Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thupakula Venkata Reddy, vs The Stae Of A.P., Rep By Pp.A, And 14 ... on 17 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1793 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Prosecution
Witness No.1/defacto-complainant in C.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file
of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa (Originally it was on the
file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula), challenging
the judgment, dated 28.07.2008, where under the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, found the accused (A.1 to
A.14) not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted
them under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
("Cr.P.C." for short).
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will
hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for
the sake of the convenience.
3) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station,
filed charge sheet in Crime No.38 of 2003 under Sections 147,
148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for
short), alleging as follows:
(i) A.1 to A.14 are residents of Vempalli Village. A.7 is their
leader. They are supporters of Congress party. The defacto-
complainant-Thupakula Venkata Reddy (L.W.1) is resident of
2
Muthukur village. L.W.2-Thupakula Gangireddy is the brother of
L.W.1. They are the supporters of Telugu Desam Party. There
was political rivalry in the village.
(ii) On 06.07.2003 at 6-00 p.m., A.7 was distributing
kerosene quota in Muthukur village. Both L.W.1 and L.W.2 went
to the house of A.7 and asked him as to why he is distributing last
month quota. Then, A.2 who is the son of A.7 challenged that he
can do whatever he likes. Then, A.7 and A.4 armed with crowbars
and A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.13 armed with stones, formed themselves
into unlawful assembly and came upon L.W.1 and L.W.2. L.W.1
and L.W.2 ran into the house of L.W.6-Kummari Kondaiah due to
fear. All the accused rushed into the house of L.W.6. Then, A.3,
A.2 and A.5 beat L.W.1 with stones and caused bleeding injuries
to his right leg, neck and right hand. When L.W.2 intervened, A.7
beat L.W.2 with a crowbar on his right hand and caused bleeding
injury. A.4 beat L.W.2 with a crowbar on his right leg thrice. A.6
beat L.W.2 with a stone on his head and caused bleeding injury.
When, L.W.3-Peram Chinna Chennareddy, L.W.4-Chanda
Ramulamma and L.W.5-Chanda Venkata Subba Reddy intervened,
A.1 beat L.W.3 with a stone on his head and A.8 and A.9 beat
L.W.3 with sticks and caused injuries. A.10 and A.11 beat L.W.4
with stones and caused injuries on her head and cheeks. A.12
beat L.W.5 with a stone on his head. A.13 and A.14 beat L.W.5
3
with sticks and caused injuries. Thereafter, L.W.1 and L.W.2 went
to Pulivendala and L.W.2 got admitted in Government Hospital.
L.W.7-Badraiah, Head Constable 435, recorded the statement of
L.W.1 in the hospital and sent to Vempalli Police Station on the
point of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station,
registered it as a case in Crime No.38 of 2003 under Section 147,
148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and investigated into. L.W.9-
Medical Officer, examined the injured and opined that the injuries
sustained by them are simple and grievous in nature. Hence, the
charge sheet.
4) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula, took the case on file for the offences under Sections
148, 324, 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and issued summons to the
accused. On their appearance and on complying Section 207 of
Cr.P.C., charge under Section 148 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.14,
charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.2, A.3 and A.5,
charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.4, A.6
to A.14, charge under Section 326 of I.P.C. against A.4, A.6 and
A.7, charge under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1 to
A.3, A.5, A.8 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. against
A.1, A.8 and A.9, charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C.
against A.2 to A.7, A.10 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of
4
I.P.C. against A.10 and A.11, charge under Section 324 r/w 149
of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.9, A.12 to A.14, charge under Section
324 of I.P.C. against A.12, A.13 and A.14, charge under Section
324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.11, were framed and they
were explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. While so, according to the orders of
the Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Dis.No.8353, dated 15.11.2003, as
there was a counter case in S.C.No.160 of 2004, on the file of I
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, the C.C.No.1 of 2004 was
transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
5) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution
before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, P.W.1 to
P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked and on
behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 were marked and further
Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.5 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked.
After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the
incriminating circumstances, for which they denied the same.
They did not let in any evidence.
6) The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, on
hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence, found the accused (A.1 to A.14) not guilty
of the charges and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of
5
Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defacto-complainant
(P.W.1) filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
7) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision case, the point
that arises for consideration is that as to whether the judgment,
dated 28.07.2008 in C.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of I Additional
Sessions Judge, Kadapa, suffers with any illegality, irregularity
and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere
with the said judgment?
