Edla Srinivas, Karimnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6050 Tel

                                      1
                                                                       Dr.GRR, J
                                                                 crlrc_674_2016

            THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 674 of 2016


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-appellant-

accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2015 dated

16.02.2016 confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani in Sessions Case No.652 of 2011 dated

05.06.2015 sentencing the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for a period

of two (02) years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and

fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for

a period of two (02) months and further sentencing the petitioner to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15)

days and both the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the complainant was the

brother of the injured and the accused was their agnate. The accused

constructed a house under Indiramma Pathakam Scheme by encroaching

into the land of the complainant. On that, the complainant approached the

elders. As the accused had already constructed the house, the elders

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

advised not to demolish the said house and asked both the parties not to

quarrel with each other and to live amicably. Therefore, both the parties

kept silent as per the advise of the elders. But, the accused tried to

construct a compound wall by encroaching into the land of the complainant,

on that the complainant raised objection. Keeping the same in mind, on

05.10.2011 at 5:00 PM when the brother of the complainant went to bore-

well for collecting drinking water, the accused came from his behind and

stabbed him on his back with an intention to kill him. When the injured

raised hue and cry, the villagers came to the spot and rescued him. The

knife stabbed by the accused was remained in the body of the injured. The

complainant and other villagers took the injured to the Police Station and

from there the injured was sent to the Government Hospital, Manthani.

The Medical Officer gave first aid to the injured, removed the knife and

forwarded it to the Police Station under a letter. The injured had taken

further treatment at a private hospital in Karimnagar.

3. Basing on the complaint given by the brother of the injured, the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Manthani registered a case in Crime

No.148 of 2011 under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and issued FIR. He

recorded the statements of the complainant and injured, visited the scene of

offence and conducted the crime detail form in the presence of witnesses.

He also secured the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements. The

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

accused was apprehended on 07.10.2011 and produced before the court.

After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the

accused under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC.

4. The case was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Manthani and after registering it as PRC No.76 of 2011 committed it

to the District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar. From there it was made

over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani.

5. Charges were framed under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC by the

Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani. During the course of trial, the

prosecution examined PWs 1-17 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and MO1.

No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. On considering the oral

and documentary evidence on record, the Assistant Sessions Judge,

Manthani found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and sentenced him as above.

6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred

the appeal. The appeal was heard by the VI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani and vide Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2015

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court vide

judgment dated 16.02.2016.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

7. Aggrieved further the petitioner-appellant-accused preferred this

revision contending that the courts below erred in placing reliance on the

interested and discrepant testimonies of PWs 1 to 3. All the witnesses cited

as PWs 4 to 8 turned hostile, the panch witnesses for the crime detail form

examined as PWs 8 to 9 also turned hostile. The prosecution did not

conduct any panchanama for seizure of MO1, the blood stained clothes of

PW 2 were not recovered, the sentence was unduly severe and prayed to set

aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued on the same

lines as raised in the grounds of revision. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor contended that there were concurrent findings of conviction

recorded by the courts below against the accused for the offences under

Sections 307 and 324 of IPC which need no interference by this Court and

prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

10. Perused the record. The record would disclose that PW1 is the

brother of the injured and the complainant, PW2 is the injured, PW3 is the

scribe of the complainant and except these witnesses all other witnesses

cited as eye-witnesses examined as PWs 4 to 8 turned hostile and had not

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

supported the prosecution case. But, PWs 1 and 2 stated that there were

previous disputes between the family of the complainant and the accused

with regard to the construction of house and compound wall by

encroaching into the house site of the complainant. PW1 also admitted in

his cross-examination that no civil suit was filed by them, but, on a

complaint given by the accused which was registered as STC, he and his

father paid fine. The Investigating Officer examined as PW17 also stated

about the complainant paying fine in an STC case filed by the accused.

Thus, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 17 would disclose that there were

disputes between the family of the complainant and the accused and

criminal cases were filed by each other and the accused had a motive to

attack the victim.

