Vadde Sowri Raju, vs State Of A.P.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 642 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.586 of 2006

ORDER:

On 22.09.2000 this revision petitioner along with one of

his associates, after due trial before learned Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Guntur were convicted of attempted

murder/Section 307 I.P.C. in S.C.No.644 of 1998. This revision

petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

seven years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a

default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. His

appeal against it was given due hearing by learned VII

Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur and by a judgment dated

29.04.2005 in Crl.A.No.397 of 2002 the learned appellate Court

found no merit in the appeal and it agreed with the findings and

conclusions and sentence arrived at by the trial Court and

confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the

appeal. It is in challenge to it, this revision is filed under

Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the correctness and

legality of findings and sentence of the Courts below.

2. Learned counsel, in defence of the revision petitioner,

argued that the judgments impugned were products of premises

and surmises and they failed to appreciate evidence in proper

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

perspective. That the dispute was between the victim and A.1

(not a party to this revision) and the present revision

petitioner/A.2 did not have any common intention along with

A.1. Evidence concerning scene of offence and the evidence of

other witnesses had no corroboration. Benefit of doubt ought to

have been given to the revision petitioner. The sentence

inflicted is excessive. On these premises, learned counsel prays

this Court to upset the impugned judgments and acquit the

revision petitioner.

3. In the Courts below it was a case on police report and the

State is the respondent here and in prosecution of the

respondent's endeavour, learned Special Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that the evidence on record had fully

demonstrated the culpability of this revision petitioner and his

associate and the evidence of the victim, who luckily survived

the attack, found full corroboration from the direct eye

witnesses and the medical evidence and both the Courts below

appropriately appreciated the evidence and reached to correct

conclusions and inflicted penalty that is proportionate and

submits that there could be no justification to interfere with the

well reasoned decisions of the Courts below.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

4. In the light of the arguments advanced on both sides in

this revision, the following points fall for consideration:

1. Whether evidence on record did not point out the guilt of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt and the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence? and

2. Whether the impugned judgments suffer from illegality or irregularity or impropriety warranting interference?

5. Point Nos.1 and 2:

Prosecution was on a police report filed against three

accused arrayed as A.1, A.2 and A.3. Even before the

commencement of trial, A.1 died and the case stood abated

against him on 09.08.1999. The essential allegations on which

case was taken to Court was that between the victim/PW.1 and

one Mr. M.Raju there was a bargain for sale of a pan shop. The

said Sri M.Raju happened to be brother-in-law of A.1. That

particular transaction was disliked by A.1 and that resulted in a

heated debate between A.1 and PW.1 during noon time of

18.06.1997. These facts and circumstances, according to

prosecution formed the motive for the offence.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

6. After that heated debate during after noon it was during

evening hours at about 6:00 P.M. on 18.06.1997 A.1 along with

A.2 and A.3 found the victim near a tea stall at 4 th line of

Bongaralabeedu, Guntur. All the accused accosted him and by

then they were wielding coconut cutting knives and they

attacked him. A.2 with an intention to hack the victim to death

threw a blow with his coconut cutting knife and when the victim

warded it off, he sustained an injury on his hand and the victim

started running away and all the three accused chased him and

inflicted blows causing injuries on his neck back and other

parts of the body and they further chased him and nearer the

house of one Mr. Cheedarla Nagaiah they were able to catch him

once again and inflicted serious blows on his body. He suffered

serious bleeding injuries. Victim's brother-PW.2 and others

reached the spot and on seeing such group of people, the

accused took to heels. Overt acts were alleged as against all the

three accused. Specific overt acts were attributed to each of the

accused. Prosecution submitted that the actual commission of

offence of this attempted murder was witnessed by several

witnesses.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

7. Victim's brother took the victim to Government Hospital.

It seems that considering the seriousness of injuries sustained

by the victim, the hospital authorities notified the fact to the

jurisdictional Magistrate and the jurisdictional Magistrate

recorded his dying declaration. Police reached the hospital and

obtained a copy of the dying declaration-Ex.P.1. Based on that

they registered F.I.R. by 8:20 P.M. on the same day. F.I.R. that

was dispatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate was received by

the learned Magistrate by 10:15 A.M. At the hospital the

doctor-PW.9 examined the victim and noticed as many as 13

injuries and issued Ex.P.7-wound certificate and the injuries

were found to be fresh. Following were the injuries recorded by

the medical man:

1) Bleeding incised injury extending lower third of fore arm with amputation of left thumb and tip of the ring finger exposing muscles and tendons 15 c.ms x 4 c.ms.

