence, it cannot be held that there was no hurt caused to PW.1.

Viewed from any angle, I am of the considered view that the

judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate was on appreciation of

the evidence in a proper manner by looking into the legal

principles and further such a judgment was confirmed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge on tenable grounds.

22. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view

that the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2002, dated 26.05.2005, dismissing the

Appeal filed by the petitioner, does not suffer with any illegality,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1139/2008

irregularity and impropriety and simply because the petitioner was

working as Village Administrative Officer, he cannot be exonerated

from the offence, when there was a cogent evidence adduced by

the prosecution before the trial Court. Apart from this, the trial

Court, in my considered view, took a lenient view by sentencing

the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- which was confirmed by

the appellate Court. So, the sentence that was imposed against the

present petitioner is not harsh at all. Under the circumstances,

the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

23. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date : 27.09.2022 DSH