Md. Ibrahim vs Mirza Ilyas Baig State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5761 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI


             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 956 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections

397 and 401 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the judgment, dated 28.11.2005

passed in Crl.A.No.93 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional

District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, wherein

the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the appeal by setting aside the

conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in C.C.No.602

of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Nizamabad, and thereby acquitted the accused, who is the 1st

respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section 325 of

IPC.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim is the Secretary cum

Correspondent of Noble High School, Nizamabad. The incident was

occurred on 04.06.2001 at 6.25 p.m. near Rotary School Quilla

Road, Nizamabad. On the date of occurrence, the defacto-

complainant Md.Ibrahim was proceeding on a scooter from Bodhan

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

bus stand to Quilla road and when he reached the Rotary School,

Nizamabad, the accused came across the scooter along with four

persons and stopped the vehicle. The accused fisted on the face of

defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim with considerable force. The said

Ibrahim sustained bleeding injury on his mouth and lost his teeth.

The accused assaulted the defacto-complainant and caused injury

on account of pre-enmity. The defacto-complainant Md.Ibrahim

gave a written report to the police regarding the incident. PW2

Md.Rafeq, PW3 Muntaz Khan and one Sarvar witnessed the

incident. Police sent the injured Ibrahim to the Government

Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. The S.I. of Police, II Town

Nizamabad registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.34 of 2001 for the

offence under Section 325 IPC and investigated into. He examined

the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also inspected

the scene. The Medical Officer, who treated the injured Ibrahim

issued wound certificate stating that he sustained grievous injury.

The accused was surrendered before the Court on 06.06.2001 and

he was released on bail. The S.I. of Police, II Town, Nizamabad

filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 325 IPC.

3. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the oral and

documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, found guilty of

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 325 of

IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000-00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of one month.

4. On appeal filed by the 1st respondent, the appellate Court,

on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, allowed the appeal and

accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the

learned trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case has

been filed by the revision petitioner.

5. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not

present on 07.04.2022, 22.04.2022 and 24.06.2022. On 08.07.2022

also, there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore,

the matter was directed to be listed under the caption "for

dismissal". On 28.07.2022 also, when the matter was called, there

was no representation on behalf of petitioner. Even on 29.08.2022

though the matter listed under the caption "for dismissal", there is

no representation for the petitioner. Perused the record.

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that

the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the 1st Respondent

by disbelieving the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and also by finding that

the medical evidence does not fit into prosecution case, either

with regard to the injuries caused nor the time of examination.

7. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further would

submit that as per Ex.P1 the incident was occurred at about 6.25

p.m., PW1 lodged first report at 7.00 p.m. and PW6 Sub Inspector

of Police referred him to Government Hospital but according to

PW4 Civil Assistant Surgeon and Ex.P2 issued by her, it shows that

PW1 was examined at 6.00 p.m. which indicates that PW.1 was

injured much prior to the time of incident mentioned in the first

report and by which only inference that can be drawn is that taking

advantage of the injuries caused to him in some other transaction,

a false case has been foisted against the accused.

8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent further contended

that apart from Ex.P2, Ex.P3 medical certificate issued by PW.5

also falsifies the prosecution case. According to PW.5 he examined

PW1 at 6.45 p.m. and he opined that there was a fracture of left

maxilla and zygomate bones on left side. But he did not mention

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

at about any loss of tooth, thus the evidence of PW.1 that he lost

his tooth is not substantiated by any material evidence nor in Ex.P2

and P3 it is mentioned about the same. Further it is the case of

the 1st respondent that there is also abnormal delay in report

reaching the Magistrate. FIR was registered on 04.06.2001 at 7

p.m. and the report reached to Magistrate with a delay of two days

i.e. on 06.06.2001 at 10.30 a.m. There is non-explanation of

injuries on accused. In fact, PW6 Investigation Officer admits that

the accused also received injuries and lodged report against PW.1

and he referred the accused to Government Hospital also. In-spite

of that there is no explanation as to why crime was not registered

basing on the report lodged by accused against PW.1 and

ultimately prayed to dismiss the revision case filed by the

petitioner against the judgment of acquittal of the 1st respondent

in Crl.A.No.93 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), at Nizamabad.

9. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the

appellate Court had extensively dealt with the evidence adduced

before the trial Court. The findings of the appellate Court in

paragraph No.31 of the impugned judgment are necessary to be

reproduced herein for better appreciation of the matter.

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

"In this case prosecution has not proved the motive for the offence in contra the accused in the cross examination of PW.1 elicited that the wife of the accused is having dispute with the P.W.1 which shows that the every possibility of falsification of the case against the accused by PW.1, it is already held that the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of PWs.4 and 5. The ocular evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence and it is also held that the time of incident is not proved there is every suspicion over the time of incident as alleged by the PW.1. In view of the above discussions that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the time of incident and also sending the FIR to the Court in delay of 2 days and also failed to prove the motive for the offence in contra as per the admission of PW.1 and the PW6 Investigating Officer. There is every suspicion over the case of the prosecution. Therefore the benefit of doubt over the suspicion of the prosecution case shall be given to the accused. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case against the accused for the charge under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt."

10. Thus, while recording the order of acquittal, the learned

appellate Court gave cogent reasons, based on evaluation of oral

and documentary evidence brought on record by both the parties.

Absolutely, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere

with the well reasoned order passed by the learned appellate

JS, J Crlrc_956_2007

Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 11th November, 2022 Ksk