D.Raja Rao vs Manoj Prabhakar 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1085 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
                                        \\




           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.226 OF 2016

ORDER:

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

complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal

No.661 of 2013 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge -

cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Malkajgiri confirming the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.C.No.180 of 2012

on the file of the Special Magistrate Court - II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri.

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

lodged a report before the SI of Police, Malkajgiri on 04.08.2012 at 02:00 PM

stating that the accused persons belonged to upper caste and they belonged to

ST caste and keeping it in their mind, the accused were harassing his family

members. On 09.07.2012 at about 09:00 AM while the de-facto complainant

was constructing the house and the mason and contract labourers came to his

house to take up the construction work in the ground floor, on seeing them A1

and A2 who were brothers and his neighbours residing in the neighbouring

house used harsh language demanding to remove the small cement particles that

fell in their house or otherwise they would break the heads of the labourers.

The de-facto complainant and his wife asked the labourers to remove the

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

cement particles that fell in the house of the accused, but the accused A1 abused

the wife of the de-facto complainant in filthy language. When the second son of

the de-facto complainant was dropping his elder son at the bus-stand,

meanwhile, the accused persons picked up a quarrel and A2 holding a cricket

bat in his hands, threatened them. In the meanwhile, the neighbours interfered

and sent them into their house. The accused were picking up quarrel with them

using abusive language and threatening. The complainant's second son was

working in Hitec City. The accused persons with the assistance of one

Manmohan Thakur, the associate of his second son working in the same

company were threatening him. When the daughter of the complainant was

putting rangoli in front of the house, the accused No.1 poured water on it. The

accused No.1 trespassed into the house of the complainant and cut the guava

tree branches.

3. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.350 of

2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 509 and 506 of IPC.

They recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence,

conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the witnesses and

drafted rough sketch of the scene, apprehended A1 and A2 on 31.08.2012 and

filed charge-sheet against them.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

4. The case was taken cognizance by the Special Magistrate - II, Cyberabad

at Malkajgiri and conducted trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got

marked Exs.P.1 to P.10.

6. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial

court found A1 and A2 'not guilty' for the offences punishable under Sections

448, 427, 509, 506 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted them.

8. Aggrieved by such acquittal, the de-facto complainant preferred an

appeal. The appeal was heard by the XVI Additional District and Sessions

Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga

Reddy District vide Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2013 dated 14.08.2015. The

learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge on re-appraisal of the

evidence, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the Special

Magistrate -II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri in acquitting the accused.

9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of his appeal, the complainant preferred

this revision contending that the lower appellate court confirming the acquittal

of the accused was based on conjectures and surmises. The courts below went

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

wrong in not believing the statement of the complainant's witnesses on the

ground that PW.2 was an interested person being the wife of the complainant

and prayed to revise the judgment dated 14.08.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.661

of 2013 on the file of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum -

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

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

counsel for the respondents - accused.

11. Revision is the process of changing or improving or making additions to

the existing law or piece of writing. Revision is an art of revising or revisiting a

work done with an intent to fix the thing for betterment. A revision sometimes

opens the scope of visiting a work done which might or might not attract

alteration. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as

on facts but the power of revision is given to a superior court so that it may

satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Where

there is no right to appeal, the legislature provided the concept of review

procedure called revision to avoid any miscarriage of justice. The purpose of

revision is to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any proceeding

before any inferior court to keep the lower courts within the bounds of their

authority and make them work according to well-defined principles of law.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

Revisional Jurisdiction is analogous to power of supervision and

superintendence.

12. On a perusal of the judgments of the courts below, the trial court

observed that PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is his wife and PW.3 and 4 are the

neighbours of PWs.1 and 2 and PWs.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for the

scene of offence and rough sketch and PW.7 is the investigating officer. Except

PWs.1, 2 and 7, no other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.

PWs.3 to 6 turned hostile. Even with regard to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the

trial court observed that there was a delay of 26 days in lodging the report,

ExP.1 in the Police Station, Malkajgiri. The incident took place on 09.07.2012,

but the police report was given on 04.08.2012. There was an abnormal delay

which was not explained by PW.1 either in his complaint or in his statement.

The non-explanation for the delay in lodging the Ex.P.1 in Police Station was

fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13. The trial court also observed that while it was stated in Ex.P.1 that

abusive words were uttered by the accused against the sons of the complainant

while they were passing in front of the house of the accused, the sons of PWs.1

and 2 were neither cited nor examined by the prosecution. They were the best

persons against whom the abusive words were uttered by the accused in filthy

language and who had to speak about the incident. The trial court also observed

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

that the alleged incident took place before the labourers and mason attending

work in the house of PWs.1 and 2, but they were also neither cited nor

examined by the prosecution.

14. The trial court on considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the husband

and wife, observed it as interested and that their evidence could not be relied on,

in the absence of independent corroboration.

15. The lower appellate court on re-appraisal of the evidence of the

witnesses, observed that except the interested testimony of PWs.1 and 2, there

was no independent corroboration to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Due to the

admitted ill-feelings between the family members of PW.1 and the accused 1

and 2, it was not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of PWs.1 and

2 in the absence of independent corroboration. Both the neighbours were not in

talking terms for the past ten years and several instances of quarrel took place

between them as per their own evidence and on earlier occasions also, both the

parties lodged complaints against each other before the Police. There was an

un-explained delay in lodging the complaint before the Police. PWs.3 and 4,

the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident not supported the prosecution case and

denied their statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In

the said circumstances, it was not safe to place reliance on the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

16. The lower appellate court also observed that the ingredients of Section

448 of IPC were not attracted as PWs.1 and 2 had not stated in their evidence

about the accused 1 and 2 committing house trespass. With regard to the

offence under Section 427 of IPC, it was observed that there was no clear

evidence, when the accused 1 and 2 committed mischief, causing damage to the

property of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 was silent on the said aspect. There

was no convincing evidence to convict the accused 1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC.

17. The lower appellate court also observed that since there were ill-feelings

between the family members of PW.1 and the accused, the interested testimony

of PWs.1 and 2 was not sufficient to fix the crime against the accused under

Sections 504 and 509 of IPC and held that the prosecution failed to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 448, 427, 509,

and 504 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

18. This Court does not find any illegality in the reasoning of the courts

below in finding the accused persons not guilty for the offences for which they

were charged and acquitting them. As such, it is considered fit, to dismiss the

revision confirming the judgments of the courts below as there is no need for

any improvement or to set aside the same.

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_226_2016

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

judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions

Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Malkajgiri confirming the judgment dated 26.07.2013 in C.C.No.180 of 2012

passed by the Special Magistrate Court - II, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

9th March, 2023 nsk.