Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sala Nanchariah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 27 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1399 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru ("Sessions Judge" for short), challenging the judgment, dated 17.03.2006, where under the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against him in Sessions Case No.443 of 2004, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3) The Sessions Case No.443 of 2004 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, arose out a committal order passed in P.R.C.No.59 of 2004, on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, pertaining to Crime No.10 of 2003 of Chebrole Police Station.
4) The accused faced trial for the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and he was convicted and sentenced by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem.
2
5) The case of the prosecution, in brief, in Crime No.10 of 2003 of Chebrole Police Station, in view of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, before jurisdictional Magistrate is as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Machilipatnam, Krishna District. L.W.1-Kuthadi Ramana @ Sala Ramana is wife of the accused and she is the victim. L.W.2-Kuthadi Yedukondalu is the younger brother of L.W.1. L.W.3-Kompelli Murali, L.W.4-
Karri Ramadevi, L.W.5-Sura Sai Surya Prakasam, L.W.6-Sura Thriveni and L.W.7-Kuthadi Sattemma were the neighbourers to the scene of offence. The offence took place at the residence of L.W.1 in Narayanapuram of Unguturu Mandal.
(ii) L.W.1 was native of Narayanapuram of Unguturu Mandal. She was given marriage to the accused, who is resident of Machilipatnam, Krishna District. After the marriage, she joined with the accused to lead marital life. They lead their marital life amicably for some time. They were blessed with two sons and one daughter. Prior to the date of offence, clashes arose between L.W.1 and the accused in domestic life. On account of the ill-treatment meted out, L.W.1 had come down to Narayanapuram village. She started staying with her daughter at the house of her parents. The accused made several attempts to take back L.W.1 for renewal of their matrimonial life, but she 3 refused to come due to fear. The accused warned L.W.1 and her parents several times. She did not agree to go along with the accused. The accused bore grudge against her and developed a mind to put an end to the life of L.W.1.
(iii) Keeping in view and in pursuant of his pre-plan, on 30.01.2003 at about 4-30 a.m., the accused attacked L.W.1 at her residence in Narayanapuram village, Unguturu Mandal and made an attempt to kill her by hacking her with knife indiscriminately on her left side neck, right fore-arm, left side of back, left thigh and left shoulder. On hearing cries, the neighbourers rushed there. On seeing them, the accused fled away with the knife. The younger brother of the victim and others shifted her to Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem for treatment. L.W.11-the Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Police Station on hospital intimation, visited the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem and recorded the statement of L.W.1. He forwarded the same to Chebrolu Police Station on point of jurisdiction. On receipt of it, L.W.12-the Station House Officer, registered the statement of L.W.1, as a case in Crime No.10 of 2003 under Section 307 of I.P.C. on 30.01.2003 at 4-10 p.m. and investigated into. L.W.13-the Sub Inspector of Police, verified the investigation of L.W.12. L.W.14-the Sub Inspector of Police continued further investigation. The presence of the 4 accused was secured in execution of P.T. warrant on 17.09.2004. L.W.10-the Medical Officer examined the injured and issued wound certificate. Hence, the charge sheet.
6) The jurisdictional Magistrate took the case on file for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. After complying necessary formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by virtue of the orders in P.R.C.No.59 of 2004, thereupon, the case was numbered as Sessions Case and it was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem.
7) Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, on appearance of accused, a charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. was framed and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.7 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
9) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, on hearing both sides and on considering the 5 oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Felt aggrieved of the same, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Eluru and it was dismissed on merits by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the present criminal revision case.
10) Now, in deciding the present Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment, dated 17.03.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Eluru, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point:-
11) Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the Court below convicted the petitioner basing on the interested testimony of prosecution witnesses. There were marital disputes between the accused and P.W.1 admittedly. P.W.1 was residing along with her 6 parents. As she had no intention to join with the petitioner and receiving injuries by fall, she implicated him in a false case.
