Kavali Naresh Nallaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 2941 Tel

         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 298 of 2020 & 107 of 2021


COMMON JUDGMENT:
1.

Both these appeals are disposed off by this Common

Judgment as they arise out of SC No.325 of 2017 vide

judgment dated 17.03.2020 on the file of the Judge Family

Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for

short 'the Sessions Judge').

2. Learned Sessions Judge having framed charges under

Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 341, 452, 307, 324 r/w 149 of IPC,

after trial found A1 not guilty for the alleged offences and

convicted A2 to A11 under five counts i.e., firstly under

Section 324 of IPC- A2 to A11 were sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-, in default Simple Imprisonment for two months;

secondly, they were sentenced to under Rigorous

Imprisonment for three months each for the offence under

Section 120-B of IPC. They were also sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, in

default of payment of amount, to suffer Simple Imprisonment

for one month each; thirdly, they are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 341 IPC, in

default of payment of fine amount, to suffer, SI for one month;

fourthly, they were sentenced to undergo RI for six months

each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under

Section 452/r/w 149 of IPC, in default of payment of fine

amount to suffer, S.I for two months each.

3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of A1, the State filed Criminal

Appeal No.107 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2020 is

preferred seeking reversal of the Sessions Court conviction by

A2 to A11.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the brother of P.W.3

contested for Sarpanch elections along with A-1 and others

and in the said contest A1 was elected. Thereafter,

questioning the election of A1, P.W.3 and four others filed

Election Petition seeking disqualification of A1 as Sarpanch on

the ground that A-1 had no eligibility for the reason of having

three children. In the said process, the Civil Court set aside

the election of A1 for which reason, A1 and others, who belong

to one political party bore grudge against P.W.3, his brother

and others who belonged to another political party. In the

back ground of enmity of A1's election being cancelled at the

instance of P.W.3 and others, A1 to A11 formed into unlawful

assembly on 19.09.2015. Around 11.10 a.m when P.W.3 was

going along with P.W.6, his friend near textile road, Accused

Nos.4, 5, 8 and 11 came on bikes and abused them in filthy

language. P.W.3 while trying to escape fell down on the road

and the said accused beat with sticks causing injuries. Then,

P.W.3 freed himself and rushed inside the house of another

witness-LW5. However, A2 to A5, A7 and A10 dragged him

out from his house and beat him indiscriminately. In the said

process, though P.W.2 and others intervened, according to

P.W.3, the accused inflicted serious injuries, for which reason,

he fell unconscious and regained consciousness only in

Trident Hospital at Shamsabad.

5. Learned Sessions Judge for the reason of victim-P.W.3

and other witnesses P.Ws.2, 5 & 6 having failed to identify A1,

gave benefit of doubt and acquitted A1, for which reason, the

State aggrieved by the said acquittal of A1, filed appeal.

6. Sri T. Prayudmna kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri T.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants/A2 to A11 argued that the case arising out of

political rivalry and there is any amount of doubt when the

evidence of witnesses are seen, wherein one is contradicting

the other. In the said circumstances, it is unsafe to rely upon

the evidence of any of the witnesses to confirm the conviction,

when there is exaggeration consequently false implication

and particularly when violence arises out of political rivalry.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is

proper and cannot be interfered with. It is specifically stated

by all the witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 7, who are eye witnesses to

the incident that these are the accused who have assaulted

and injured-P.W.3. The Court has no other option but to

confirm the sentence for the said reason.

8. Learned Senior Counsel alternately argues that whatever

transpired was the result of differences between A1 and his

followers belonging to one party and at the instance of P.W.3,

his brother and others, who are at loggerheads and

responsible for the cancellation of the panchayat elections in

which A1 won. If the court comes to a conclusion that these

are the appellants, who have committed alleged attack, lenient

view may be taken with regard to sentence.

9. As seen from the evidence of witnesses P.W.1, who is the

wife of injured-P.W.3, though she states that the accused

assaulted her husband, however, during her cross-

examination she admits that by the time she went to the

scene, her husband was found in pool of blood and same is

also with the evidence of P.W.2, who during chief examination

stated that the accused were responsible, but during the

course of cross-examination, admitted that he had seen P.W.3

in pool of blood after the attack had taken place.

10. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and other witnesses are contradicting

themselves regarding the scene of offence that had taken

place. P.W.1 states that P.W.3 was found in the pool of blood

in the middle of the village. P.W.2 states that the attack was

outside the GP office. P.W.3 states that the attack went on at

three different places, one near Textile road and thereafter, in

the house of L.W.5. However, L.W.5, who was examined as

P.W.4 did not identify the accused, but stated that P.W.3 went

to his house and asked for water. P.Ws.5 and 6 also

supported the case of P.W.3 alleging that P.W.3 was in fact

attacked by the accused.

11. The alleged incident which has taken place cannot be

disputed. Admittedly, there were several persons who had

assaulted. Though, it is the case of P.W.3 and others that iron

rods and sickles were used by the accused when the attack

happened the police have seized hockey sticks and wickets

and filed before the Court as M.Os.5, 6 and 7.

12. Though the discrepancies regarding the mode of attack

and the instruments or weapons with which the accused were

attacked is contradictory, however, the evidence regarding the

attack on P.W.3 is consistent. In the said circumstances,

when there were several persons involved and in the said

melee, such discrepancies and contradictions are bound to

occur and for the said reason, the entire case of the

prosecution cannot be disbelieved. The principle of

"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus " (false in one thing, false in

everything) is not applicable. Since some contradiction

regarding scene or attack is shown to be wrong, it cannot be

said that entire prosecution case has to be thrown out.

13. However, as seen from the circumstances of the case, the

case is of the year 2015 and the appellants were aged between

20 to 30 years and in the back ground of there not being any

specific overt acts attributed to any of the accused and further

the Sessions Court having found the accused not guilty for the

offence under Section 307 of IPC, attempt to murder, lenient

view can be taken.

14. For the aforementioned reasons, the sentence of

imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by

the appellants, who were in custody during the time of

investigation. However, it is proper to direct the appellants

herein to pay Rs.20,000/- each to P.W.3 towards

compensation for his suffering.

15. In the result, A2 to A11 shall pay an amount of

Rs.20,000/- each to P.W.3, within a period of four weeks from

the date of this judgment. However, in the event of any of the

appellants failing to pay his individual share of Rs.20,000/-,

the said appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a

period of one year. The compensation shall be paid to P.W.3 as

stated above.

16. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal filed by the

State against acquittal of A.1 in Crl.A.No.107 of 2021 fails for

the specific reason that none of the eye witnesses to the

alleged incident identified A1 and the same is accordingly

dismissed. However, Crl.A.No.298 of 2020 filed by A2 to A11

is partly allowed.

17. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________

K.SURENDER, J Date: 21.6.2022 kvs

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal Nos.298 of 2020 & 107 of 2021

Date:21.06.2022

kvs