Nethi Koppula Srinivasulu ... vs The State Of A.P.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2591 Tel

          THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1617 of 2006

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), is filed by

the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, challenging the judgment,

dated 08.09.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 by the

learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the

lower appellate Court, dismissed the appeal confirming the

conviction and sentence recorded against the A.1 and A.2 of the

offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Seven (7) years and to pay

a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment

for one month, vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in

S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners/ A.1 and A.2 and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and perused the

record.

3. The trial Court on analysis of both oral and documentary

evidence and the submissions put-forth before it, vide judgment

dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003, held that the

prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable

doubt of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of 2 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the A.1 and A.2 as

stated supra.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in

S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the trial Court, A.1 and A.2 preferred

Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 before the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the said appeal was

dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentenced recorded by

the trial Court against A.1 and A.2. Hence this Criminal Revision

Case by A.1 and A.2.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would

contend that both the Courts below erred in convicting and

sentencing the A.1 and A.2 of the offence punishable under Section

307 r/w 34 IPC. The Courts below ought not have placed reliance

over the testimony of PW.1, who is highly interested witness. In

view of the disputes between A.1, A.2 and PW.1, the A.1 and A.2

were falsely implicated by PW.1 in this case. In fact, PW.1 is a

womanizer and having illegal contacts and he received injuries in

the galata with a lady. DW.1-wife of PW.1, specifically stated that

immediately after the occurrence of the offence, PW.1 informed her

that his friends caused injuries in a galata, in connection with affair

with a lady. The Courts below failed to consider that PW.2 and

PW.3, who are crucial witnesses to the prosecution case, turned

hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It is further

submitted that the Courts below erred in coming to conclusion that

since DW.1 is a sister of A.1 and A.2, she did not support the

prosecution case. There are several omissions, contradictions and 3 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

Courts below ought to have considered that since PW.1 being their

brother-in-law, there was no necessity for A.1 and A.2 to cause

such injuries to him. Learned counsel vehemently contended that

there was no intention on the part of A.1 and A.2 to cause injuries

and death of PW.1. At the most, the A.1 and A.2 can be convicted

for causing grievous hurt and there are no ingredients to constitute

the offence under Section 307 IPC. Further, the trial Court

convicted and sentenced the accused basing on the sole and highly

interested evidence of PW.1, which is erroneous and perverse. The

lower appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the entire

evidence on record and erroneously confirmed the conviction and

sentence imposed by the trial Court. Thus the learned counsel for

the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 prayed to allow the Criminal Revision

Case by setting aside impugned judgments passed by the Courts

below.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

has supported the prosecution case and contended that there was

intention on the part of A.1 and A.2 to do away with the life of

PW.1, causing severe injuries i.e, removal of penis and both

testicles. Both the Courts below have rightly analyzed the entire

evidence on record and justified in passing the impugned

judgments. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

are neither perverse nor illegal and no interference is warranted

and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

                                  4                                Dr.SA, J
                                                     Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

7. In view of the above submissions made by both sides, the

points that arise for determination in this Criminal Revision Case

are:

1. Whether the impugned judgment, dated 08.09.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against A.1 and A.2 of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, vide judgment dated 09.09.2004 passed in S.C.No.310 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, is liable to be set aside?

2. If so, whether A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal?

8. POINTS: As seen from the material placed on record, PW.1

is injured victim. He is the husband of DW.1 and brother-in-law of

A.1 and A.2. There is evidence to establish that there was strained

relationship in between the PW.1 and DW.1. The evidence of DW.1

was pressed into service to demonstrate that PW.1 is a womanizer

and some of his friends had committed the offence. In the evidence

of DW.1, there are no details with regard to the persons, who

caused the grievous injuries to PW.1. Both the Courts below have

elaborately dealt with the evidence of DW.1 and concluded that as

there was strained relationship in between the PW.1 & DW.1 and

that DW.1, being sister of A.1 and A.2, was pressed into service to

support her brothers. Both the Courts below are justified in

discarding the testimony of DW.1 by giving cogent reasons.

9. There is specific evidence of PW.1 with regard to the

commission of the offence i.e, on 17.03.2003 at about 10:00 PM,

A.1 and A.2 took PW.1 near Sai Baba Temple, Shadnagar, on 5 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

Jadcherla road, and when PW.1 questioned the A.1 and A.2 as to

why they brought him to that place, A.1 and A.2 caught hold his

legs and pulled him down. A.2 removed the shirt of PW.1 and tied

his hands with the shirt and fisted on his face and thereafter,

removed his pant. Then A.1 took out a small knife (M.O.1) and cut

down both testicles and penis of PW.1. Immediately, PW.1 lost

consciousness and at about 1:00 AM in the midnight, he regained

consciousness and slowly went to Sai Baba Temple. As per PW.7-

Investigating Officer, he went to scene of offence, examined PW.4

and secured the presence of PW.3 and LW.6-M. Venkat Reddy and

found the cut private organs of the injured from the scene of

offence, seized them and transmitted to hospital. Pursuant to the

confession made by the accused, PW.1 recovered M.O.1-knife,

which was used in the commission of offence. Panch witnesses i.e,

PW.2 and PW.3 did not support the prosecution case. PW.4-

watchman of the temple, identified the scene of offence and also

spoke about finding of cut organs at the scene of offence. He also

observed blood marks at the scene of offence. The evidence of

PW.4 corroborates the evidence of PW.1 and establishes the place

of offence as mentioned in Ex.P.1-statement given by PW.1.

Nothing is brought in the cross-examination of PW.1 to disbelieve

that A.1 and A.2 did not cut off the penis and testicles of PW.1.

There is evidence of PW.6-Doctor, corroborating the injuries

sustained by PW.1. As per PW.5, he received requisition from

police, Shadnagar to forward the private parts of the PW.1-injured

for realignment. After discussion with Urologist at Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad, he opined that the removed organs cannot be 6 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

realigned since more than 12 hours has elapsed by that time. So

the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes beyond all

reasonable doubt that A.1 and A.2 as deposed by PW.1 had cut off

private organs of PW.1 as stated supra.

10. It is pertinent to state that in the cross-examination of

PW.1, he denied the suggestion that A.1 and A.2 are not

responsible for the injuries sustained by him and that they never

tried to kill him or attempted to kill him. The trial Court and the

lower appellate Court had analyzed the manner in which the

offence was committed, the circumstances under which those

injuries were caused and the intention for causing such injuries and

concluded that those injuries were caused by A.1 and A.2 with an

intention to do away with the life of PW.1. Fortunately, PW.1

gained some support of nearby people and survived. Therefore,

the findings recorded by the Courts below that A.1 and A.2 caused

injuries to PW.1 with an intention to cause the death of PW.1, is

proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is apt to state that

revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under

challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the

provisions of law, and the findings recorded are based on no

evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is

exercised arbitrarily or perversely. In the instant case, as seen

from the entire evidence on record, the conclusions reached by the

trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court are neither

perverse, irrational nor there is any patent illegality, to vary the

impugned judgments delivered by the Courts below. All the 7 Dr.SA, J Crl.R.C.No.1617 of 2006

contentions raised by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in this Criminal

Revision Case, do not merit consideration. The Criminal Revision

Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. This

Court was pleased to suspend the sentence of imprisonment

against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 vide order dated 27.09.2006

passed in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2336 of 2006. In view of the dismissal of

this Criminal Revision Case, the trial Court is directed to issue Non-

Bailable Warrants to the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 to secure their

presence, for serving the sentence of imprisonment, in accordance

with law.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 15th September, 2021 scs