Telangana High Court
Wadde Chinna Narsimulu 3 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 29 April, 2022
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.608 OF 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners, challenging the judgment, 11.04.2008, passed in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2007 by the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal.
2. Initially, the trial Court, vide judgment, dated 07.11.2007, passed in C.C.No.49 of 2004 convicted the petitioners/accused for the offences under Sections 323, 324 read with 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC; and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 read with 34 IPC. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 11.04.2008, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein/A2 to A4 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC from 3 months imprisonment to a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The Court below further reduced the sentence imposed against the petitioner No.1/A1 from six months to three months for the offence under JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 2 Section 324 IPC while maintaining the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
2. Heard Sri N.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.1, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the accused Nos.1 to 4 are residents of Erukalipet, Gadwal, and the victims namely Janjika Ramulu, Janjika Naga Raju and Smt. Wadde Laxmi i.e. P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 also belong to the same locality. The brother of the accused Nos.1 and 2 viz. Laxmanna engaged the son of the PW.1 namely Anjaneyulu for masonary work at Jammulamma temple and while attending the said work, the said Anjaneyulu died due to electrocution. At that time, a panchayath was convened by the community elders and Laxmanna was asked to pay Rs.5,000/- to the P.W.1 towards compensation for the death of Anjaneyulu. Since then the petitioners Nos.1 to 4/A1 to A4 bore grudge against the P.W.1 and on 11.04.2004 at 8 a.m. all the accused picked up a quarrel with the P.W.1 with regard to claiming of compensation from Laxmanna and all of them beat P.W.1 with hands and sticks and caused injuries to him. P.Ws.2 and 4, who are the children of the P.W.1, tried to intervene and rescue their JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 3 father but they were also beaten by the accused with the hands and sticks and P.Ws.2 and 3 also sustained injuries. The incident was witnessed by Bondela Pullanna and Boya Krishna i.e. P.Ws.3 and 6 and they rescued the victims from the accused. On the same day at 9 a.m., P.W.1 lodged a report to the police and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No.67 of 2004 under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, police sent the injured to the hospital for treatment, observed the scene of offence and after affecting the arrest of the accused and on receipt of the wound certificates of the injured, laid the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 i.e. the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein/A1 to A4 before the trial Court.
4. The trial Court, after analyzing the entire material on record, convicted the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein/A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein/A1 to A4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2007 before the Court below and the Court below after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, modified the conviction and sentence against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein/A1 to A4 as stated supra.
JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 4
5. The petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein/A1 to A4 were convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 read with 34 IPC. The date of commission of the alleged offence was on 11.04.2004. To substantiate the subject incident and the injuries sustained by the PWs.1, 2 and 4, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 before the trial Court. There are direct witnesses to the subject incident. Injured witnesses were examined before the Court. PWs.1, 2 and 4, who are injured witnesses, also identified the accused. The documentary evidence corroborates the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court, after carefully evaluating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution was able to establish that assault made by the accused against the injured witnesses i.e. PWs.1, 2 and 4 was with common intention; motive and reason for the assault was also established; the evidence of medical officer corroborates the injuries suffered by the injured witnesses and accordingly the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated supra. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Further, the lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction of the accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and dismissed the Criminal Appeal JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 5 by confirming the order of the conviction of the accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 323 IPC but modified the sentence from three months imprisonment to fine of Rs.1,000-00 each, in default of payment of fine amount they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of the petitioner / Accused No.1 is modified from six months to three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to petitioner No.1/A1 under section 323 IPC is confirmed. Furthermore, no grounds, much less valid grounds are made out in this revision to set aside the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Hence, no interference is warranted insofar as conviction of the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 323, 324 read with 34 IPC is concerned.
6. Here, it is apt to state that Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C., confer only limited power on the Revisional Court to the extent of satisfying about the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower Court and not to act like appellate Court for other purposes, including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence. The object of the Revisional jurisdiction is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. In the instant case, a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that there is no illegality, impropriety or JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 6 irregularity in the judgments under challenge. This Court does not find any merit in this revision.
