Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Madipalli Venkata Rao Konda vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 March, 2024

APHC010195912010
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                           PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
                                                             3364
                        FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH
                       TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                            PRESENT


   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 96 OF 2010

Between:

Madipalli Venkata Rao @ Konda, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 36
years, Kasipadu Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari
District.

                                                   ...PETITIONER
                               AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

                                                 ...RESPONDENT
The Court made the following:

O R D E R:

Challenge in this Criminal Revision Case is to the judgment,

dated 07.07.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006, on the file of I

Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru ("Additional

Sessions Judge" for short), whereunder the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the

conviction and sentence under Sections 451, 307 and 393 of the

Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) is concerned and set aside the

conviction recorded by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge, Eluru for the offence under Section 387 of IPC.

2) The present petitioner is the unsuccessful accused in

Sessions Case No.167 of 2003, on the file of Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Eluru and unsuccessful appellant as above in

Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006, on the file of Additional Sessions

Judge.

3) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for

the sake of convenience.

4) The Sessions Case No.167 of 2003 arose out of a

committal order in P.R.C.No.46 of 2002, on the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru.

5) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution according

to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru I

Town L&O Police Station in Crime No.15 of 2002 of Eluru I Town

L&O Police Station is that the accused is resident of Kasipadu

Village of Ganapavaram Mandal. In the year, 1995 he involved in a

criminal case vide Crime No.93 of 1995 under Sections 452, 307

r/w 34 of IPC of Ganapavaram Police Station. The learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, convicted the accused

for a period of one year in Sessions Case No.117 of 1996 on

12.03.1998. On the advice of his counsel at Tadepalligudem,

accused approached L.W.2-Kanala Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate of

Eluru, so as to prefer appeal in the Sessions Court at Eluru. So, in

that process, the accused used to visit the house of L.W.2 bearing

Door No.7A-8-53 frequently. In the house of L.W.2, ground floor

was occupied by Sri Vasavi Silk House and staircase on its

northern side portion was occupied by L.W.1-Kanala Rajya

Lakshmi, wife of L.W.2 and southern side portion was occupied by

L.W.3-Kanala China Maddeswara Rao and L.W.4-Kanala

Ranganayakamma, who are the brother-in-law and co-daughter in-

law of L.W.1. Since last three years during the appeal the accused

used to visit the house of L.W.1 and L.W.2 for about 15 to 20

times. Finally, the Criminal Case in which the accused involved and

convicted was ended with an acquittal by the appellate Court as

the appellate Court allowed the Criminal Appeal three months prior

to the incident. The accused was advised by L.W.2 that he would

get the judgment papers from his house. Accordingly, the accused

visited Eluru on 18.02.2002 and came to the house of L.W.2 at

about 1-30 p.m., knowing well that by then L.W.2 was not

available in the house. He pressed the calling bell from the ground

floor. Then L.W.1 came down and informed that L.W.2 was not

available. Accused requested her to give some water for drinking.