POINT:-
8) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri
D. Kodandda Rami Reddy, would contend that the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.4, the injured witnesses, had corroboration from the
medical evidence and the medical officer and there were minor
discrepancies only in the evidence let in and the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, did not believe the evidence
of P.W.1 to P.W.4 without proper reasons and there was
consistency with regard to the manner of attack and the place of
attack and without proper appreciation of the evidence, the
respondent Nos.2 to 15 were acquitted, as such, the Criminal
Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
9) No arguments are advanced on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 to 15.
10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,
representing the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for first
respondent, submits that he is leaving the matter to the
discretion of the Court.
11) As seen from the evidence let in, P.W.1 to P.W.4 are
the injured witnesses. P.W.5 is the medical officer, who examined
P.W.1 to P.W.4 and issued wound certificates. P.W.6 is the
Panchayat Secretary, who was the mahazar witness to the
observation of the scene of offence. P.W.7 is another medical
officer, who examined A.2 with regard to the injuries received by
him. P.W.8 is the Head Constable, who received hospital
intimation from Area Hospital, Pulivendula and recorded the
statement of P.W.1. P.W.9 is the investigating officer.
12) Before going to appreciate the contentions, this Court
would like to make it clear that the defacto-complainant filed this
Criminal Revision Case challenging the judgment of acquittal.
Under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot convert the
order of an acquittal into conviction. It is well settled that in a
Criminal Revision Case filed by the defacto-complainant against
the acquittal, the scope of the Criminal Revision Case is very
limited that is as to whether the judgment of the Court below was
perverse and as to whether the judgment was rendered
overlooking the evidence on record. In such an event only, the
Court has power to remand the matter. Keeping in view, the
evidence is to be appreciated.
13) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness,
on 06.07.2003 at 6-30 p.m., he went to the house of A.7 for
drawing kerosene. A.7 has taken kerosene ration coupons for the
month of June and July and told him that he will give kerosene
quota for only one month against two months. He questioned him
to give two months quota. Meanwhile, A.2, son of A.7 came there.
Meanwhile, his brother (Tupakula Gangireddy) came there. A.4,
A.3, A.5 and A.6 were also there. A.4 and A.7 were holding
crowbars. A.2 holds a stone. A.3 was holding a stone. A.5 and
A.6 were holding stones. They tried to beat him and his brother.
They started running away and entered into the house of
Kummara Kondaiah. A.1 to A.14 entered into that house. A.2
beat him with a stone on his right toe. A.5 beat him with a stone
on the left side of his neck. A.6 beat him on his right upper arm
with a stone. A.7 beat his brother Gangireddy with crowbar on
his right upper arm. A.4 beat his brother Gangireddy with crowbar
on his right leg thrice and his leg was fractured. A.6 beat his
brother Gangireddy on his right side of the head with stone.
Peram Chinna Chennareddy, Chanda Ramulamma and Chanda
Venkata Subbareddy came to their rescue and questioned the
accused. All the accused beat them and went away. Meanwhile,
police jeep came to their village. Police took them to the hospital.
He gave report in Government General Hospital, Pulivendula.
Ex.P.1 is his report.
14) The evidence of P.W.2 on material aspects is that
about four years back, he found the accused beating P.W.1 and
his brother Gangireddy. He questioned them as to why they
beaten them. Then, A.1 beat him with a stick on the right side of
his head and he received bleeding injury. A.9 beat him with a
stick on his left leg. He fell down on the ground. Then A.8 beat
him with a stick on his left toes. His three toes of left leg were
fractured. A.8 and A.9 beat him on his knees and on his buttock.
When his sister Ramulamma questioned, the accused beat her.
Ramulamma fell down.
15) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, about four years
back on one day, at 6-30 p.m., she was in the house. She heard
commotion at the house of A.2. She and her son Venkata Subba
Reddy came out of their house. They went to the house of A.2.
There, they found A.4 and A.5 beating P.W.1 and Thupakula
Gangireddy with crowbar. A.3, A.5, A.2 and A.6 beat P.W.1 with
stones. Tupakula Gangireddy was beaten with stones on the right
side of the head by A.4 and A.7. When Peram Chinna Chenna
Reddy questioned them, A.8, A.9 and A.1 beat P.W.2 with sticks
and stones. When she went to rescue her brother, A.10 beat her
on the right side of her head with stone. A.11 beat her on her
face below right eye. A.13, A.12 and A.14 beat her son
Venkatasubba Reddy when he came to her rescue. After some
time, police came there and shifted them to the hospital.
