Manker Tukaram vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2731 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
               CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.930 OF 2011
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/ Accused No.1 aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.04.2011

in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2009, on the file of the learned Judge,

Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Court, Adilabad wherein the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month

for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC awarded to the

petitioner vide judgment dated 06.02.2009 in SC No.281 of 2008 on the

file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Adilabad was modified

sentencing the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for three

months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine

amount to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, directing to

pay Rs.2,000/- to PW2 as compensation from and out of the said fine

amount and to set off the remand period of the petitioner, if any

undergone.

2. Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent. None

appeared on behalf of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

3. The main accusation against the petitioner under Crime

No.64 of 2006 of Police Station, Bela is that on 24.12.2006 at about

09.00 a.m. while the de-facto complainant/PW1 was proceeding on his

bullock cart to his fields, accused Nos.1 to 4 came in opposite direction

in an auto without leaving way for his bullock cart and had quarrel

during which, accused No.1 attacked PW2, who is brother of PW1 with

sickle on his head and others beat him with hands. PWs.3 and 4 along

with Junghare Doulath, Vollewar Raju and Sama Narsa Reddy

witnessed the same. Accordingly, the police registered Crime No.64 of

2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of

IPC and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet vide PRC

No.51 of 2007 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Adilabad and later it was committed to learned District and Sessions

Court, Adilabad vide SC No.281 of 2008. Relying upon Section 464 of

Cr.P.C., the trial Court, after examination of evidence in the form of

PWs.1 to 7, EXs.P1 to P5 and MO1, while acquitting accused Nos.1, 2

and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section

34 of IPC, found the petitioner/accused No.1 guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 324 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as

stated supra. The appellate Court has modified the said findings, as

stated supra.

4. Aggrieved by findings of both the Courts below, the

petitioner filed the present criminal revision case mainly contending

that both the Courts below have erroneously found the petitioner guilty

without appreciating the evidence available on record in a right

perspective and on erroneous presumptions and also failed to

appreciate the fact that there were previous political rivalry between the

parties and also did not consider the aspect of non-examination of

owner of the auto and also non-mentioning of its number, non-drafting

of scene of offence panchanama. On the other hand, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision

case stating that the findings of both the Courts below are well

reasoned and interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. Out of the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 and 2 involved in

the quarrel, PWs.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the accident, they

witnessed the scene of quarrel. Therefore, all these witnesses are

present during the quarrel. Their evidence, in one voice is that they

have intentionally obstructed the way to the vehicle of PW1 and in the

exchange of words, the petitioner beat accused No.2 with a sickle/MO1

causing bleeding injury and other accused have beat him with hands.

Their evidence also shows that after beating PW2, the petitioner, PW2

uttered a word in Telugu "Chacchindu" and the said act revealed the

intention of petitioner to kill him. But there is no evidence to show that

the accused hatched a plan to kill PW2. The incident occurred out of

exchange of words between the parties. Evidence of PW3 deposed that

he tried to pacify the parties. PW5 is the panch witness for confession

and seizure of MO1 from the petitioner under Ex.P2. It is also elicited

through PW5 that there was previous enmity including CC No.197 of

2007 between the parties. PW6 doctor proved the injury caused due to

hit by sharp object. According to evidence of PW6, who issued Ex.P3

medical certificate, the injury was simple and cannot be viewed as

slaughtering. PW7 is the investigating officer, his evidence disclosed

that previous disputes including Crime Nos.35 of 2005 and 36 of 2005

were pending between the parties. Nothing is on record adduced or

elicited by the defence to disbelieve the case of prosecution.

6. The prosecution, by adducing evidence in the form of

PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P5 and also MO1 could able to establish the

guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC

and on the other hand, the defence could not discard the same.

Accordingly, the trial Court, by elaborately discussing the above facts

and circumstances, has rightly found the guilt of the petitioner,

convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. The appellate Court,

while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court, by taking

into consideration the plea of the accused that he has to look after his

children and old aged parents, had reduced the period of

imprisonment, as stated supra.

7. This Court upon perusing the judgments of both the

Courts below and the evidence available on record coupled with the

grounds urged herein is of the considered view that both the Courts

below have appreciated the evidence on record in a right and

reasonable perspective and the same do not warrant interference of this

Court.

8. So far as the sentence of imprisonment, imposed by the

trial Court and modified by the appellate Court against the petitioner is

concerned, from the inception of case i.e. from the year 2006 the

petitioner has been roaming around the Courts to defend himself from

the case by facing mental agony and trauma, which itself is a sufficient

ground to take lenient view against him. Therefore, the sentence of

imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and modified by the appellate

Court to the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period of

imprisonment which he has already undergone while upholding the fine

amount awarded to him by the Courts below.

9. Except the above modification in respect of period of

sentence of imprisonment, this criminal revision case in all other

aspects is dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand

cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand

dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :26-09-2023 abb