Kurella Kamala Kumari vs State Sub Inspector Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2976 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1083 OF 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the

petitioner namely Kurella Kamala Kumari, who was the de-facto

complainant (PW.1) in Sessions Case No.162 of 2008, on the file of

the Court of V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur (for

short, 'the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge'),

challenging the judgment, dated 02.02.2009, wherein the learned

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found the respondent No.2

herein (accused), not guilty of the charges under Sections 323,

506 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC')

and acquitted him under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'). Challenging the same,

she filed this Criminal Revision Case.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

3. Sessions Case No.162 of 2008 arose out of the committal

order in PRC No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV Additional

Munsif Magistrate, Guntur pertaining to Crime No.271 of 2007 of

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

Lalapet Law and Order Police Station, Guntur Town. The State,

represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalapet L&O Police Station

filed the charge sheet in the above said Crime for the offences

under Sections 323, 506 and 354 IPC alleging in substance that

the accused is a resident of Baburajendraprasad Colony,

Sampathnagar, Guntur. LW.1 - Kurella Kamala Kumari is the wife

of the accused. LW.2 - Bellamkonda Savithri, LW.4 - Velimireddy

Srinivasulu and LW.5 - Obulapuram Kumari are the immediate

neighbourers to the house of LW.1 and LW.3 - Shaik Bashi is the

tenant in the house of LW.1. LW.1 and accused are wife and

husband. Disputes arose between them one year back. LW.1

discarded the accused and started living separately. Accused is

living with his another wife. Accused demanded LW.1 to continue

her marital life with him but she refused to oblige him. On

23.09.2007 afternoon, the accused picked up a quarrel with her

and hacked on her head with a kitchen knife and caused injuries,

which was the subject matter in Crime No.260 of 2007 of Lalapet

L&O Police Station for the aforesaid offences. Later, accused was

enlarged on bail in the above said case. So, accused bore grudge

against her. On 05.10.2007 at 10:00 p.m. the accused came to the

house of LW.1 and demanded her to compromise with him in the

earlier criminal case. He threatened her with dire consequences,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

intimidated and beat her with hands, caught hold of her saree and

pulled the same and outraged her modesty. LW.2 to LW.5

witnessed the occurrence. As it was late night, on 06.10.2007 at

08:00 a.m. LW.1 presented a written report to LW.8 - SI of Police,

Lalapet L&O Police Station. He registered the same as a case in

Crime No.271 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 323, 506

and 354 IPC, took up investigation, visited the scene of offence,

prepared observation report, rough sketch and examined the

witnesses. He arrested the accused at 11:00 a.m. on 06.10.2007 at

his house, duly informing his wife about the grounds of his arrest.

He was then brought to the Police Station at 11:10 a.m. and was

handed over to LW.7 - Station Writer. When LW.7 was writing the

arrest card, all of a sudden, the accused ran out and jumped down

from that building and fell down in front of Popular Shoe Mart and

fled away up to Himani Cool Drinks. Police chased him and caught

hold of him. Then, LW.8 forwarded the accused to Government

General Hospital, Guntur as he received injuries while he tried to

abscond. LW.7 - Writer gave a report about the act of the accused

for which a case in Crime No.272 of 2007 for the offence under

Section 224 IPC was registered and investigated into. During the

course of further investigation, LW.8 examined LW.6, LW.7 and

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

the accused, who was forwarded go GGH, Guntur, got admitted as

inpatient in the GGH. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Guntur took

cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences under

Sections 323, 506 and 354 IPC and, after completing necessary

formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the Case to the

Court of Session and thereafter it was numbered as Sessions Case

No.162 of 2008 and it was made over to the Court of V Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur for disposal in accordance with

law.

5. On appearance of the accused before the learned Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, charges under Sections 323, 506 and

354 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained

to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

PWs.1 to PW.8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked.