There was a delay in lodging the report. The incident was said to be happened only due to small disputes between wife and husband. Though the case of the prosecution was based upon the interested testimony, but the Court below convicted the accused erroneously and even the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Court below with erroneous reasons, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to allowed. Apart from the above contentions, she would further submit that in the event of confirmation of the judgment of appellate Court for any reason, this Court may be pleased to consider to reduce the quantum of sentence.
12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of P.W.2, the injured, has corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3, who witnessed the occurrence and further the evidence of P.W.5, the younger brother of P.W.2. P.W.1 was a neighbor who was examined by the prosecution firstly as by then the presence of P.W.2 could not be secured and for obvious reasons, she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. However, she supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the injuries noticed on the person of P.W.2. The learned 7 Assistant Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. The learned appellate Court also rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The accused attacked P.W.2 indiscriminately with a knife by going to her village at her parents' house in the odd hours in a premediate manner, as such, the intention of the accused was only to kill the injured- P.W.1, but, he could not succeed. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. He would further submit that the Court below already took a lenient view by imposing only five years imprisonment, as such, the Court may not reduce the term of imprisonment.
13) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, admittedly she was a neighbor to the occurrence. She was not a person, who set the criminal law in motion. However, the prosecution examined her as first witness and she did not support the case of the prosecution. According to her, she is resident of Narayanapuram village. She knows Kutadi Ramana and accused. Her (P.W.1) house is by the side of her house. The accused is the husband of Ramana. Two years ago at 4-00 a.m., she was in her house. She was sleeping in her house. On hearing commotion, she got up and went out. She found Ramana weeping. She found her with bleeding injuries on her neck and shoulder. She did not see the accused at that place. Her brother 8 Yedukondalu took her to hospital. Prosecution got declared her as hostile and during cross examination she denied that she did not state before police as in Ex.P.1 (Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1).
14) According to the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer, P.W.1 stated before him that she saw the incident. Whatever the reason may be for P.W.1 for not supporting the case of prosecution, but her evidence to the extent she supported the case of the prosecution, can be taken into consideration. So, her evidence that she found P.W.2 with bleeding injuries on her neck and shoulder is not at all challenged by the accused during the cross examination.
15) P.W.2 is the injured, who supported the case of the prosecution. Her evidence is that about two years ago she began staying with her parents as the accused committing theft at Vijayawada and he was harassing her and he was not providing food to her. So, she went away to her parents' house. She has one daughter and two sons. On the date of offence, her parents went to Machlipatnam. Her brother Yeduknodalu is staying with her. Her brother also went to Machilipatnam on the date of offence. Due to fear of her husband, she was sleeping in the house of Murali (P.W.1). At 4-00 a.m., Yedukondalu returned home and she went to her house. When she was 9 opening the lock of her house, the accused, who was hiding there, came and dealt a blow with knife on her neck, left fore- arm and on left thigh. She sustained a knife injury on her right shoulder blade. She raised hue and cries. Due to fear, Yeduknodalu was unable to catch hold of the accused. She was admitted in the hospital at Tadepalligudem. Police recorded her statement which is Ex.P.2. Accused wanted to kill her. He became angry as she was not living with him. Accused thrown acid on her mother when she was at Machililpatnam. She (P.W.2) was In-patient for 25 days at Tadepalligudem and Eluru Hospitals.
16) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, he deposed that the incident took place at about two years ago at the house of P.W.2. He knows P.W.2 and accused. Accused is husband of P.W.2. At about two years ago at 4-00 a.m., he got up on hearing cries. He saw the accused hacking P.W.2 with knife on the neck, left upper arm and on thigh. All the people gathered there. He saw Yedukondalu separating P.W.1 from the accused. On seeing them, the accused ran away. The accused would have killed P.W.2, if they did not go there. Thriveni is his wife. She also came to the scene of offence.