7. As far as the quantum of sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is concerned, the offence took place as long back as in the year 2004. The petitioner/accused No.1 attended the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court in connection with this case. Further, the petitioner/accused No.1 was on bail throughout the case before the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court. Further, this Court, vide order, dated 19.04.2008, passed in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.837 of 2008, granted suspension of sentence against petitioner/accused No.1 and ordered his release on bail. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in all, the petitioner/accused No.1 was in judicial custody for a period of 10 days in connection with this case.
8. Determining the adequacy of sentence to be awarded in a given case is not an easy task, so also evolving a uniform sentencing policy. That is because the quantum of sentence that may be awarded depends upon a variety of factors including mitigating circumstances peculiar to a given case. The Courts generally exercise considerable amount of discretion in the matter of determining the quantum of sentence. In doing so, the Courts would be influenced in varying degrees by the reformative, JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 7 deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment, delay in the conclusion of the trial and legal proceedings, the age of the accused, his/her physical/health condition, the nature of the offence, the weapon used and in the cases of illegal gratification the amount of bribe, loss of job and family obligations of accused are also some of the considerations that weigh heavily with the Courts while determining the sentence to be awarded. The Courts have not attempted to exhaustively enumerate the considerations that go into determination of the quantum of sentence nor have the Courts attempted to lay down the weight that each one of these considerations carry. That is because any such exercise is neither easy nor advisable, given the myriad situations in which the question may fall for determination. Broadly speaking, the Courts have recognized the factors mentioned earlier as being relevant to the question of determining the sentence. There is plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject.
9. In B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reducing the punishment to the period already undergone by the accused therein, laid down the general principles that are to be borne in mind by the Courts while 1 (1974) 3 SCC 85 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 8 determining the quantum of punishment. It was observed as follows:-
"The sentence of imprisonment can be for a lesser period but in that event the Court has to assign special reasons which must be recorded in writing. In considering the special reasons the judicial discretion of the Court is as wide as the demand of the cause of substantial justice. Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part, but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and re- claim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
(emphasis supplied)
10. Further, in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Verma v. CBI2, it was held as follows:-
"In imposing a punishment, the concern of the court is with the nature of the act viewed as a crime or breach of the law. The maximum sentence or fine provided in law is an indicator on the gravity of the act. Having regard to the nature and mode of 2 (2014) 3 SCC 485 JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 9 commission of an offence by a person and the mitigating factors, if any, the court has to take a decision as to whether the charge established falls short of the maximum gravity indicated in the statute, and if so, to what extent.
The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence.
The Appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardio vascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the Appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction."
11. While determining the quantum of sentence, the Court is expected to strike balance between too harsh and too lenient view. Balancing has to be done between the rights of the accused and the needs of society at large. It would also be a daunting challenge to preserve the trust of citizens when using the authority of the Courts to convict an accused. In the instant case, the incident pertains to the year 2004, i.e., more than 18 years ago. The petitioner/accused No.1 has already undergone physical incarceration for about 10 days and mental trauma for about 18 years. Keeping in view the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interpretation thereof qua the right of an accused to a speedy trial, judicial compassion can play a role JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 10 and a convict can be compensated for the mental agony which he undergoes on account of protracted trial. Under these circumstances, directing the petitioner/accused No.1 to serve the remaining period of sentence imposed upon him would be unfair. Article 21 of the Constitution would bring within its sweep, not only expeditious trial but disposal of appeals and revisions. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence, while maintaining the conviction against petitioner No.1/A1. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that if the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner No.1/A1 is modified to the period already undergone by the petitioner/accused No.1, the same would sub- serve the ends of justice.
12. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court and modified by the lower appellate Court, is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.
JS, J Crl.R.C.No.608 of 2008 11
13. With the above reduction/modification of sentence of imprisonment, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
___________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J 29th April, 2022 KSK