Accused got marked Exs.D-1 to D-3 during the cross-examination

of PW.1 i.e., the relevant marked portions in the deposition of

PW.1 in S.C. No.95 of 2006. He further got marked Exs.D-4 to D-6

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

i.e., the relevant marked portions in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of

LW.1 and LW.4.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was

subjected to 313 Cr.P.C examination, for which he denied the

incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by

the prosecution and reported no defence evidence.

8. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing

both sides and after considering the oral as well as documentary

evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges

under Sections 323, 506 and 354 IPC and acquitted him under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant/PW.1 filed

the present Criminal Revision Case.

10. Before going to frame the point for consideration, this Court

would like to make it clear that, in view of Section 401(3) Cr.P.C.,

while exercising the power of Revision, this Court cannot convert

an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The law is well

settled to the effect that it is only when the judgment of the trial

Court is perverse and the judgment was delivered ignoring the

evidence on record, this Court has limited power of remanding the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

matter to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh. So,

absolutely, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to show how

the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and as to whether the

judgment was delivered ignoring the evidence on record.

11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the simple

question that falls for consideration is whether the judgment,

dated 02.02.2009, in S.C. No.162 of 2008 of the learned Additional

Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur suffers with any perversity or it

was delivered overlooking and ignoring the evidence on record?

12. POINT: Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would contend that, for obvious reasons, the direct

witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. However,

the solitary evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to prove the guilt against

the accused but the Court below did not appreciate het evidence in

proper perspective and delivered a perverse judgment as such the

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed so as to remand the

matter.

13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the first respondent-

State, submits that appropriate orders may be passed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

14. None appeared for respondent No.2 (accused).

15. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, who is the de-facto

complaint, her evidence is that she knows the accused. On

06.10.2007 at 08:00 a.m., she lodged a report against the

accused, which is Ex.P-1. Prior to that, on 23.09.2007 at 04:00

p.m. accused hacked her with a knife on her forehead, above on

left side and in that connection, Police arrested the accused. So,

again on 05.10.2007 at 10:00 p.m. accused came to her house

and insisted her to withdraw the earlier case with regard to the

incident happened on 23.09.2007 and created havoc. He pulled all

her clothes, abused her, threatened to see that she should not

stay in the said house and abused her in filthy language.

Neighbourers witnessed the incident. On 06.10.2007 at 08:00 p.m.

she went to Lalapet L&O Police Station and lodged the report,

Ex.P-1.

16. Turning to the evidence of PWs.2 and PW.3, the so called

direct witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution.

According to the evidence of PW.2, one year back at about 01:30

p.m., she shifted PW.1 with head injury to Government Hospital,

Guntur. She deposed that she does not know anything about the

facts of this case. She denied that she stated before Police as in

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

Ex.P-2. It is to be noticed that the evidence of PW.2 that one year

back she shifted PW.1 to Hospital has nothing to do with the

incident in question and it relates to the earlier alleged incident.

17. According to PW.3, he has spoken about the earlier incident.

But, insofar as the incident in question is concerned, he deposed

that he does not know anything about the case. During cross-

examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he

denied that he stated as in Ex.P-3. So, it is clear that from the

case of prosecution that PW.2 and PW.3 did not support the case

of the prosecution. So, the evidence of PW.1 had no corroboration.

18. Turning to the evidence of PW.4, he deposed that on

05.10.2007 at 10:00 p.m., accused, his wife and children came to

PW.1's house, raised quarrel with her, as such they intervened

and pacified the matter. On 06.10.2007 Police enquired him and

recorded his statement.

19. Turning to the evidence of PW.5, she did not support the

case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, she denied

that she stated as in Ex.P-4.

20. PW.6 is the Constable who deposed that on 06.10.2007 at

07:00 a.m. PW.1 came to the Police Station and presented a report

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

and thereupon further investigation is taken up. He further has

spoken about the alleged act of the accused in trying to abscond

after he was arrested etc.

21. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, who was the then Head

Constable, his evidence was also relating to the so called act of the

accused in trying to abscond when he was arrested.

22. So the evidence of PWs.6 and PW.7 has nothing to do with

the allegations raised by PW.1 on the date of incident.