Then she opened the gate and went to staircase for fetching water

to the accused. Then the accused approached behind her and

suddenly threatened and demanded her where she kept money

and gold jewelry. She felt afraid of the accused and she raised

alarm. Then the accused pounced upon her, pressed her neck

preventing her from raising cries and caused scratches over the

neck and attempted to kill her so as to commit theft of gold

nanutradu and black beads chain from the neck of L.W.1. During

course of struggle, she fell on ground. The black beads chain was

delinked and the bangles of L.W.1 were also broken and scattered

in the hall. On hearing the cries of L.W.1, L.W.3-Kanala China

Maddeswara Rao and L.W.4-Kanala Ranganayakamma, who were

residing in the southern side portion, came there and witnessed

the incident. Then they raised hue and cry and on hearing the cries

from the house of L.W.1, the neighbourers i.e., L.W.5-Janyavula

Venkata Satyanarayana, L.W.6-Janyavula Naga Satya Saibabu,

L.W.7-Basava Malleswara Rao and L.W.8-Kanala Maddeswara Rao

came and rescued L.W.1 from the hands of accused. During the

rescue operation, L.W.5 to L.W.8 came and separated the accused

when he caught hold of the neck of L.W.1 and he was thrown to a

wall, as such, the accused sustained a small injury on the back of

his head. The accused was brought to Eluru I Town Police Station

by L.W.5 to L.W.7 and on knowing the incident, L.W.2, the

husband of L.W.1, came to the police station. Then L.W.1

presented a report. L.W.12-Md. Liyaquat Ali, Asst. Sub-Inspector,

Eluru I Town Police Station, registered the report as a case in

Crime No.15 of 2002 under Sections 448, 307, 380 r/w 511 of IPC

at 3-00 p.m., on 18.02.2002 and investigated into. During the

course of investigation, L.W.12 seized the delinked gold black

beads chain when it was produced by L.W.1. L.W.12 forwarded

L.W.1 to the medical officer for necessary medical aid and for

noting the injuries on the person caused by the accused. He visited

the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of L.W.9-

Patchipulusu Sujan and L.W.10-Tallapragada Nagendra Prasad,

mahazar witnesses and seized the broken glass bangles from the

hall under the cover of mahazarnama. He prepared rough sketch

of the scene of offence. He also sent the injured-accused to the

Government Hospital, Eluru for treatment to his head injury which

was caused during separation from L.W.1. The accused was

arrested on 18.02.2002 and he was sent for remand. L.W.13-M.

Venkateswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, took up investigation

from L.W.12. He obtained the wound certificate of L.W.1 from

L.W.11-Dr. T. Rama Mohana Rao, medical officer, who opined that

the injuries sustained by L.W.1 are simple in nature. After

completion of investigation, L.W.13 filed the charge sheet.

6) The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Eluru, took cognizance under Sections 451, 307, 387 and

393 of IPC and numbered it as a PRC and after complying the

provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

("Cr.P.C." for short) and exercising the power under Section 209 of

Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of

Sessions after numbering the case as Sessions Case No.167 of

2003 made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru,

for disposal in accordance with law.

7) On appearance of the accused before the learned

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, charges under Sections 451,

307, 387 and 393 of IPC were framed and explained to the

accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

8) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.O.1

and M.O.2 were marked. After closure of the evidence of

prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

with reference to the criminating circumstances appearing in the

evidence let in by the prosecution for which he denied the same

and stated that he has no defence witnesses. The accused put

forth a version in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination which will be

discussed hereinafter.

9) The Principal Assistant Sessions Judge on hearing both

sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence,

found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 451, 307,

387 and 393 of IPC, convicted him under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence,

sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and

to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for

one month for the offence under Section 451 of IPC; to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in

default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the

offence under Section 307 of IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for five years and to pay fine of Rs.250/- in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 387 of

IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay

fine of Rs.250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one

month for the offence under Section 393 of IPC. They shall run

concurrently.

10) Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and

sentence, the unsuccessful accused filed Criminal Appeal No.60 of

2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the

Additional Sessions Judge allowed the Criminal Appeal insofar as

conviction and sentence under Section 387 of IPC is concerned and

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed insofar as Sections

451, 307 and 393 of IPC is concerned. Felt aggrieved of the same,

the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision

Case, challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions

Judge in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2009.

11) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case,

the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment,

dated 07.07.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006, on the file

learned Additional Sessions Judge is sustainable in law and facts in

terms of legality, regularity or propriety and whether there are any

grounds to interfere with the same?

Point:-

12) Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner, who was a client

of P.W.2, was made a scapegoat in a case of false implication. The

petitioner was due of fee payable by him to P.W.2 as P.W.2

defended him in a Criminal Appeal. On a fateful day when the

accused approached P.W.2 at his house, there was a quarrel with

regard to fee for which the accused offered Rs.3,000/- instead of

Rs.10,000/- and then P.W.1 and P.W.2 beat him and caused

injuries and anticipating a report from the accused, they implicated

the accused by lodging Ex.P.1. Police were pressurized by P.W.2 to

implicate the accused. The injuries on the person of the accused

were also noted by the medical officer. Both the Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge as well as Additional Sessions Judge did not

appreciate the facts in a proper perspective. The accused put forth

a detailed version in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination which was