16) P.W.4 deposed that on 06.07.2003 at 6-30 p.m., they
heard galata at the house of A.7. He and P.W.3 went to the house
of Kummari Kondaiah. A.2, A.5, A.3 and A.6 beat P.W.1 with
stones. A.4 and A.7 beat Tupakula Gangireddy with crowbars and
his right leg and hand were fractured. A.1, A.8 and A.9 beat
P.W.2 when he questioned the accused. A.1 beat P.W.2 with a
stone on his head. A.8 and A.9 beat him with sticks. When P.W.3
went to the rescue of P.W.2, A.10 beat P.W.3 with a stone on her
head. A.11 beat with a stone on her face. A.12 beat him on his
head with a stone. A.13 and A.14 beat him on his back with
sticks. The accused ran away. Police came to the village and took
them to the hospital.
17) P.W.5 is the medical officer, who testified that he
examined P.W.1 and found lacerated injury 2x1x1 c.m. over right
grate toe and tenderness over left neck and right palm. Ex.P.2 is
the wound certificate and the injuries are simple in nature. He
also examined P.W.2 and found the lacerated injury of 12x2x3
c.m. over right parietal area. Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate and
the injury is simple in nature. He also examined P.W.3 and found
lacerated injury of 6x2x1 c.m. over right frontal area and another
lacerated injury of 3x2x2 c.m. over right maxilla. Ex.P.4 is the
wound certificate and the injuries are simple in nature. He
examined P.W.4 and found lacerated injury of 3x2x1 c.m. over
right parietal area. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate and the injury
is simple in nature.
18) During the course of cross examination Ex.X.1, the
accident register, relating to P. Chinna Chenna Reddy is marked.
19) P.W.6 testified about his presence at the time of
observation of the scene of offence.
20) According to P.W.7, another medical officer, on
06.07.2003 at 8-30 p.m., Tupakula Gangireddy (A.2) was brought
to the Government Area Hospital, Pulivendula by his cousin
Venkatareddy. He (P.W.7) examined him and noted down the
injury in the accident register. He (P.W.7) referred him to District
Hospital, Kadapa. Ex.X.3 is the accident register. Ex.X.4 is the
examination of Tupakula Gangireddy. He also examined P.W.1 at
8-30 p.m. Ex.X.5 is the page relating to P.W.1 in Ex.X.3.
21) P.W.8, the Head Constable, spoken that on receiving
hospital intimation, he proceeded to Area Hospital, Pulivendula
and recorded Ex.P.1 statement from P.W.1. P.W.9 is the
investigating officer.
22) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 during the cross
examination, he denied that he did not state in Ex.P.1 and in his
Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that A.7 took ration coupons for
the month of June and July and told him that he will give
kerosene quota for one month only. He denied a suggestion that
he did not state in Ex.P.1 and in his Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement that he asked A.7 to give two months quota and that in
the meanwhile, A.2 came there, etc. He further denied that he
did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.4, A.7, A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6 were
holding crowbars and stones respectively and that he did not
state about the presence of A.6, A.8 and A.14. He denied that he
stated as in Ex.D.1. He further denied that he did not state in
Ex.P.1 and in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he along with
his brother were shifted to Government Hospital, Pulivendula. He
admitted that he, his brother Gangireddy are the accused in
S.C.No.160 of 2004 along with 12 others. Tupakula Pedda
Ramireddy and Tupakula Bala Gangireddy i.e., A.7 and A.9 are
the accused in S.C.No.160 of 2004. He denied that on that day
they beat and caused injuries to A.7 and A.9 and that Tupakula
Eswara Rao died on account of injuries.
23) During the cross examination of P.W.2, he denied that
he did not state in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that A.8 and
A.9 beat him with sticks on his knee and buttock and A.8 beat
him with stick on his left toes and his left three big toes were
fractured and that A.9 beat him with stick on his right leg. He
does not know whether A.7 and A.9 received injuries on the date
of incident. He denied that the accused did not beat him and
other witnesses. P.W.3 during cross examination denied that she
did not state in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that she was
beaten on right side of her head. She denied that the accused did
not beat her and others. P.W.4 during cross examination denied
that he did not state in his Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement
before the police that police came to the village and shifted them
to the hospital. He denied that the accused did not beat him and
others and they did not cause any injuries.