2) Horizontal incised injury spindle shaped, bleeding, 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep on the left shoulder.

3) A spindle shaped bleeding incised wound 5 x 3 c.m. muscle deep present on the left shoulder. 1 inch back to the second injury.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

4) Two incised injuries obliquely present on the left lateral side of the neck, bleeding 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. depth not probed.

5) Two incised injuries obliquely present on the left side of the neck extending anterior side of neck 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. bleeding present.

6) X shaped incised injury on the anterior chest red in colour 10 x 1/2 c.m.s skin deep.

7) 5 incised injuries of 1 c.m. skin deep red in colour present on the anterior chest wall.

8) 1/2 x 1/2 c.m. skin deep red on left lateral chest wall incised wound.

9) 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. muscle deep incised injury spindle shaped bleeding on the upper aspect of right shoulder.

10) 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. incised injury on the right shoulder 1 inch lateral to the 9th injury red in colour.

11) Two spindle shaped incised injuries bleeding 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. muscle deep present on right palm exposing bones tendons and muscles.

12) Incised injury 2 c.ms. x 1/2 c.m. skin deep over the root of the right index finger red in colour.

13) 4 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. incised injuries skin deep present on the right side of the neck red in colour.

He found some of those injuries as grievous and some of them

as simple. The investigating police verified the scene of offence

and prepared rough sketch of it and picked up blood stained

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

earth from the scene of offence indicating that offence was

committed there. After all the accused surrendered before the

learned Magistrate, the investigating agency obtained police

custody of them and thereafter on the confession allegedly made

by the accused the three coconut knives/M.Os.1 to 3 were

recovered at their behest based on their statements when these

weapons were lying in bushes nearer the scene of offence.

Statements of witnesses were recorded. At the scene of offence

investigating agency recovered M.O.5-chappals belonging to the

victim and they also seized M.O.6-cycle belonging to A.3. They

recovered from the victim's blood stained shirt/M.O.7. On due

completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173

Cr.P.C. was filed before learned V Additional Munsif Magistrate,

Guntur. After securing the presence of the accused complying

with the mandate under Section 207 Cr.P.C., copies of

documents on which the prosecution was relying upon were

furnished to the accused. The learned Magistrate after hearing

the submissions on both sides and on considering the material

on record in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to

Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, for

purpose of trial, assigned the matter to learned Additional

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. Record discloses that the

accused were defended by their own learned counsel at every

stage of the case. Based on the material available on record and

considering the submissions made by both sides, the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 307

I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to the accused

in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and therefore, further trial

was taken up by the trial Court. Prosecution examined PWs.1

to 10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.Os.1 to 7. The

incriminating material available on record was offered to the

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their response was a

mere denial. Defence did not adduce any evidence on its behalf.

While cross-examining prosecution witnesses defence got

marked Exs.D.1 to D.4 with a view to impeach the credibility of

three witnesses.

8. On considering the evidence on record and the arguments

on both sides, learned trial Court found A.2/this revision

petitioner and A.3 guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

and convicted them and sentenced them accordingly.

9. Thereafter the appeal of A.2 before the learned VII

Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur was duly heard and the

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

learned Judge dismissed the appeal as in his opinion there was

no merit in the appeal.