not considered properly. The evidence adduced by the prosecution

suffers with any amount of infirmities and a petty quarrel with

regard to the fee between a client and Advocate was magnified as

a case of attempt of murder, robbery and house trespass. He

would submit that in accordance with the evidence of medical

officer, he noted injuries on the person of accused. P.W.1 and

P.W.2 were wife and husband and P.W.3 was also brother of

P.W.2, who was interested in the case of the prosecution and

P.W.4 and P.W.5, the so-called neighbourers, were adjacent to the

house of P.W.2 who were subjected to influenced by him, as such,

they gave false evidence. The learned counsel would further

submit that at any rate, the evidence on record does not warrants

the conviction for the charges that were held to be proved, as

such, at best the allegations would only attract the ingredients of

Section 323 of IPC and the Court may allow the Criminal Revision

Case accordingly.

13) Smt. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that

both the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge as well as

learned Additional Sessions Judge on thorough appreciation of the

evidence on record rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.

The accused had no business to go to the house of P.W.2 when he

was not available physically and by then when he was available at

the Court. There was no need for P.W.1 and P.W.2 to implicate the

accused falsely. The injuries received by P.W.1 on her neck were

proved by medical evidence. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were not relatives of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were immediate neighbours, as such,

having heard the cries of P.W.1, they rushed there. P.W.4 and

P.W.5 were not interested in the case of the prosecution. The

evidence on record warrants the conviction for which the accused

was convicted and absolutely there are no merits in the Criminal

Revision Case, as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

14) P.W.1 was the victim. P.W.2 was the husband of P.W.1

and he was an Advocate by profession. P.W.3 was a direct witness

to the occurrence. P.W.4 was a neighbourer who claimed that he

witnessed the occurrence. P.W.5 was also a neighbourer, who

witnessed the occurrence. P.W.6 was medical officer, who

examined the victim and issued wound certificate and he was also

the person who examined the accused with regard to the injuries

on his person. P.W.7 was the mediator to the observation of the

scene of offence by the police. P.W.8 was the Sub-Inspector of

Police, who verified the investigation done by L.W.12-Md. Liyaquat

Ali, Asst. Sub-Inspector and gave evidence.

15) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 on material aspects,

her evidence is that her husband is an Advocate in Eluru. Accused

used to visit their house to consult her husband on his case

purpose. On 18.02.2002 after her husband went to Court, she was

alone present in the house. At 1-30 p.m., accused came and

pressed the calling bell from the ground floor. On hearing the

calling bell, she came down and informed to the accused that her

husband is not available in the house. Then the accused requested

her to give drinking water. She opened the gate. Accused came

behind her and entered into the house and threatened and

demanded her to give money and jewelry. When she questioned

him as to who are you to demand money and jewelry, accused

threatened her that he would take away money and jewelry even

by killing her. The accused pressed her neck and prevented her

from crying. She escaped from the hands of the accused and

raised cries. He pushed her down and snatched her black beads

chain forcibly and pressed her neck. Then she released herself

from the hands of the accused and raised cries. During the

struggle, her bangles were broken and black beads chain was also

delinked. On hearing her cries, L.W.3 and his wife L.W.4 who were

residing in their side portion came there. Even by then also

accused was twisting her neck. On seeing the same, L.W.3 and

L.W.4 raised cries. On hearing their cries, L.W.5, L.W.6,

Malleswara Rao, L.W.9 and some others rushed there and caught

hold of the accused. Accused tried to escape but the other persons

caught hold the accused and took him to the police station. Then

she and L.W.3 went to the police station and she gave report to

the police. They handed over the accused to the police. Ex.P.1 is

her report. During struggle at the time of incident, the scratches

are caused to her neck and she also sustained invisible injuries to

right thumb, left hand and blood also clotted at her left hand and

bleeding came out from her nose. She identified her black beads

chain and bangle pieces. M.O.1 is black beads chain and M.O.2 is

broken bangle pieces.