17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, the younger brother of the injured (P.W.2), he deposed that P.W.2 is his 10 sister. Accused is his brother-in-law. Two years ago at 4-00 a.m., the incident took place. He returned to Narayanapuram from Machilipatnam at 4-00 a.m., on that day. He went to the house of P.W.1 and brought P.W.2 to his house. When P.W.2 was opening the lock of the house, accused came from behind and hacked her with knife. P.W.2 sustained injuries on her neck, shoulder, fore-arm and thigh. He raised hue and cries. Due to fear, he could not catch-hold of the accused. Several people gathered there. Accused ran away from that place. He took P.W.2 to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem. P.W.2 and accused were living at Vijayawada. As accused was harassing P.W.2, she came to Narayanapuram and starting living with him. P.W.2 was in the hospital for 20 days. Accused wanted to kill P.W.2.
18) Coming to the evidence of P.W.6, she deposed that her house is near the house of P.W.2. About two years ago at 4-00 a.m., the incident took place at the house of P.W.2. On hearing the cries, she went there. She found P.W.2 with bleeding injuries and came to know that the person who was running away was her husband. P.W.2 told her that the accused hacked her. She saw the injuries on her neck and thigh. She learnt that P.W.2 was taken to hospital.
11
19) P.W.7 was a witness to the scene observation report, who testified that on 30.01.2003 on being called by the police, he drafted observation report at the scene, which is Ex.P.4.
20) P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 30.01.2003 he received hospital intimation from the Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem. Ex.P.8 is the medical intimation. He went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.2 in Ex.P.2 and obtained her thumb impression. Later, he sent the file to Chebrolu Police Station.
21) P.W.9 testified that having received statement of P.W.2, he registered it as a case in Crime No.10 of 2003 under Section 307 of I.P.C. Ex.P.6 is the F.I.R. He went to the Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem on the same day and recorded the statement of P.W.2. He handed over the file to Sub Inspector of Police.
22) P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, deposed that on receipt of file from P.W.9 he took up investigation. He examined P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.6 and recorded their statements. He prepared Ex.P.4 observation report by visiting the scene of offence. He also prepared rough sketch. On his transfer, he handed over the file to his successor.
12
23) P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Police, who continued further investigation and he deposed that he produced the accused after obtaining P.T. warrant and after receipt of statement of P.W.4 and wound certificate, he filed charge sheet.
24) This criminal revision case is filed against the concurrent findings of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem in Sessions Case No.443 of 2004, dated 18.03.2005 and the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, dated 17.03.2006. Both the Courts below found favour with the case of the prosecution under Section 307 of I.P.C. As this Criminal Revision Case is against concurrent findings, the scope of this Criminal Revision Case is very limited. This Court has to see as to whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety?
25) The prosecution examined P.W.2, the injured before the Court below. P.W.3 and P.W.5 were the direct witnesses to the occurrence. Even there was evidence of P.W.6 to the effect that on hearing the cries, she came out and came to know that the person, who was running away, was the husband of P.W.2. During the cross examination of P.W.2, the accused did not 13 dispute that P.W.2 was residing separately at her parents' house on account of the disputes with the accused. She did not file any case against the accused prior to the incident. Simply because, there were disputes between the accused and P.W.2, her evidence cannot be disbelieved on the ground that with regard to the so-called disputes prior to the date of offence she did not lodge any report with police. During probing cross examination, she testified that her house is at a distance of 100 yards from the house of P.W.1 and she was sleeping in the verandah of P.W.1 and she did not state before police that she was sleeping in the house of P.W.1 on that night (omission). During the cross examination of P.W.5, the brother of P.W.2, it was elicited that he stated before police that P.W.2 is in the house of P.W.1.
