Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Kottala Sudhakar Babu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 December, 2024
APHC010314212024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 651/2024
Between:
Dr. Kottala Sudhakar Babu, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CHAKRADHARA RAJA Y
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.651 of 2024
ORDER:
Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 39 of BNSS (Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure), the convict preferred this revision with a prayer as mentioned below:
"It is therefore pray that this Hon‟ble Court be pleased to set- aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2019 on the file of the Hon‟ble IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge Court at Kakinada confirming the judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.C.No.125 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in the interest of Justice."
2. Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant.
3. Sri Y.Chakradhara Raj, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri T.Ramakoteswara 3 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted their arguments.
4. Facts leading to the present revision have to be seen. A woman by name Smt. Kottala Rajya Lakshmi was taking treatment in Government General Hospital, Kakinada as an in- patient. Her husband is Sri Seelu Agneya Raju @ Kottala Agneya Raju/A.2. He was an Assistant Professor in a law college. Dr. Kottala Sudhakar Babu/A.1 is the brother of the patient. The alleged crime incident occurred in Government General Hospital at Kakinada near RICU-I. The victim-cum-de facto complainant was aged 60 years and was Assistant Professor in Anesthesia Department working in the same hospital and discharging her duties as a doctor also. The crime incident allegedly occurred on 26.05.2016 in the Government Hospital. Crime No.94 of 2016 was registered by I Town Law and Order Police Station, Kakinada. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid as against A.1 and A.2. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 354, 427 and 509 read with 34 of I.P.C. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Broken spectacles of the victim was exhibited as MO.1. 4
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 The defence did not adduce any evidence. After due trial and after hearing arguments on both sides, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada by judgment dated 24.10.2019 found A.1 and A.2 guilty only for the charge under Section 332 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The learned trial Court acquitted both the accused of the rest of the charges.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.383 of 2019. Accused No.2 preferred Crl.A.No.428 of 2019. Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment of the trial Court, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada heard them together and disposed of them by a common judgment dated 25.06.2024. The learned appellate judge found fault with the judgment of the trial Court in convicting accused No.2 and after recording reasons, it acquitted accused No.2 by allowing Crl.A.No.428 of 2019. However, it agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed Crl.A.No.383 of 2019 and thus, it confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No.1 for the charge under Section 332 I.P.C. 5
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024
6. Aggrieved of it, accused No.1 preferred the present revision.
7. It has been mentioned in the grounds of the revision and the learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that:
A conviction under Section 332 I.P.C. is invalid as long as offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is not alleged. It is further argued that evidence on record did not disclose PW.1/victim/de facto complainant was discharging her duties as a public servant at the material point of time. It is further argued that the authorities of Government General Hospital, Kakinada with a view to take vengeance against this revision petitioner got foisted this false case since the revision petitioner obtained favourable orders dated 23.12.2014 from Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.7141 of 2014 by which orders the transfer orders of this revision petitioner were stayed, but the authorities were not implementing it.
8. In the light of the above contentions, the point that falls for consideration in this revision is:
6
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 "Whether the conviction recorded by both the Courts below finding guilt of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C.
is either illegal or irregular requiring
interference?"
POINT:
9. The revision petitioner was tried and was found guilty for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C. by the trial Court and that was affirmed by the appellate Court. Since non-application of this provision is agitated, it is relevant to notice what Section 332 I.P.C. stated. The provision reads as below:
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty:--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. "
10. Public Servant is defined in Section 21 of I.P.C. The relevant portion reads as below:
7
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 "21. „Public servant"
Twelfth:-Every person-
(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;
(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)."