16) Turning to the evidence of P.W.2, the husband of

P.W.1, he deposed that previously the accused was convicted for

one year in Sessions Case No.117 of 1996 by the Assistant

Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem. As per the advice of his

Advocate, the accused approached him to prefer appeal against

the conviction in the District Court. Subsequently, in the year 2001

the accused was acquitted and the appeal was allowed. The

accused came to his house during the pendency of the appeal in

20 occasions. On 18.02.2002 he (P.W.2) came to the Court. At

about 2-15 p.m., he received a phone call from his house and from

some neighbourer shop owners informed about the incident. Then

he rushed to I Town Police Station, Eluru, at about 2-30 p.m. or

3-00 p.m. In the police Station, his wife, his brother, his sister-in-

law and his neighbours and accused were present. He asked P.W.1

as to what happened. Then she revealed as to what happened in

the house in the hands of the accused. After she narrated her

version in detail, he found scratches around the neck of P.W.1 and

also injuries on her right thumb, left hand and found blood coming

from the nose. Then police referred P.W.1 to the government

hospital. M.O.1 is the black beads chain belongs to his wife. M.O.2

is bangle pieces. Accused entered into the house in his absence

with an intention to kill his wife and take the cash and gold.

17) P.W.3, the brother of P.W.2, deposed that on

18.02.2002 at 1-30 p.m., while he was in his house, he heard cries

of P.W.1 from their portion. Then he and his wife rushed there.

By the time they reached there, accused was throttling P.W.1. On

seeing them, they raised cries and tried to save P.W.1 from the

hands of the accused. Meanwhile, L.W.5, L.W.6 and their clerk

Malleswara Rao, L.W.9 came there. Then the accused tried to

escape, but they caught hold of the accused. When the accused

tried to push them, he (accused) fell down and sustained injuries

to his head. Thereafter, they took him to the police station and

handed over to the police. P.W.1 sustained scratch around the

neck and injuries on her left hand and right thumb and blood came

out from her nose.

18) Turning to the evidence of P.W.4, he deposed that the

house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is situated opposite to his shop. On

18.02.2002 at about 1-30 p.m., he heard the cries from the house

of P.W.1. Then he and his brother went to the house of P.W.1 and

found the accused pressing the neck of P.W.1. They found that

P.W.3 and his wife are trying to rescue P.W.1 from the hands of

the accused. Then he and his brother also tried to rescue P.W.1

from the hands of P.W.1. During that struggle, accused fell down

on the ground and sustained injuries to his head. Thereafter, they

all brought the accused to the police station and handed over to

the police. Thereafter, P.W.2 came to the police station. They

found scratches around the neck of P.W.1. She handed over the

delinked black beads gold chain to the police.

19) According to P.W.5, he is working in Ravi General

Stores, situated in Main bazaar, Eluru. At about 1-30 p.m., he

heard cries from the house of P.W.1. Then he and his owners

Satyanarayana and Saibabu rushed to the house of P.W.1. They

found the accused pressing the neck of P.W.1. P.W.3 and his wife

were trying to rescue P.W.1. Meanwhile, L.W.8 came there. They

all tried to rescue P.W.1 from the hands of the accused. They took

the accused to police station and handed over to him to the police.

He observed scratches around the neck of P.W.1.

20) P.W.6 is the medical officer, who examined the injured

and issued wound certificate. According to him, on 18.02.2002 at

3-45 p.m., he examined P.W.1 brought by Eluru I Town Police

Station and found the following injuries:

(1) Nail mark of 1" with bleeding over right side of lower part of neck.

(2) multiple superficial red coloured abrasion of varying dimensions over front of neck region.

(3) three different lineal scratch marks of approximate 5" x ½" deep red coloured with swelling of surrounding areas, secondary to application of pressure over the neck.

(4) two small red coloured superficial abrasions back of the neck nail marks.

(5) two different superficial abrasions red coloured over right scapular region approximate 3" x 1" dimension.

(6) diffuse red coloured contusion over base of right thumb.

(7) bleeding beneath the right thumb nail.

(8) blood clot brown colour over palmer accept of left hand.

(9) bleeding through left nosprl.

(10) pain in over head and neck region.

He issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate. He opined that the

injuries are simple in nature and might be caused in less than four

hours prior to his examination.

His evidence is also that on 18.02.2002 at 4-15 p.m., he

examined Madupalli Venkata Rao (Accused) and found (1) defuse

contusion left parito temporal regions of scalp with small ½" cut

injury and bleeding present and (2) defuse contusion right

forehead. He issued Ex.P.3 wound certificate. He opined that the

injuries are simple in nature and might be caused in less than four

hours prior to his examination.

