Kancherla Ganga Reddy, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1555 Tel

           HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                   CRL.R.C.No.1635 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case is directed against the judgment

of the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Adilabad, in

Crl.A.No.16 of 2008, dated 11.07.2008.

Brief facts of the case are that on 01.01.2003 at about 4.00

P.M. P.W.2, being an electric motor mechanic, attended the Bore-

well repair work of one Burla Pothanna in his paddy field and

after completion of work, while he was returning home, the

revision petitioner/accused attacked him finding fault with him

for giving evidence against him in a police case in which one

Tailor Bhojanna was beaten by the accused, and dragged him to

the field of one Dattadri and P.W.4 and P.W.5 witnessed the same

and questioned him, however, the accused threatened them with

dire consequences. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/accused

beat him with a stone on his right eye and also with an axe-stick

all over his body causing bleeding injuries and also threatened

P.W.2 with dire consequences. On the complaint of P.W.1, a case

in Crime No.2 of 2003 of Lokeshwaram Police Station has been

registered against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 290, 324 and 506 of I.P.C. The injured

was sent to Area Hospital, Bhainsa for treatment. On 02.01.2003

the Sub Inspector of Police, visited Puspur Village, examined the

witnesses and conducted scene of offence panchanama. On

03.01.2003 the statement of the injured was recorded and after

completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against

the revision petitioner/accused. The revision petitioner/accused

was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 (ii)

and 377 read with Section 511 of I.P.C.

The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.Os.1 to 6 to prove the guilt of the

accused. On behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary

evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the entire evidence, both

oral and documentary, the trial Court, convicted the revision

petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326

and 377 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to

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

for one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 of

I.P.C. and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.250/-, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable

under Section 377 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. Both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused,

the learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, while

confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the

revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under

Section 326 of I.P.C., set aside the conviction and sentence

imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence

punishable under Section 377 read with Section 511 of I.P.C.

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused filed this

criminal revision case.

Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and

perused the record.

The point that arises for consideration is "Whether the

conviction and sentence imposed against the revision

petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326

of I.P.C. are sustainable in law or not?"

P.W.1 is the complainant; P.W.2 is the victim-injured;

P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence; P.W.5 is the

circumstantial witness; P.W.6 is the son of P.W.2; P.W.7 is the

panch witness for the scene of offence; P.W.8 is the panch witness

for seizure of stick used by the revision petitioner/accused; P.W.9

is the panch witness to the confessional statement and also

seizure of crime weapon; P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer and

P.W.11 is the doctor, who examined the victim.

According to the evidence of P.W.1, he was informed by

P.W.2 that he was beaten by the accused and that on noticing the

bleeding injuries on P.W.2, he took him to the police station and

presented Ex.P1-report.

The evidence of P.W.2-injured discloses that on the date of

occurrence at about 6.00 P.M. while he was returning home after

attending the Bore-Well repair work in the field of one Burla

Pothanna, the accused obstructed him and questioned him as to

why he gave evidence against him in the case of one Tailor

Bhojanna and that he picked up a stone and hit him by the side of

his right eye and also beat him severely with a stick portion of an

axe all over his body causing bleeding injuries and the same was

witnessed by P.W.3.

The evidence of P.W.3 discloses that on the date of

occurrence during evening hours while she was returning home

after attending to her field work, near a toddy tree, she found

P.W.2 and the accused quarrelling with each other and that the

accused beat P.W.2 with a stick portion of an axe and when she

questioned the accused as to why he was beating P.W.2, the

accused abused her and asked her to leave that place.

According to the evidence of P.W.4, on the date of

occurrence at about 6.00 P.M., after selling toddy, while he was

returning home, he noticed the accused beating P.W.2 and that

when he interfered and questioned him, the accused threatened

him and asked him to go away from that place.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision

petitioner is that P.Ws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses and that the

names of P.Ws.3 and 4 were not mentioned in Ex.P1-report and

as such their evidence cannot be relied upon.

From a perusal of Ex.P1-report, it is evident that the names

of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the alleged eyewitnesses to the

occurrence, were not mentioned in Ex.P1. That apart, it is in the

evidence of P.W.3 that she did not witness any bleeding injuries

on P.W.2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Sinde Laxman

Rao and Manthani Ram Reddy (L.Ws.5 and 6) came on

motorcycle and on seeing them, the accused left that place and

that the said Laxman Rao shifted P.W.2 in a Jeep to his house. it

is also in the evidence of P.W.2 that after the incident, he was

shifted to his house by one Laxman Rao. However, the

prosecution did not choose to examine the said persons for the

reasons best known to them. Therefore, non-examination of these

two material witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Under the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the case of the prosecution cannot be

believed on the ground of non-mentioning of the names of P.Ws.3

and 4 in Ex.P1-report and also non-examination of the aforesaid

Laxman Rao and Ram Reddy and as such the accused is entitled

to benefit of doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the

revision petitioner, in my considered view, suffered from

illegality and caused miscarriage of justice. Hence, the conviction

and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner for the

offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. is liable to be set

aside.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The

conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the

appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 of

I.P.C. are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner/accused is

acquitted of the said charge. Fine amount, if any, paid by the

revision petitioner/accused shall be refunded to him.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI

28.03.2022 Gsn.