Akki Niranjan, Mahabubnagar Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3508 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2262 OF 2016


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the

judgment dt.31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of

2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar, wherein and

whereunder, the judgment dt.12.11.2014 passed in C.C. No.257

of 2007 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalwakurthi, in convicting the revision petitioner/accused No.2

for the offence under section 452 and 324 of IPC and sentencing

him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years

and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 452 IPC, and also to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and

Appellate Court confirmed the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 23.09.2006, when the de facto complainant was at his

residence, accused Nos.1 to 6 were alleged to have trespassed

into his house and allegedly attacked him with an Axe and 2 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

sticks due to political enmity. Accused No.2/revision petitioner

hacked him with an axe on his left wrist and left thigh and

further beat him with a stick indiscriminately. During the

course of the said incident, his grandson/PW.9 sustained Axe

injuries on his head. Based on a complaint given by PW.6, the

Station House Officer registered a case in Cr.No. 79 of 2006

under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324 r/w 149 IPC and filed a

charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 7.

3. To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs-1 to 11 were

examined and got marked exhibits P1 to P10. Neither oral nor

documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

4. Considering the evidence on record and the arguments

advanced by both the sides, the Trial Court, while acquitting the

accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and

326 r/w 149 IPC, however, convicted and sentenced them for

the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC. Aggrieved by the

same, they preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions

Judge vide Crl. Appeal No.9 of 2015 and the learned Sessions

Judge partly allowed the appeal vide judgment dt.31.08.2016 by

acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3, however, convicting the

accused No.2/revision petitioner as stated supra. Therefore, the 3 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

revision petitioner/accused No.2 is challenging the said

judgments before this Court.

5. Heard Sri K. Sreenivas, learned Counsel appearing on

behalf of the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/Complainant.

Perused the material available on record.

6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the

revision petitioner/accused No.2 that the judgments of both the

courts below suffer infirmity and they are liable to be set aside

as both the courts below failed to see that the evidence of

PW.6/complainant is contrary to his own complaint/Ex.P2. He

further contended that PW.10, who is the independent witness

and the alleged eyewitness, did not support the case of the

prosecution. He further submitted that the case of accused

Nos.1 and 3 before the Appellate Court had a similar standing

to that of the revision petitioner/accused No.2. As such, the

Appellate Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner

as well. He also contended that the testimonies of PW.1, PW.6

and PW.9 are contradictory to each other. Accordingly, prayed

to allow the revision petition.

7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent/State had contended that the 4 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

judgments of both the Courts below are very well reasoned,

having carefully scrutinised the evidence placed before it.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition by confirming

the judgments of both the Courts below.

8. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that the invoking

of Section 452 of IPC requires that the accused committed the

house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with

imprisonment or the offence of theft. It is necessary for the

prosecution to show that the unlawful entry made into the

property of the complainant, was done so with the intent of

committing an offence. Further, it is also proven that the

accused No.2/revision petitioner caused hurt voluntarily by

dangerous weapons. The Appellate Court accordingly, on the

basis of evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 9, which was duly

corroborated with the medical evidence Ex.P4 and P5 given by

PW.8/Doctor, held that it is a fit case to invoke Sections 452

and 324 IPC against the accused No.2/revision petitioner and

accordingly convicted him, while acquitting accused Nos.1 and

3 for lack of evidence.

9. PW.1, who is the wife of PW.6/complainant, is an

eyewitness to the incident. She deposed that when PW.6 was

present at their house, all the accused trespassed into their 5 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

house and beat PWs 6 and 9 with sticks and Axe, as a result of

which, both PW.6 and PW.9 received grievous injuries.

10. PWs-2 and 3, who are the panch witnesses, were

examined by the prosecution. PW.2 did not support the version

of the prosecution, while PW.3 concurred with the prosecution

case and stated that the police conducted the scene of offence

panchanama and, accordingly, obtained his signature.

11. PWs.4 and 5, who are the panch for confession and

recovery, also deviated from the version of the prosecution and

stated that the police did not conduct any confession and

recovery panchanama.

12. PW-7, who is the son of the complainant/PW.6, was cited

as another eyewitness. He deposed that while he was at

Guntur, he came to know that his father/PW.6 and sister's son

PW.9 sustained injuries in an attack. He denied having

witnessed the incident and stated that he did not know who

attacked PWs 6 and 9. As such, his evidence is not helpful to

the prosecution case.

13. PW-8/Dr. D. Swarnalatha, Medical Officer who treated

PWs 6 and 9, deposed that she found simple injuries on PW.9

and grievous injuries on PW.6. She further deposed that as per 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

Ex.P4/wound certificate, PW.9 received laceration injury which

might have been caused by a blunt object. It is pertinent to

note that as per Ex.P2/complaint, the accused along with

others came to the house of PW.6 with axes and sticks. It is

also noted that PW.6 deposed that his grandson sustained

injuries when accused No.2/revision petitioner beat him with an

Axe. Therefore, it is observed that the injury sustained by PW.9

is duly corroborated with the medical evidence on record. The

statement given by PW.6 to the police during the investigation

also concurs with the above facts.

14. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.2

has contended that the case was foisted against the revision

petitioner/accused No.2 owing to previous enmity and political

differences. He further contended that PW.6 is involved in

various cases and that he is a life convict. He submitted that

PW.6 has the habit of exaggerating things to extract revenge

against his opponents. The present case is a consequence of

the political differences that the revision petitioner/accused

No.2 had with PW.6. He submitted that the instant case is the

result of the accused No.2/revision petitioner suspecting that

the complainant/PW.6 for having pelted stones at his house a

few hours prior to the alleged incident.

                             7                                      RRN,J
                                                 Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

15. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the

testimonies of PWs.1, 6 and 8 are incriminating and in

consonance with each other. This Court does not find the

discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are panch

witnesses, to be fatal to the prosecution case. Further, a

perusal of Ex.P4 and P5/Medical certificates which have been

corroborated by the evidence of PW.8, shows that the injuries

have not been concocted and there is no reason to disbelieve the

testimony of PW.8. The mere absence of X-Ray reports, as

rightly observed by the trial Court, is not a ground to disregard

the fact that the aforementioned injuries have been caused by a

violent attack.

16. This Court is also of the view that the Appellate Court was

justified in disregarding the aspect of prior political enmity and

deciding the matter on merits and the facts available on record.

It is not contested by the revision petitioner/accused No.2 that

he was not present at the premises of PW.6 at the time of the

occurrence of the incident. Further, this Court finds no reason

to believe that PW.6 would lodge a false complaint against the

revision petitioner/accused No.2, only on account of prior

enmity. Keeping in view the corroborative evidences as

discussed above, the manner of the incident and the 8 RRN,J Crl. RC No.2262 of 2016

involvement of the revision petitioner/accused No.2 in causing

the injuries to PWs 6 and 9, as held by both the Courts below, is

justified.

17. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of

the revision petitioner/accused No.2 beyond all reasonable

doubts and the revision case is liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed,

confirming the judgment dt.31.08.2016 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-

cum-VII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. However,

keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2006 and nearly

17 years have elapsed, the sentence imposed on the petitioner

is modified from (03) years to that of the sentence he had

already undergone. The sentence of the fine amounts are not

interfered with.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date: 02.11.2023 BDR