11. PW2 stated that on 05.10.2011, he went to bore-well with steel kettle

(binde) to collect drinking water and while he was returning to his house

and reached the house of Edla Ramaswamy, the accused came from his

behind and stabbed with knife over his back and caused injuries to him. On

his hue and cry, Edla Thirupathi, Edla Ramaswamy, Thundla Thirupathi,

Thundla Rajender and his brother came and rescued him from the hands of

the accused. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the scene of offence.

He also stated about the disputes between his family and the accused and

that the accused bore grudge and attacked him from his behind with a knife

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

with an intention to kill him. He stated that he went to Police Station along

with the said knife on the left side of the body and the Police referred him

to Government Hospital, Manthani for treatment.

12. PW3 also stated that on the date of incident, he heard cries, came out

and found public brought the victim to his house with bleeding injuries.

Immediately, he accompanied them to the Police Station, prepared the

complaint on the dictation of the complainant. In his cross-examination, he

admitted that he was related to both the victim and the accused. Thus, the

evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is corroborating with each other with regard to the

incident on 05.10.2011 at 5:00 PM. PW1 also stated that on seeing them,

the accused left the scene of offence. PW3 stated that he accompanied

PWs 1 and 2 to the Police Station and drafted the complaint.

13. Both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court on

appreciating the evidence observed that no discrepancies were found in

their evidence to disbelieve the prosecution case. Even though the other

witnesses turned hostile, there is no reason to discredit the evidence of the

injured, who stated about the accused attacking him. Just because PWs 1 to

3 were related to each other, their evidence cannot be discredited on the

ground that they were interested witnesses. There is no reason for the

injured to implicate any other person by leaving the actual assailant.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

14. Further, the evidence of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

Hospital, Manthani examined as PW11 would show that the injured was

brought to the hospital along with a knife pierced on the back side of his

body behind the left shoulder. He stated that he removed the knife from the

body of the injured and handed over to the Police Escort and addressed a

letter to SHO under Ex.P9 regarding handing over the knife. PW11 stated

that he observed six (06) lacerated stab injuries with knife on the back side

of the body of the injured and gave the descriptive particulars of the

injuries with its measurements.

15. PWs 14 and 15 are the doctors who treated the injured at Spring

Hospital, Karimnagar. Both these witnesses stated that the injured was

admitted in their hospital for a period of twelve (12) days and there were

six (06) stab injuries and multiple abrasions over the body and the patient

developed haemothorax due to consequence of injuries and he was given

conservative treatment and he was discharged on 17.10.2011. The medical

certificate issued by PW15 was marked as Ex.P12.

16. PWs.16 and 17 are the Investigating Officers who conducted the

investigation of the case and filed charge-sheet.

17. As the knife was removed by the doctor at Government Hospital,

Manthani and was sent to the SHO under Ex.P9, there could be no

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

panchanama conducted by the Police for the recovery of the knife. Non-

seizure of the blood stained clothes by the investigating officer also cannot

be a ground to suspect the prosecution case. The lower appellate court also

rightly observed that any lacunae on the part of the investigating officer

cannot affect the reliable testimony of the victim. Thus, the contentions

raised by the revision petitioner in this regard do not have any merit.

18. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in confirming

the guilt of the accused by the courts below for the offences under Sections

307 and 324 of IPC. The sentences inflicted against the accused are also

appropriate to the offences charged against him and they were not unduly

severe and in-appropriate to the charges leveled against the accused. Hence,

this court does not find any necessity to interfere with the same.

20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

judgments of the courts below in convicting the petitioner-accused for the

offences under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years and fine of Rs.2,000/-,

in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for a period of two (02)

months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC; and further

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (06)

months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_674_2016

imprisonment for a period of fifteen (15) days for the offence punishable

under Section 324 of IPC. The bail granted to the petitioner-appellant shall

stand cancelled. The petitioner-appellant-accused is directed to surrender

before the trial court to undergo the sentence and in case he fails to do so,

the trial court shall take necessary steps to take him into custody.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

22nd November, 2022 nsk.