24) Now, it is pertinent to look into the evidence of P.W.8,
who recorded the statement of P.W.1. He deposed in cross
examination that P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 did not state about the presence
and participation of A.6, A.8 to A.14. He did not state that he
asked A.7 to give two months quota and that in the meanwhile,
A.2 came there. He did not state in Ex.P.1 that Peram Chinna
Chennareddy, Chanda Ramulamma and Chanda Venkata Subba
Reddy came to their rescue.
25) Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, the investigating
officer, the defence counsel confronted with him as regards the
omissions that were suggested to P.W.1 to P.W.4 and during
cross examination, P.W.9 deposed that P.W.1 did not state before
him and in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that A.7 took their
coupons for the month of June and July and told him that he will
give kerosene quota for one month only and that P.W.1 asked A.7
to give two months quota and that in the meanwhile, A.2 came
there and that police jeep came to the village. He further deposed
in cross examination that P.W.1 did not state in his statement
about the presence of A.6, A.8 to A.14 in the incident. He stated
before him as in Ex.D.1 to the effect that he along with his
brother went to Pulivendula hospital. P.W.2 did not state before
him that A.8 and A.9 beat him with sticks on his knee and buttock
and A.8 beat him with a stick on his left toe and his three big toes
were fractured and that A.9 beat him with a stick on his right leg
and that police took him and other injured to Vempalli Hospital.
With regard to the omissions of P.W.3, he deposed that P.W.3 did
not state in her statement that she was beaten on the right side
of her head and that police came to the village and took them to
the hospital. He further deposed in cross examination that P.W.4
did not state before him that police came to the village and
shifted them to Vempalli Hospital in a jeep. P.W.4 stated as in
Ex.D.2 that P.W.1 and Tupakula Gangireddy went to Pulivendula
Hospital for treatment.
26) As evident from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the
defence counsel suggested some omissions and contradictions
before them which are proved from the mouth of P.W.8-Head
Constable and P.W.9-investigating officer respectively. The
contention of the revision petitioner that the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.4 was consistent as regards the manner of attack and that
there were no omissions or contradictions is not tenable. It is
shrouded mystery as to how the police would come to the village
on their own. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 negatives the evidence adduced
by the prosecution that police came to the village and shifted the
injured to the hospital. If Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are considered,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the hospital on their own.
27) It is to be noticed that there is no dispute about the
counter case where one person by name Tupakula Eswara Reddy
was said to be murdered. During cross examination P.W.9
deposed that he registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2003 at 9-30
p.m., basing on the report of A.9 in this case. Ex.D.3 is the
certified copy of the FIR pertaining to Crime No.37 of 2003. He
obtained wound certificates of A.7 and A.9 during investigation.
He also obtained postmortem certificate of the deceased Eswara
Reddy in Crime No.37 of 2003. Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.6 are the certified
copies of wound certificates of A.7, A.9 and Eswara Reddy.
Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of the postmortem report. Ex.D.8 is
the certified copy of the inquest report. Hence, it is clear that
there was a counter case in Crime No.37 of 2003 with allegations
of murder and accused are able to elicit from the mouth of P.W.9
that A.7 and A.9 received injuries and one person by name
Eswara Reddy died.
28) Therefore, the prosecution before the Court below was
bound to explain as to how A.7 and A.9 received injuries at the
time of offence and on the date of incident. According to the
allegations in Crime No.37 of 2003, the complainant party
attacked the defacto-complainant therein and caused injuries to
A.7 and A.8 and further there was death of one Eswara Reddy.
So, it is a case even the prosecution did not explain as to how A.7
and A.9 herein received injuries.
29) As seen from the judgment of the learned I Additional
Sessions Judge, Kadapa, he analysed the evidence of injured
witnesses and found that there were material omissions and
contradictions. It is apparent from the evidence available that A.7
and A.9 also received injuries on the date of incident at the time
of offence which the prosecution failed to explain. Under the
circumstances, it cannot be held that the judgment of the learned
I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is perverse. Having
considered the entire evidence on record, the learned I Additional
Sessions Judge, Kadapa, did not believe the case of the
prosecution.
30) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the
judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
Hence, I see no reason to remand the matter to the trial Court.
31) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Dt. 17.03.2023.
PGR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1793 OF 2008
Date: 17.03.2023
PGR