21) Prosecution examined P.W.7 to speak to the fact that

in his presence the police observed the scene of offence and seized

M.O.2 bangle pieces. Ex.P.4 is the scene observation report.

22) As L.W.12-Md. Liyaquat Ali, Asst. Sub-Inspector, who

investigated the case was expired, the prosecution examined

P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, he verified

the investigation done by L.W.12. L.W.12 died about one year ago.

On 18.02.2002 L.W.12 registered the Crime No.15 of 2002 on the

basis of the report of P.W.1 under Sections 448 and 307 r/w 511

of IPC. L.W.12 examined P.W.1 to P.W.5. L.W.12 examined the

scene of offence and prepared observation report in the presence

of P.W.7 and L.W.9. Scene of offence is the house of P.W.1 and

P.W.2. L.W.12 seized broken bangle pieces from the scene of

offence under the cover of Ex.P.4-mahazar. Ex.P.5 is FIR. Ex.P.6

is rough sketch. On 19.02.2002 L.W.12 arrested the accused and

sent him to the remand. P.W.8 further deposed that on

15.03.2002, he (P.W.8) examined P.W.6 and obtained Ex.P.2 and

Ex.P.3 wound certificates. After completion of investigation, he

filed charge sheet. At the time of lodging of Ex.P.1, P.W.1 handed

over M.O.1 to L.W.12-Md. Liyaquat Ali, Asst. Sub-Inspector.

23) It is to be noted that the present Criminal Revision

Case arose against the concurrent findings of the Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge as well as the Additional Sessions Judge.

When the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused

guilty of the charges under Sections 451, 307, 387 and 393 of IPC,

the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and

sentence insofar as the offences under Sections 451, 307 and 393

of IPC is concerned and allowed the Criminal Appeal insofar as the

conviction under Section 387 of IPC. So, the present Criminal

Revision Case arose against the concurrent findings for the

offences under Sections 451, 307 and 393 of IPC. While deciding

the Criminal Revision Case, the scope of this revision is limited as

to whether the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge so

as to confirm the findings of the learned Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and

impropriety. Keeping in view of this, the Criminal Revision Case is

dealt with.

24) Admittedly, it is a case where the criminal law was set

in motion by virtue of lodging Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1. Ex.P.1 was

lodged at 3-00 p.m. The time of offence was said to be at 1-30

p.m. Considering the episode as depicted in Ex.P.1 and considering

the circumstances, it cannot be held that there was any delay in

lodging Ex.P.1. The evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from the

contents of Ex.P.1 literally. P.W.2 was the husband of P.W.1, who

claimed that he came to know the occurrence and rushed to the

police station and by then P.W.1, P.W.3, accused and others were

there in the police station and he came to know about the

occurrence through P.W.1. P.W.3 to P.W.5 were the witnesses to

the occurrence. Undoubtedly, the evidence of P.W.1 has

corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3, her brother-in-law,

being the brother of her husband and P.W.4 and P.W.5, the

adjacent shop owners. Hence, all these witnesses i.e., P.W.1,

P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 categorically testified the presence of the

accused in the house of P.W.1 at the time of incident in question.

Accused admitted his presence in the house of P.W.1 during his

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination.

25) For better appreciation, firstly, it is pertinent to look

into the manner in which the accused sought to impeach the

testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

26) Coming to the cross examination of P.W.1, her

husband is practicing as an Advocate in Eluru. She knows the

accused since six or seven months prior to the date of Ex.P.1, as

he is frequently visiting to his husband's office as his client.

Accused did not telephone to P.W.2 on 18.02.2002 morning to

come to the office of her husband to take certified copy of appeal.

