Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yerrabommannahalli Venkata ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 22 December, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1363 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant, who was the first accused in Sessions Case No.776 of 2008, on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Anantapur (for short, 'the learned Special Sessions Judge') challenging the judgment therein, dated 09.09.2009, whereunder the learned Special Sessions Judge found the appellant herein guilty of the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning and hearing him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
2
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009
3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, according to the charge sheet filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madakasira (for short, 'the learned Magistrate'), is as follows:
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda Sub-Division filed charge sheet in Crime No.100 of 2007 of Madakasira Police Station alleging that A-1 to A-17 are residents of Y.B. Halli village of Madakasira Mandal and there are political ill-feelings between two groups. One group is headed by Y.N. Ravisekhar Reddy of Congress-I Party and another group is headed by Y.V. Karunakar Reddy of Telugu Desam Party. On 25.09.2007, the followers of Y.N. Ravisekhar Reddy performed Maremma jathara in the village against the will of Telugu Desam Party workers. According to the tradition prevailed, drums have to be beaten by one Kalingappagari Narasimhappa while carrying the lamps to Goddess Maremma but the said Narasimhappa did not beat the drums. On 30.09.2007 at about 08:00 PM, LW.1-M. Lakshmi Narasimhappa, who is cousin brother of said Kalingappagari Narasimhappa, called Narasimhappa to his house and that LW.1- Lakshmi Narasimhappa, LW.5-Mala Kambalappa and LW.6- Gandalappagari Hanumanthappa asked Kalingappagari Narasimhappa as to why he has not beaten the drums on 3 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009 25.09.2007, when they performed jathara. In the meanwhile, A-3 and A-4 came, picked up galata with LW.1-M.Lakshmi Narasimhappa by abusing him as 'MALA LANJAKODAKALLARA' and also abused LW.6-Hanumanthappa as 'MADIGA LANJAKODUKULLARA'. Meanwhile, A-1 came there along with A-2, A-5 to A-17 and hacked LW.2-Maryada Rangappagari Ramanjappa who came there with a sickle and also pelted stones on the house of LW.1-M.Lakshminarsimhappa, on the houses of LW.9-Ediga Narasimhappa and LW.10-Ediga Eswaramma, attacked LW.3-
K.Chinna Rangappa, LW.4-K.Hanumantharayappa and beat them with sticks and caused injuries. It is therefore alleged that A-1 to A-17 committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 R/w.149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989').
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session, Sessions Division, Anantapur and thereupon it was made over to the Court of Special Sessions Judge. 4
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009
5. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 17 before the Court below and after following the procedure under Section 228 Cr.P.C, charges under Sections 147, 148, 324 R/w.149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-14 were marked and MOs.1 to 3 were marked.
7. The accused were subjected to 313 Cr.P.C examination after closure of the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. A-1 filed a defence statement enclosing as many as six documents i.e., Exs.D- 1 to D-6.
8. The learned Special Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused No.1 guilty of the charge under Section 324 IPC, and after convicting him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. questioned and heard him about the quantum of sentence, and sentenced him as stated above. The learned Special Sessions 5 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009 Judge, found A-2 to A-17 not guilty of the charges and acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
9. Being aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused No.1 in S.C. No.776 of 2009 filed the present Criminal Appeal.
10. It is to be noticed that as against the acquittal recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge under various provisions of law against other accused, there is no Appeal preferred by the State. Hence, the scope of the Appeal is very limited.
11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the simple question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the prosecution proved before the Court below, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused No.1, appellant herein, caused simple injuries to PW.2?
12. Sri M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that having recorded the order of acquittal against A-2 to A-17, the learned Special Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant basing on the interested testimony and basing on the assumptions and presumptions, as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed. This is the only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant, which also found place in the grounds of Appeal. 6
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009
13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant-State, would submit that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the overt act against the Appellant is consistent and their evidence has corroboration from the medical source, as such there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded against the appellant. He would further submit that the trial Court took a lenient view by just sentencing the appellant to pay fine though the offence was punishable with imprisonment of three years, as such the sentence imposed against him cannot be interfered.
14. Though the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, to prove the guilt against the appellant and other accused with bundle of allegations, the crucial evidence is that of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and it is sufficient to look into here the relevant portion of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the offence alleged against the appellant. So, coming to the evidence of PW.1, on material aspects, he deposed that PW.2 came to the scene and enquired him as to what happened. Then, A-1 hacked LW.2-Maryada Rangappagari Ramanjappa with sickle on his head. He received bleeding injury and fell down. He came to know that A-1 and others beat PW.3 also. Then, he telephoned to 7 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009 108 Ambulance and they came and shifted the injured to the hospital.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, he deposed that on hearing galata at the house of PW.1, he reached there. There was exchanging of words. He requested both of them to discuss the matter on next day. Then, A-1 hacked him with sickle on his head. He sustained bleeding injury.
16. So, PWs.1 and 2 attributed overt acts against A-1 as having hacked PW.2 with a sickle which resulted into bleeding injury.
17. Now, coming to the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, it has nothing to do with the overt acts attributed against A-1 as having caused injuries to PW.2.
18. Now, coming to the evidence on record, admittedly, there was a lacerated injury on the head of PW.2. PW.10 is the Medical Officer, who has spoken to the fact that he examined PW.2 and found injury. Though, he deposed that such injury on PW.2 could not be possible with sharp edged weapon but this Court is of the considered view that when a sharp edged weapon was used to cause injuries on the head, it would result into the laceration as well. So, the learned Special Sessions Judge rightly differed with 8 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009 the evidence of PW.10 in this regard. So, there was a corresponding injury on the head of PW.2, as against the overt acts attributed to A-1.
19. Apart from this, PWs.12, 13 and 14 are the Investigation Officers and they have spoken about the investigation conducted and during the course of cross-examination nothing was elicited so as to disbelieve their testimony as against the evidence alleged against A-1. It is well settled that in faction ridden villages, there would be a tendency to rope as many as innocents to wreck vengeance. It is also sell settled that it is the duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff when truth and falsehood is mixed up in the evidence. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge reveals that the learned Special Sessions Judge undertook to complete the task of sifting the grain from the chaff and appreciated the evidence with care and caution and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the offence alleged against the appellant (A-1) for the offence under Section 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Under the circumstances, I do not see any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the findings of the learned Special 9 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.1363/2009 Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Sessions Case No.776 of 2008, dated 09.09.2009, against the appellant (A-1) is concerned
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 28.12.2022 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant (A-1) in S.C. No.776 of 2008, dated 09.09.2009, and report compliance to this Court. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 22.12.2022 DSH