Telangana High Court
E.Prabhakar vs The State Of A.P., on 4 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.417 OF2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the
judgment dated 21.01.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2013
on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
(for short, "the appellate Court") in modifying the judgment dated
13.11.2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short,
"the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard
Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for respondent State.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on
03.04.2024. Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to list the
matter on 04.04.2024 under the caption, "for dismissal". Even
today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner
inspite of listing the matter under the caption, "for dismissal".
Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits
of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani
Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was
categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal
for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.2010,
PW1/complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 04.01.2010
at 11:30 P.M., while he was working as Head Constable in Langer
House Police Station as incharge at reception counter, he
received a message from the control room in VHF set stating that
there was a galata at Bapu Nagar. Then he sent two home guards
viz., LWs.2 and 3 to the said place. When PW1 and his staff
visited Bapu Nagar to apprehend the accused, the accused
abused them in filthy language, beat them and ran away, due to
which, PW1 sustained injury on the jaws. Basing on the same,
the present crime is registered against the petitioner for the
offence under Section 332 of I.P.C.
5. The trial Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2013 in
C.C.No.815 of 2010, found the petitioner guilty for the offence
under Section 332 of I.P.C. But instead of convicting him, the
trial Court, released the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond for
(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720
Rs.2,000/- with one third party surety and directed him to
maintain peace, good behaviour and conduct under the
supervision of District Probation Officer as per Section 4(1)(3) of
Probation of Offenders Act for a period of one year. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.
6. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment dismissed the
appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court.
Assailing the same, the present Revision.
7. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner
contended that both the Courts without appreciating the evidence
available on record in proper perspective passed their respective
judgments. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the
impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that both
the Courts, upon careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, rightly passed their respective judgments
and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he
seeks to dismiss the Revision.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence,
none were examined and no document was marked. Upon careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
observed that the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is not trustworthy as
they turned hostile. As per the evidence of PW1, the trial Court
found that there was no previous enmity between PW1 and the
accused. PW1 is not an ordinary person and he is a Police
Constable in APSP battalion. At the time of the incident he was
attached to CBCID and without the fault of accused, there is no
chance to implicate him in a false case. Therefore, the trial Court
observed that the accused caused hurt to PW1 who is a public
servant while he was discharging his duties and rendered the
judgment dated 13.11.2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2010.
10. The appellate Court observed that the evidence of PW1
corroborated with the version of PW6 doctor. PW6 stated that he
found injuries in the form of contusions over left cheek and right
cheek of PW1 which shows that the accused beat him while he
was discharging his official duties. Therefore, the appellate Court
dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment passed by the trial
Court.
11. In the case on hand, the trial Court as well as appellate
Court concurrently held that the accused was found guilty for the
offence under Section 332 of IPC, which finding, in my considered
view, does not call for interference, in exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
12. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere
with the well considered judgments passed by both the Courts
and accordingly, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 04.04.2024
ESP