She denied that she received that phone call from the accused and

she asked him to come to their house along with fee and to take

certified copies of the judgment. She denied that her husband

accompanied her to the police station and he got prepared Ex.P.1

through her. She denied that her husband tutored her to give

evidence. She denied that she does not know L.W.5 to L.W.7 and

L.W.9. She denied that as the accused did not pay fee to her

husband, her husband got prepared false report, filed it through

her in the police station and that her husband is an Advocate who

influenced the police and foisted the case. The above part of cross

examination of P.W.1 reveals that nothing was elicited from her

cross examination to disbelieve her testimony. So, she knows the

accused as he used to visit her house as a client of her husband

several times prior to six or seven months to the date of incident.

In the entire cross examination, accused did not dispute his

presence at the house of P.W.1 on the date of incident. On the

other hand, he did not impeach the testimony of P.W.1 on certain

aspects i.e., the events happened in her house attributed to the

accused.

27) Turning to the evidence of P.W.2 in cross examination,

he admitted that he was not a witness to the occurrence, but he

came to know about the incident through his wife. He denied that

the accused telephoned to his house on 18.02.2002 morning. He

deposed that he got knowledge that police referred the accused to

the Government Hospital. He denied that as the accused failed to

pay the fee, his wife, his brother and his sister-in-law beat the

accused and accused sustained injuries to his head and that they

foisted a false case against the accused.

28) Coming to the cross examination of P.W.3 he denied

that at the time of alleged offence, he was not present in the

house and that he is deposing false. This is the only cross

examination of P.W.3.

29) Turning to the cross examination of P.W.4, he denied

that it is not possible for them to hear the cries from the house of

P.W.1. He denied that he does not know anything about the case.

30) It is to be noted that though P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the

interested witnesses to the occurrence, but as evident from the

evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, they are immediate neighbourers to

the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as such, they claimed that on

hearing the cries from the house of P.W.1, they rushed into the

house of P.W.1 and found the accused throttling the neck of P.W.1.

The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is so clear that in the process of

separating the accused from P.W.1, the accused fell down, as

such, he sustained injuries. The evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 is very

clear that they took the accused to the police station and handed

him to the police. So, the circumstance in which Ex.P.1 was lodged

was well explained by the prosecution. In that process the delay of

one hour or 1 ½ hour in lodging the report is not at all fatal to the

case of the prosecution.

31) Turning to the defence set forth by the accused, his

defence is that as he failed to pay the fee to P.W.2, he was

implicated falsely. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer here his

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination statement. The accused set

forth a defence during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination that on

18.02.2002 at 9-30 a.m., he went to the house of P.W.2, his

Advocate. He tried to hand over an amount of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.2

as fee, as P.W.2 defended him in the case. Then P.W.2 demanded

him to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- for which he (accused)

expressed his inability. Then P.W.2 abused him, pounced upon him

and beaten him. In the meantime, the wife of P.W.2 i.e., P.W.1

also came there, caught hold of his tuft and beat him. Apart from

that, they took a lock and beaten him with that lock on his head.

Then he thrown her, as such, she fell down and received injuries.

Thereafter, he went to the police station and explained as to what

happened. A.S.I. recorded his statement. In the meantime, P.W.1,

P.W.2 and others came there and talked with A.S.I. Then he was

referred to the hospital and later he was implicated falsely. This is

version of the accused in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination.

32) Turning to the cross examination part of P.W.1, it is

nowhere suggested to P.W.1 that he came to the house of P.W.1

at 9-30 a.m. The cross examination part of P.W.1 is nothing but

evasive without putting forth the defence of the accused except

elicited some other answers. Turning to the cross examination of

P.W.2, who is husband of P.W.1, accused did not suggest the so-

called version in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination. Nothing was

put before P.W.2 that at 9-30 a.m., accused visited him and

offered fee of Rs.3,000/- and that he demanded Rs.10,000/- and

that when the accused refused to pay, he and his wife beaten him,

etc. Similar is the situation in respect of cross examination part of

P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5.

33) According to the defence of the accused during Section

313 of Cr.P.C. examination, he received injuries at 9-30 a.m.

According to him, while warding off the attack, he thrown P.W.1

and she fell down and received injuries. Now it is appropriate to

look into the medical evidence.

