Macha Dayanandam vs State Of A.P.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3353 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.741 OF 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case directed against the

judgment dt.22.12.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court-

cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Criminal Appeal

No.60 of 2009, wherein and whereunder, the learned Sessions

Judge partly allowed by modifying the judgment dt.01.05.2009

passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, in C.C.

No.310 of 2006 against the accused, and the conviction of the

appellants/A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34

IPC is confirmed. The sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for

a period of six months imposed by the trial Court is set aside,

but A-1 to A-3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each;

in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of three months; the total

fine amount is Rs.6,000/-.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the accused No.1 to 3

in C.C. No.310 of 2006, whereas the respondent is the State.

For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as

arrayed in the C.C. before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

                            2                                     RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

That one Bandra Balaiah, who is the injured and the de

facto complainant, has Ac.0-19½ gts., of land in Sy.No.1368

situated on the outskirts of Maryala village. The accused also

has adjacent Ac.0-19½ gts., of land in the same survey number

as the said land of the complainant. The accused and the

complainant had been quarrelling about Ac.0-19 ½ gts., of the

complainant's land for two months. On 26.01.2006 at 9.00

a.m. while the complainant, with the help of S. Balaiah,

Muthireddy Kashaiah and Bandra Ramana, who are the

labourers, were erecting pillars around the said land, while

they stood at a little distance, in the meantime Accused No.1 to

3 came there with the crowbar and stick and tried to pull out

the pillars. In that regard, a quarrel took place among them.

Accused No.1 beat the complainant with a crowbar on left leg,

right hand and right collarbone and accused No.2 beat him

with a stick over left his temple, meanwhile Accused No.3

supported the acts of Accused No.1 and 2 kicking with legs and

beating with hands.

4. In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 8 were

examined and Exs.P-1 to P-11 and MOs 1 and 2 were marked.

No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

                            3                                     RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

5. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court

found the accused guilty of the charged offence and convicted

and sentenced the accused as stated supra.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the accused No.1 to 3 preferred the

above criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and

the learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on

record, modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court as

stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the accused No.1 to 3 are

challenging the said judgment of the Appellate Court before

this Court.

7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused and

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

complainant/State. Perused the record.

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

accused that though there is a plea of the accused that there

are land disputes between the parties as their lands are

situated side by side, and even though there is no evidence, the

accused have been convicted falsely, and they never committed

any offence, the learned judge wrongly penalized the accused

for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.

                             4                                    RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent/State had contended

that the impugned judgments suffer no infirmity as they are

well reasoned.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the accused is entitled for setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code?

11. POINT:

It is the contention of the complainant that has Ac.0-19½

gts., of land in Sy.No.1368 situated on the outskirts of Maryala

village. The accused also have adjacent Ac.0-19½ gts., of land

in the same survey number as the said land of the

complainant. The accused and the complainant had been

quarrelling about Ac.0-19 ½ gts., of land of the complainant for

two months. In that regard, a quarrel occurred and the

accused persons beat him. To prove his bona fides, he himself

was examined as PW.1 and deposed that on 26.01.2006 at

about 8.30 a.m. when he, along with others, were laying

boundary stones around his land, all the accused came there,

quarrelled about erecting the boundary stones by them,

disputing his ownership and accused No.1 beat him with a 5 RRN,J Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

crowbar and accused No.2 beat him with stick and accused

No.3 beat him with hands and kicked him.

12. PW.2, who is an alleged eyewitness to the incident,

turned hostile and deposed that the police never examined her

she and she never witnessed the incident as alleged by PW.1.

As such, her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case.

13. PW.3, who is another eyewitness to the incident,

supported the version of PW.1 by deposing that when PW.1 had

questioned the authority of accused No.1, who was removing

the boundary stones erected by him, accused Nos. 1 to 3

started beating PW.1, due to which, PW.1 sustained fracture

injury on his right hand on his leg. He further deposed that

accused No.2 also beat up PW.1 with a stick on his forehead,

accused No.3 kicked and hit him with his hands. The presence

of PW.3 at the site of the incident is undisputed, as he

happened to be the person who was engaged in the erection of

the said pillars.