10. Doing an act with the intention or knowledge that the act

may cause death and still doing acts towards it is what is called

an attempted murder as defined in Section 307 I.P.C. When an

injury is there on human body inflicted by another human, law

intends to know whether the assailant's intention was merely to

cause hurt or it was to remove the life of the victim. Intention

being a mental element no one knows what was there inside the

mind of the assailant. However, from the available physical

facts intention has to be gathered. The guiding factors in that

regard consists of, actual injuries inflicted and their severity

and the nature of the weapon used and the seat of the injuries

and such other surrounding circumstances. Both the Courts

below believed the evidence and had concluded that the accused

had requisite intention to commit murder and in pursuance of

that intention he inflicted injuries and he had full capacity to

appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. It is on that

premise they found him guilty. Since both the Courts below

believed the evidence and reached to similar conclusions, the

guiding factors for this Court to consider a revision against such

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

decisions of the Courts below are slightly different from the

powers of this Court while dealing with an appeal. The essential

parameters for this Court are to see whether the trial Court or

the first appellate Court shut out any evidence which was

sought to be produced, whether any admissible evidence was

brushed aside, whether available material evidence was over

looked, whether they went on to decide the cases without

holding requisite jurisdiction, whether failed to comply with

principles of fair trial. On noticing any such lapses, the power

to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction arises. The

notion of law is that process and scrupulous compliance with

process would lead to justice and any failure in the process

would lead to miscarriage of justice. It is on these principles

this revision has to be considered.

11. In response to the allegations of the prosecution and

when the charge was read out in terms of Section 228(2) of Code

of Criminal Procedure, defence did not offer any facts and did

not raise any specific line of defence. The same stand continued

during Section 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings when the revision

petitioner was confronted with the sworn evidence of material

witnesses and other material circumstances which incriminated

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

him. He did not offer any explanations, did not raise any

specific line of defence and he simply stated that what was

deposed by witnesses was not correct. During the hearing of

this revision also, no particular defence was argued for the

revision petitioner. Thus, the trial, the appeal and this revision

are to decide as to whether the evidence available is believable

and whether evidence indicated existence of all the constituting

elements of offence for which the accused was tried. Both

Courts below presumed the innocence of accused and placed

the burden of proof on prosecution.

12. The victim in this case survived the attack and was able

to swear before the Court and deposed as PW.1. He gave his

account of the facts at the trial. All his statements tallied with

his earlier statement made by him in the hospital before the

learned Magistrate based on which statement F.I.R. was

registered. His evidence as to his injuries on his body was fully

endorsed in Ex.P.7-wound certificate and through the sworn

evidence of the doctor/PW.9 that stood corroborated. The

incident was found proved by the Courts below not only based

on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.9 and both the Courts below

observed that M.Os.1 to 3 are the coconut cutting knives, which

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

were stated to have been used in this crime, were recovered by

way of discovery made in pursuance of confessional statements

of accused. In the evidence of investigating officer/PW.10 and

Ex.P.10-rough sketch and from the evidence of panch

witness/PW.4, the Courts below found existence of blood at the

scene of offence. At the trial the presence of accused at the

scene of offence was believed by the Courts below as PWs.2, 5

and 7 gave evidence that they saw the accused and they saw the

victim and they saw the accused with weapons and saw the

accused inflicting severe blows on the body of PW.1 and that

PW.1 was seen running away from the spot and being chased by

these accused and PW.1 fell on ground on two occasions and

once again raising and running away and the accused

relentlessly pursuing him and causing injuries on the body of

PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 and these supporting witnesses

indicated to the Courts below that at one occasion when the

victim fell down these accused kicked him, rolled him further

and beat him indiscriminately. The age of the wound as per the

medical evidence tallied with the time of sustaining injuries

spoken to by these witnesses and the evidence of witnesses

indicated that coconut cutting knives were used and the

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

medical expert found the injuries on the body of PW.1 could

have been inflicted with such sharp weapons. Courts below

recorded that the doctor/PW.9, in categorical terms stated that

had the injuries not been treated, those injuries had propensity

to kill the victim. It was on such evidence of the victim and

others, the Courts below concluded the culpability of this

revision petitioner.

13. Having gone through the entire material on record, this

Court does not find any omission to consider the available

evidence and does not find any fact being recorded based on

material that was never produced before the Court as the victim

and four other witnesses spoke about the occurrence of the

incident and any defence contention against such evidence

being not considered by the Courts below.