11. The undisputed evidence on record is that PW.1 was a doctor in Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On 26.05.2016 she was on duty attending various patients in the hospital. Her evidence to that extent was never disputed at trial by the accused. Being a Government doctor she is a public servant on the payroll of the State. That aspect is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that she is an Anesthetist and the patient who is sister of the present revision petitioner was to be attended by some other doctors and not by PW.1 and therefore, whatever had happened was happened only against a doctor not against a public servant on duty. This contention was raised by 8 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 the revision petitioner before both the Courts below and that was negatived. Head of the Department testified as PW.3 and deposed about PW.1 discharging her duties. He stated that it was her duty to attend patients in RICU-I where the sister of the revision petitioner was an in-patient. That clinches the debate. It is not for the accused to say which patient is to be attended by which doctor in a Government General Hospital. That hospital has its own protocol and doctors on duty would attend patients. Therefore, evidence on record, without any reasonable doubt, established the case of the prosecution that PW.1 was a public servant on duty when the alleged crime incident occurred. Therefore, the ground urged in the revision as against such conclusion is a ground raised without any merit.
12. The evidence on record indicates that when PW.1 was attending the patient who was the sister of this revision petitioner he did not like it and he fisted on her face and that resulted in causing damage to her body and her spectacles/MO.1 and she fell down. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate. PW.8 is the doctor who treated PW.1 and testified that he found a red coloured 9 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 contusion of six centimeters on right temple extending on to the cheek. According to prosecution, PW.1 suffered simple hurt.
13. The contention raised in this revision is that in the absence of a charge under Section 323 I.P.C., the charge under Section 332 I.P.C. cannot be maintained. No legal authority is cited in support of this contention.
14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 stoutly opposed the contention stating that, that contention is invalid being against law.
15. Section 319 I.P.C. defines „hurt‟. Section 323 I.P.C. provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Punishment provided for Section 323 I.P.C. is imprisonment which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. However, if this hurt is caused to a public servant, legislature made it a much graver offence as provided in Section 332 I.P.C. This Section 332 I.P.C. shows that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, the punishment provided is imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or 10 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 with both. Causing hurt to a public servant on duty is the offence itself as per Section 332 I.P.C. Therefore, there is no need for framing another charge under Section 323 I.P.C. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for revision petitioner is incorrect.
16. On considering the entire material on record, this Court has to state that both the Courts below had appropriately considered the evidence on record and arrived at factual and legal findings correctly and convicted this revision petitioner.
17. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that the sentence imposed by the Courts below is on higher side and the same may be modified. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2024, a certain medical record of this revision petitioner was filed and the learned counsel for revision petitioner submits that this revision petitioner suffered an automobile accident on 20.03.2021 and suffered serious injuries as his left leg bone was fractured into three pieces. Surgery was conducted and the bones did not unite and he is still suffering from very heavy swelling of the leg. It is further submitted that the revision petitioner is a doctor at Government General Hospital, Kakinada. It is on these submissions, the 11 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 learned counsel urges this Court that the punishment prescribed was disproportionate and it may cause trouble to his employment and seeks the indulgence of this Court.
18. The submissions on behalf of the prosecution are that PW.1/victim/de facto complainant retired from service and there were no personal grudges between them and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
19. The crime incident occurred on 26.05.2016. Thus, it occurred eight years ago. The revision petitioner was subjected to investigation, trial and the hearing at the appellate Court for all these years. Keeping these facts in view and the nature of the offence and the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, this Court is of the opinion that physical incarceration for a period of one year is on higher side and is thus disproportionate. Therefore, sentence of one year simple imprisonment imposed against this revision petitioner by the Courts below is set aside. However, fine of Rs.5,000/- that was imposed by the Courts below is maintained. Point is answered accordingly. 12
Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024
20. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024 of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2019 whereby confirming the conviction imposed by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in C.C.No.125 of 2017 as against the petitioner/A.1 is modified and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed against this revision petitioner is set aside. However, fine amount of Rs.5,000/- that was imposed against the revision petitioner/A.1 by the Courts below is maintained.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 17.12.2024 Ivd 13 Dr. VRKS, J Crl.R.C.No.651 of 2024 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.651 of 2024 Date: 17.12.2024 Ivd