14. PW.4, also an eyewitness to the incident, was engaged by

PW.1 to erect the stone pillars around his land along with

PW.3. He also deposed in support of PW.1's version of events.

                             6                                     RRN,J
                                                 Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

15. PW.5 Ch. Satyanarayana and PW.6 N. Venkat Reddy are

the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama,

who turned hostile and did not support the case of the

prosecution. Their depositions are crucial in the facts and

circumstances of the case, especially since they categorically

deposed that the police obtained their signatures on blank

papers, despite their protest. Even though they have not

explained as to why they did not take any steps against the

police for allegedly obtaining their signatures against their free

will, it is safe to assume that owing to circumstantial

pressures, PWs 5 and 6 did not take any steps against the

police.

16. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer, who deposed that upon

receipt of a complaint from PW.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.14/2006 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC

and issued FIR/Ex.P7. Subsequently, he recorded the

statements of PWs 1 to 4, LWs 5 and 9 and referred the injured

to the Government Hospital. He later altered the section of law

from 324 r/w 34 IPC to 326 r/w 34 IPC, upon receipt of a

medical certificate, wherein it stated that PW.1 sustained

grievous injuries. He further deposed that Ex.P8 and P9 are

the confession and seizure of panchanama of A-1 and A-2, and 7 RRN,J Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

MO.1 is a crowbar, and MO.2 is the stick, which were

recovered from the possession of A-1 and A-2 respectively. It is

pertinent to note that in view of the depositions of PWs 5 and 6,

the recovery of MOs 1 and 2 itself is doubtful. However, owing

to the above evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and PW.8, it cannot be

doubted that PW.1 has sustained injuries.

17. PW.8/Dr. D. Upendra Reddy, the Medical Officer, who

examined PW.1, deposed that PW.1 had abrasions and

lacerations all over his body and also deposed that according to

the report of Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Prashanth, PW.1 also

suffered one grievous injury.

18. Though the accused set up a defence, during the course

of cross-examination of PW.1 that, PW.1 used to work as a

lorry driver, previously on National High Way and that he

sustained injuries in the lorry accident on 25.01.2006 and

foisted a false case against the accused, connecting them, to

the said injuries, due to previous disputes between them.

Though PW.1 admitted that previously, he used to work as a

lorry driver, and during his cross-examination, he stated that

about ten years back, an accident case was registered by

Thurkapally police. He, however, rejected the suggestion that 8 RRN,J Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

the present injuries were connected to the accident. If PW.1

sustained injuries in the accident, as contended by the accused

during the course of cross-examination, a case would have

been registered against PW.1 in that regard. In view of the

above deposition of PW.1, the injuries sustained by him on

26.01.2006 cannot be connected to the said case.

19. Therefore, the concurrent findings arrived at by both the

courts below are on appreciation of the entire evidence in

proper perspective. However, owing to lacunae in the

testimonies of PWs 5 and 6, it is not conclusively established

as to whether MOs 1 and 2 were indeed recovered from the

possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 as claimed by

PW.7/Investigating Officer. There is no explanation on behalf

of PW.7 with regard to the allegations of PWs 5 and 6 that their

signatures were obtained against their will.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

view that the charged offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC

against the accused persons is not made out; as such, this

Court is of the view that the accused are found guilty of the

offence punishable under Section 338 IPC. Therefore, the

order of the Appellate Court is liable to be modified, and the 9 RRN,J Crl. RC No.741 of 2011

section of law is altered from Section 324 r/w 34 IPC to Section

338 IPC.

21. Accordingly, the section of law is modified from Section

324 r/w 34 IPC to Section 338 IPC and the accused are

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence

punishable under Section 338 IPC. As seen from the record,

the accused No.1 to 3 have already paid the fine amount of

Rs.2,000/- each on 22.12.2010. Hence, the balance amount to

shall be returned the accused No.1 to 3 by deducting the fine

amount imposed by this Court.

22. With the above modification, the criminal revision case is

disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date: 20.10.2023 BDR