14. The submission of the learned counsel for revision

petitioner turns on the appreciation of evidence and it has not

pointed out any procedural pit falls or violation of any norms

concerning evidence. One submission of the learned counsel for

revision petitioner is that this revision petitioner had no

disputes with PW.1/victim and all the disputes were there

between PW.1 and A.1. On this submission, it has to be stated

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

that the allegation of prosecution and the evidence produced by

the prosecution before the trial Court indicted that though it

was A.1 who had trouble with PW.1, it is not A.1 alone who

reached to the victim, but A.1 reached to the victim along with

revision petitioner and other persons and they followed him

wielding coconut knives. The evidence on record fully

established possession of coconut knives by the accused at the

time of offence. One who did not possess any criminal

intention, would not have gone along with A.1 that too holding a

coconut knife in hand. Therefore, shared intention was

manifested by this revision petitioner. Even otherwise, for the

injuries he inflicted with the kind of weapon at such places on

the body of PW.1 independently established his guilt for the

offence under Section 307 I.P.C. As per the evidence of PW.1,

twice on his neck this revision petitioner inflicted injuries. The

medical record and the evidence of PW.1 showed that the victim

lost his thumb, sustained injuries on the neck, back of the

chest and other parts of the body. Neck, back of the chest are

vital parts, even according to the medical evidence and they

indicated what the revision petitioner intended to do to PW.1.

Therefore, absence of any prior dispute for this revision

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

petitioner with PW.1 is absolutely no ground to disbelieve the

evidence. Moreover when there is direct evidence, absence of

motive or failure to prove motive or proof of weak motive makes

no difference. The other submission of the learned counsel for

revision petitioner is that there are discrepancies and

contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and the evidence

concerning scene of offence was not fully established and

therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to accused. From

the established evidence, the defence must be in a position to

show possible doubt that could be felt. It is only then benefit of

such doubt would go to the citizen. The argument submitted

relates to post event evidence with reference to the collection of

evidence at the scene of offence. When there is substantive

substantial evidence indicating his attack on PW.1 is clearly

available on record, even if there is some lapse in the evidence

of other witnesses concerning verification of scene of offence,

the conclusions cannot suffer a dent. Independent of it, when

this Court has looked into the judgments of the Courts below,

what this revision petitioner was arguing before the Courts

below was only this. According to prosecution, the crime

started nearer the tea stall and the man of the tea stall did not

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

testify. During the chase when the victim reached the place

nearer the house of Sri Cheedarla Nagaiah prosecution had to

examine the said Cheedarla Nagaiah but it failed. Courts below

considered these contentions and stated that it was not the

evidence of PW.1 or other witnesses that Sri Cheedarla Nagaiah

or the man in the tea stall witnessed the offence. Thus, two

persons, who never witnessed the offence, were not examined by

the prosecution. One who witnessed the offence was a

necessary witness and all the necessary witnesses were

examined. If defence still believed that those two witnesses

could have brought to light facts which could exonerate the

accused it was well within the competence of the defence to

have those witnesses examined utilising process of the Court,

which the revision petitioner did not adopt to. Harping on non-

examination of persons, who never witnessed the offence, is a

frivolous contention which the revision petitioner has adopted

here. Courts below analysed Exs.D.1 to D.4 and found that no

single material contradiction or any contradiction was pointed

out in the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.D.3 and D.4 had absolutely

no strength to discard the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 respectively.

This Court finds no wrong in the approach of the Courts below.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

This Court finds no reason to disagree with any of the findings

and conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below and finds

no merit in any of the submissions made by the revision

petitioner.

15. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that for a

period beyond two years the revision petitioner underwent

sentence and this Court may reduce the sentence to the extent

of sentence he already underwent.

16. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed it stating that the

offence is heinous. On considering these rival submissions, this

Court has to state that a sentence shall always reflect the

seriousness of the offence and protect the public. Section 307

I.P.C. provides that if hurt is caused one of the punishments

prescribed is imprisonment for life. In the case at hand, serious

hurt was caused to victim. Courts below sentenced him to

seven years imprisonment. In terms of proportionality of

sentence when this Court considered the matter, the gravity of

the offence, the nature of the weapons used and the manner in

which the offence was committed it finds that the sentence

inflicted by both the Courts below is in accordance with law.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

With these reasons, all the points are answered against the

revision petitioner.

17. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Revision petitioner/A.2-Vadde Sowri Raju shall surrender before

the trial Court and submit himself on or before 14.02.2023,

failing which the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Guntur shall take coercive process to him and secure his

presence for execution of punishment.

18. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment

along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on

or before 09.02.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before

the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary

instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 07.02.2023 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.586 of 2006

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.586 of 2006

Date: 07.02.2023

Ivd