23. PW.8, the then SI of Police, has spoken that basing on the

report of PW.1, he registered FIR, took up investigation, prepared

rough sketch by visiting the scene of offence and after his

examination of the witnesses, arrested the accused and

subsequently accused made efforts to abscond and receipt of

injuries by him etc.

24. It is to be noticed that, as evident above, the testimony of

PW.1 has no corroboration from independent sources.

25. So, the next question that falls for consideration is whether

the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur ignored

the evidence on record and delivered the judgment?

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

26. A look at the judgment of the learned Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge goes to reveal that he duly took into consideration

the fact that the direct witnesses to the occurrence did not support

the case of prosecution. He looked into the cross-examination part

of PW.1. Now, as evident from the cross-examination of PW.1, she

deposed that accused was not her husband. There was no

marriage between her and the accused. In fact her marriage was

performed with one Kurella Krishna at Vijayawada. She lived with

her husband Kurella Krishna for one year. Accused and her

husband - Kurella Krishna are relatives (Annadammulu

avutharemo). After deserting her husband, she started living at

Guntur and then she developed acquaintance with the accused

and they used to spend time with each other leisurely. She

admitted that, previously, she filed a case against the present

accused on the allegations of outraging her modesty, which was

subject matter in S.C. No.95 of 2006, which was ended in

acquittal. Through her examination, Exs.D-1 to D-3 are marked,

which are nothing but relevant entries in her deposition, which

contradicts her testimony before the Court below. So, Exs.D-1 to

D-3 means that PW.1 and accused used to reside as wife and

husband. Whatever the reason may be, the fact remained is that

previously also she lodged a report which resulted into filing of

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

S.C. No.95 of 2006 and it was ended in acquittal. So, all this goes

to show that both the accused and PW.1 were on inimical terms.

27. In Ex.P-1, she alleged that accused is her husband. In her

evidence in cross-examination she stated that she did not marry

the accused. So, in Ex.P-1 she did not disclose the real facts.

Already she claimed that accused caused injuries to her on

23.09.2007 in which he was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

The present Sessions Case No.162 of 2008 pertains to the incident

happened after 23.092007. Prior to that accused was prosecuted

on the allegations of outraging the modesty of PW.1 in S.C. No.95

of 2006 and the said case ended in acquittal. So, the facts are

such that the evidence of PW.1 has to be scrutinized with care and

caution. PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination she was residing

separately from that of the accused as on the date of incident.

Apart from this, she admitted in cross-examination that as on the

date of her evidence, accused is having his wife and children. She

admitted that she did not file any suit against the accused for

divorce. So, by virtue of the admission made by her, as on the date

of evidence, accused had a wife and his children. If that be the

case, it is not understandable as to why she could say that

accused is her husband in Ex.P-1.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

28. It is to be noticed that the prosecution did not impeach the

testimony of PW.4. According to him, on 05.10.2007 at 10:00 p.m.

accused, his wife and children came to PW.1's house and they

raised quarrel with her and he intervened and pacified the issue. It

is not the case of the prosecution that PW.4 turned hostile to the

case. So, if the evidence of PW.4 is taken into consideration, it only

means that on 05.10.2007 at 10:00 p.m. accused, his wife and

children came to PW.1 and raised a quarrel, which was pacified by

PW.4. Neither Ex.P-1 nor the evidence of PW.1 discloses that

accused came along with his wife and children. So, the

probabilities are such that on account of a verbal quarrel between

PW.1 on one hand, accused, his wife and children on another

hand, PW.1 twisted the facts and presented Ex.P-1 report. Under

the circumstances the solitary evidence of PW.1, which was not

supported by the independent witnesses, is not liable to be

believed.

29. The learned V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur

rightly looked into the facts and circumstances in proper

perspective and having considered the entire evidence on record,

delivered the judgment with sound reasons. Hence, the judgment

of the learned V Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1083/2009

cannot be said to be perverse or that it was delivered ignoring and

overlooking the evidence on record. Hence, I see no reason to

interfere with the order of acquittal.

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

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

Date :09.05.2023 DSH