26) It is to be noticed that even according to Ex.P.1, due to fear as her brother on that day left the village, she took shelter in some others house during that night and in the early hours, her brother came and woke up. So, it is clear that according to the case of the prosecution, during that night due to fear of the accused, P.W.2 slept in some others house and during early hours, her younger brother came and woke her up and when she was entering into their house, the accused attacked P.W.2. Under the circumstances, the omission was only 14 relating to the house of P.W.1 in which she took shelter during that night temporarily. But, according to Ex.P.1, she took shelter in some others house. Hence, it cannot be taken as an omission which goes to very root of the matter. She testified in cross examination as to the manner of attack. When she was opening the lock, the accused came from behind and hacked with knife and due to fear, her brother run away and later the accused ran away on hearing cries. She deposed in cross examination that Yedukondalu came to the house at 3-00 p.m. and woke her up. One day prior to the offence, the accused poured acid on her mother. Her brother told her about that incident prior to the time of offence. She denied that she sustained injuries with the iron cover of the water tank and taking advantage of it, she filed a false case. During cross examination of P.W.3, he denied that he did not saw the accused hacking P.W.2 and that he is deposing false. P.W.3 was a neighbor to the house of P.W.2 and he had no reason to depose false.
27) Apart from the above, there is further corroboration to the testimony of P.W.2 by virtue of evidence of P.W.5, the brother of P.W.2. He denied during cross examination that the accused never hacked P.W.2. He denied that P.W.2 sustained injuries by fall on stones and that he is deposing false to implicate the accused. Though P.W.6, another witness, deposed 15 in cross examination that she did not witness the actual incident, but her further evidence that she came to know that the person, who was running away, was the husband of P.W.2 remained unshaken. By virtue of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, the prosecution cogently established that the attack was made on P.W.2 at the house of parents of P.W.2 in their village. There is no dispute that the accused is resident of Machilipatnam prior to the date of incident. Therefore, on the date of incident, he came to the village of Narayanapuram to the parents' house of P.W.2 and attacked her. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the ocular testimony in this regard.
28) The evidence of P.W.2 has any amount of corroboration from the medical evidence. There is evidence of P.W.4, the medical officer, coupled with Ex.P.3 wound certificate. Injury No.1 was on the nape of neck about 12x3 cm muscle depth with profuse bleeding. Even the injury Nos.2, 3 and 4 were also the incised wounds. The nature of injury Nos.1 to 4 goes to corroborate the testimony of P.W.2. The attack made by the accused was of indiscriminate. The time of attack was during odd hours. Under the circumstances, the prosecution was able to prove cogently that the accused made a disparate attack on P.W.2 with a sharp edged weapon attacking on vital part of the body indiscriminately.
16
29) There is evidence of P.W.8 to testify that he recorded the statement of P.W.2 under Ex.P.2 and forwarded the same to the police on point of jurisdiction. P.W.9 testified about the registration of F.I.R. P.W.10 and P.W.11 were the investigating officers.
30) By virtue of the above, the prosecution proved the attack made by the accused on P.W.2.
31) Admittedly, in a case under Section 307 of I.P.C., the prosecution should establish the intention to commit murder or with such knowledge that if he caused the death, he would be guilty of murder. Injury No.1 on P.W.2 was on the vital parts of the body and there were incised wounds i.e., injury Nos.1 to 4. Having regard to the nature of attack, time of attack and the place of attack, the evidence on record definitely prove the charge under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the accused.
32) Considering the evidence on record, both the Courts below found favour the case of the prosecution. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006, dated 17.03.2006 cannot be said to be illegal and irregular. In my considered view, the petitioner miserably failed to substantiate his contentions that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge suffers with illegality, irregularity and impropriety. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined 17 to interfere with the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 17.03.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2006. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the same.
33) Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the quantum of sentence imposed against the accused, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused punishable with imprisonment for life. In this case, accused attacked P.W.1 on her vital parts of the body and caused four incised wounds. Hence, sentence imposed against the accused before the Court below is not at all excessive. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to reduce the term of imprisonment.
34) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
35) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 03.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused and to report compliance to this Court.
18
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 27.03.2023.
PGR 19 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1399 OF 2008 Date: 27.03.2023 PGR