34) As evident from the evidence of P.W.6, the medical

officer, he examined the injured (P.W.1), accused and issued

wound certificates. He examined P.W.1 on 18.02.2002 at 3-45

p.m. He examined accused at 4-15 p.m. The evidence of P.W.6 is

very categorical that P.W.1 and the accused might have received

injuries in less than four hours prior to his examination, which

supports that the incident was happened at 1-30 p.m. Nothing was

suggested to P.W.6 disputing the fact that the time of injuries

received by P.W.1 and accused was more than four hours. If really

accused and P.W.1 received injuries at about 9-30 a.m. as alleged

by the accused, time of injuries would have been more. So, the

testimony of P.W.6, the medical officer, was not at all impeached

in this regard. Further P.W.6 denied the defence theory of the

accused that there was a possibility for P.W.1 to receive the

injuries by fall. The medical evidence falsifies the defence of the

accused. The testimony of P.W.1 has corroboration from P.W.3 to

P.W.5 as well as from P.W.6, the medical officer. Hence, the ocular

testimony has corroboration from the medical evidence also.

Absolutely, the accused miserably failed to probabilize his theory

that he was falsely implicated in the case.

35) Both the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge as

well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly appreciated

the evidence in this regard.

36) It was a case that the evidence on record obviously

attracts an attempt to commit robbery by accused against P.W.1.

Apart from this, the evidence on record establishes the essential

ingredients of Section 451 of IPC, the house trespass so as to

commit an offence punishable with imprisonment. Apart from this,

the numerous scratches received by P.W.1 extensively on neck go

to prove the fact that the accused strangulated the neck of P.W.1

when she was alone in the house. He applied force on the neck of

P.W.1 so as to prevent her from raising cries and he applied the

pressure even by the time P.W.3 to P.W.5 rushed there. It was

not a single scratch on the neck of P.W.1. The medical evidence on

record present a situation that P.W.1 received as many as 6

injuries on her neck by indiscriminate pressure applied by the

accused with all force. The accused had every knowledge that if he

strangulated the neck of P.W.1, which is a crucial part of her body,

there is every likelihood of her causing death. The evidence on

record undoubtedly establishes the essential ingredients of

Sections 451, 307 and 393 of IPC. The plea of false implication can

altogether be ruled out safely. The contention of the revision

petitioner that at best the allegations attract Section 323 of IPC

only is devoid of merits.

37) Under the circumstances, both the learned Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge as well as the learned Additional Sessions

Judge on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record, recorded

finding of facts. The finding of facts recorded by the both learned

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge as well as learned Additional

Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality, irregularity or

impropriety.

38) In the light of the above, absolutely, this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2006, dated

07.07.2009, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, West

Godavari at Eluru. At this stage, the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner is physically present and made an appeal that

looking into the fact that the Criminal Revision Case is pending

since the year 2010 and the offence in question was happened in

the year 2002, the Court may consider to reduce the term of

imprisonment and as of now the revision petitioner is aged about

50 years.

39) There is no dispute about the date of incident in the

year 2002. There is also no dispute about the pendency of this

revision petition since the year 2010. Taking into consideration the

said representation and having regard to the overall facts and

circumstances, the ends of justice will meet, if the rigorous

imprisonment of five years each imposed by the learned Principal

Assistant Sessions Judge against the accused for the offences

under Sections 451, 307 and 393 of IPC is reduced to three years

each by keeping the fine amount undisturbed.

40) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

by modifying the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years

each imposed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge for

the offences under Sections 451, 307 and 393 of IPC against the

accused is reduced to three years each. The fine imposed and

default sentence shall continue.

41) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the

trial Court on or before 07.03.2024 and on such certification, the

trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the modified

sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and to report

compliance to this Court.

42) The Registry is directed to forward the record along

with copy of the order to the trial Court on or before 07.03.2024.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.01.03.2024 Note: L.R. copy be marked.

B/o PGR

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

**** CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.96 OF 2010 Between:

Madipalli Venkata Rao @ Konda, S/o Satyanarayana, aged 36 years, Kasipadu Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

...PETITIONER AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

                                                  ...RESPONDENT

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED             :    01.03.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:


         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU


1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
   may be allowed to see the order?                    Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?                   Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
   Fair copy of the order?                             Yes/No



                                 ______________________
                                 A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J





        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU




                       CRLRC No.96 OF 2010




                           Date: 01.03.2024

Note: