Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manapalli Anantha Baghya Lakshmi vs The State Of A.P. 6 Others on 3 February, 2020
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Criminal Revision Case No. 1388 of 2007
ORDER:
1) Heard Sri. K. Chindambaram, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2) The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Narsapur, wherein, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed by acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 506 & 290 r/w. 149 IPC.
3) The facts, in issue, are as under:-
i. LW1 is the informant and Village Secretary of Burugupalli village. A1 is a resident of Polamuru and an active member of Bahujana Party and is in the habit of creating law and order problems by spreading the issues into political screen and causing public nuisance. A2 to A6 are residents of Burugupalli village of Elemanchili mandal.
ii. One Manepalli Tatayya Naidu @ Babji is a resident of Burugupalli village. He took lands in Kopparru village for doing prawn culture and engaged one Gubbala Srinu as Watchman at the prawn tanks. It is said that, Gubbala Srinu died under suspicious circumstances and a case in Crime No.119/2003 came to be registered for the offence punishable 2 under Sections 354, 302 r/w. 34 IPC against Manepalli Tatayya Naidu @ Babji and others.
iii. While things stood thus, A1 is said to have secured A2 to A6 and about 100 persons and brought the decomposed dead body of Gubbala Srinu and laid the dead body inside the house of Manepalli Tatayya Naidu @ Babji and started dharna in-front of his house. The accused is said to have made illegal demands and caused public nuisance by disturbing public tranquility in the village on 24.10.2003 at about 7.00 PM to 3.00 AM midnight and raised danger to the human lives and property in the village. The said incident was witnessed by Manepalli Tatayya Naidu @ Babji and LW2 to LW7. Basing on a report of LW1, PW6 registered the same as case in Crime No. 96/2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 448, 506(2), 186, 290 r/w. 149 IPC and Section 7(1)(a) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on filed as C.C. No. 133 of 2004.
4) On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. came to be furnished. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. After completing the 3 prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied, but, however did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their plea.
6) Considering the evidence available on record, more particularly believing the evidence of PW1 to PW5, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months under each count, which was reversed on an appeal holding that the evidence of PW1 to PW5 is not trustworthy as they are interested witnesses.
7) Sri. K. Chindambaram, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the reason given by the Appellate Court in disbelieving the evidence of PW1 to PW5 cannot be accepted. According to him, the well considered judgment of the trial court was reversed by the Appellate Court. He would contend that, PW1 has no motive to speak false against any of the accused and as such, should have believed the evidence of PW1, which gets corroboration from other witnesses.
8) The point that arises for consideration is, whether the Appellate Court was right in reversing the Judgment and conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused?
9) In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW1 to PW6.
4
10) PW1 is the Informant and the Village Secretary. He in his evidence deposed that, on 24.10.2003 at about 7.00 PM, while he was present in Panchayat Office, a dead body was carried to the burial ground, which passed in-front of his office. He followed the procession which was carrying the dead body on a tractor and trailer under the leadership of A1 along with some 100 persons. He deposed that, the tractor stopped in-front of the house of Manepali Tatayya Naidu @ Babji and A1 to A6 shifted the dead body from the tractor and placed it in the compound of Tatayya Naidu and raised slogans against his family as they are responsible for the death of Gubbala Srinu. He further deposed that, the agitation went on till 3.00 AM and when PW1 asked the accused to remove the dead body, they demanded compensation.
11) PW1 failed to state who were the other person other than the Village President who demanded the accused to remove the dead body. PW1 deposed that the procession passed in-front of his office at 7.00 P.M. and the distance between the panchayat office and the house of Manepalli Tatayya Naidu @ Babji is only 20 meters. But, in the cross-examination, he stated that, at 8.00 P.M. the dead body was placed in the house of Manepalli Tatayya Naidu. It is hard to believe that, it took one hour to cover a distance of 20 meters. Even, if the evidence of PW1 is acceptable, it is strange to see that, he did not lodge a report immediately with the police. His evidence is that, on the next day morning, he sent a report Ex.P1 to Elamanchili Police Station, which fact if tested with the evidence of PW6- investigating officer, would be false since PW6 deposed that 5 PW1 personally came to the police station to lodge the report. If at all PW1 really participated in the procession and followed the dead body along with 100 other persons, he could have easily identified the accused. But, in the cross-examination, PW1 bluntly admits that, he cannot identify the accused who had shifted the dead body inside the house of Manepali Tatayya Naidu @ Babji.
12) PW2 in his evidence deposed that, A1 to A6 and others brought the dead body of the deceased to the house of Manepali Tatayya Naidu and placed the dead body by crossing the compound gate, which is not the version of PW1 or the contents of Ex.P1. She further deposed that, accused caused mischief by breaking the window glass, electrical bulbs, abused her in vulgar language and threatened her with dire consequences before demanding to provide a share in the house property to the deceased. However, she never stated to the police about the mischievous acts of A1 to A6. In-fact, PW2 deposed that, when the dead body was shifted to her house, neither PW1 nor the Village President or Vice President came to her house. She did not give any reasons to mention the names of A1 to A6 but not others. She clearly admitted that, when A1 to A6 entered into the house, she was in the bedroom, which is facing the main road and the dead body was brought by A1 to A6 across the main gate and placed in the veranda. But, on careful perusal of rough sketch E.P4, it is clear that the version of PW2 is false and the dead body was never placed in the verandah as stated by PW2. It is also the evidence of PW2 that, except her and LW3, nobody was examined by the police 6 at her house, whereas, PW1, PW3 to PW5 deposed that, they were examined by the police at the house of PW2.
13) PW3 in his evidence deposed that, the accused shifted the dead body from the tractor by crossing the compound gate of the house and placed the dead body in the house of PW2. He stated that, Sub-Inspector of Police examined him and 10 others at the house of PW2. He deposed that, A1 to A6 broke the window glasses of PW2. On the contrary, he deposed that, A1 shifted the dead body from the tractor and placed it before the gate and after the dead body was shifted by crossing the gate. He is said to have jumped over the gate to enter into the compound area, which appears to be an exaggerated version.
14) PW4 is another interested witness. He in his evidence deposed that, PW1 and other villages came to the house of PW2 at 3.00 AM. He was examined by the police at the house of PW2. To a suggestion that he works as coolie under the Manepalli Tatayya Naidu, he admits the same. In cross-examination, he admits that, two hours after the dead body was shifted to the house of PW2, police came there, which runs contra to the evidence of PW3, who said, no police was present at the time of the incident. He did not state before the police about the accused committing mischief by breaking the window glasses etc.
15) If the evidence of PW5 is scrutinized carefully, it would reveal that, he does not know the topography of the scene of offence. He deposed that, no police came to the house of PW2 on the date of 7 incident. His evidence is full of discrepancies, inconsistencies and material developments.
16) PW6 is the investigating officer who in his evidence deposed that, at 10.30 AM, PW1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report, which evidence is contrary to PW1's evidence. He admits that, PW2 to PW4 never stated to him about the material developments deposed by them in their evidence given before the court. He also admits that, PW1 never stated to him that he followed the dead body up to the house of PW2.
17) The evidence on record further shows that, prior to the incident there was a murder in the village and the deceased was engaged by the family of PW2 as Watchman at prawn tanks. The evidence on record shows that, the brother-in-law of PW2 slapped the wife of the deceased and misbehaved with her, as such the deceased not only questioned the brother of PW2 but also took the issue before elders. Later on, the dead body of the deceased was found near the prawn tank of PW2.
18) From the evidence of PW1 to PW6, it is clear that their evidence is full of inconsistencies. The evidence of PW6- investigating officer is that, at about 10.30 A.M., PW1 came to the police station and lodged a report-Ex.P1, but, all along the version of PW1 is that, he sent Village Servant to lodge a report. It is not clear, as to when PW1 sent the Village Servant to lodge the report. Significantly, the Village Servant was not examined by the prosecution. As is borne out of record, it was the PW1 who visited 8 the police station and lodged a report [Ex.P1] on 10.30 A.M., though the incident is said to have taken place at 7.00 PM. Therefore, not reporting the case immediately to the police and the inconsistent version creates a doubt.
19) In K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"That it was open to a High Court in revision and at the instance of a private party to set aside an order of acquittal though the State might not have appealed. But such jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases, as where a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error of law leading to a flagrant miscarriage of justice has taken place. When s. 439(4) of the Code forbids the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it is not proper that the High Court should do the same indirectly by ordering a retrial. It was not possible to lay down the criteria for by which to judge such exceptional cases. It was, however, clear that the High Court would be justified in interfering in cases such as (1) where the trial court had wrongly shut out evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution, (2) where the appeal court had wrongly held evidence admitted by the trial court to be inadmissible, (3) where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the court of appeal or, (4) where the acquittal was based on a compounding of the offence not permitted by law and cases similar to the above.
20) In Kalu Ahir And Others vs Ramdeo Ram2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"An unrestricted right of appeal from acquittal is specifically conferred only on the State and a private complainant is given the right of appeal ,only when the criminal prosecution was instituted on his complaint and then also subject to special leave by the High Court. A private complainant can only claim a right, in common with all aggrieved parties in a criminal proceeding, to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court for redress against miscarriage of justice arising from an erroneous order of 1 AIR 1962 SC 1788 2 AIR 1973 SC 2145 9 acquittal; but the High Court's power in such cases is circumscribed by the provisions of Ss. 417 and 439, Cr.P.C. and also by the fundamental principles of criminal Jurisprudence it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised only in exceptional cases and with great care and caution. Trials are not to be lightly set aside when-such orders expose the accused persons to a fresh trial with all its consequential harassment. The power of revision conferred on the High Court by Ss. 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary power vested in the superior court to be exercised in aid of justice. The High Court has been invested with this power to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence and that the subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse the power conferred on them by law. As a general rule, this power, in spite of the wide language of the sections does not contemplate interference with conclusions of fact in the absence of serious legal infirmity and failure of justice. This power is certainly not intended to be exercised as to one portion of the Criminal Procedure Code conflict with another as would be the case when, in the garb ,of exercising revisional power, the High Court in effect exercises the power of appeal in face of statutory prohibition. In revision, the High Court is expressly prohibited from converting acquittal into a conviction it makes it therefore all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering a retrial. The High Court when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision in the case of an order of acquittal should therefore refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature which has resulted in grave failure of justice. The High Court is not expected to act as if it is hearing an appeal in spite of the wide language under s. 435 which empowers it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding, sentence or order and as to the regularity of any proceeding, and also in spite of the fact that under s.439 it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under s.423, Cr.P.C. The power being discretionary, it is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. Judicial discretion means a discretion which is informed by analogy and disciplined by system".
21) In State of Orissa Appellant v. Nakula Sahu and others Respondents3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 3
AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 663 10 "9. So far as the first point is concerned, it is to be emphasised that although the revisional power of the High Court under S. 439 read with Sec. 435 of the Code the Criminal Procedure, 1898 is as wide as the power of Court of Appeal under S. 423 of the Code, it is now well settled that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec. 439 is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions of this Court in Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (1973) 4 SCC 10 : (AIR 1973 SC 799) and Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (1973) 2 SCC 583 : (AIR 1973 SC 2145). In the latter case viz. Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (supra) this Court following its earlier decision in the Amar Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose (supra) held that in spite of the wide language of S. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which empowered it to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings, sentence or order recorded or passed by any inferior court situate within the limits of its jurisdiction and as to the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court and in spite of the fact that under S. 439 of the Code it can exercise inter alia the power conferred on a court of appeal under S. 423 of the Code the High Court is not expected to act under S. 435 or S. 439 as if it is hearing an appeal. The power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or lightly. Judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which in informed by tradition, methodised by analogy and disciplined by system".
22) From the judgments referred to above, it is clear that, in a revision against an acquittal, at the instance of informant, the scope of interference is very limited, and unless a strong case is made out showing that the judgment is perverse or contrary to the law, interfering with the findings arrived at by the Court below would be improper and incorrect.
23) Keeping these circumstances in the background, it can be said that the findings given by the Lower Court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse causing miscarriage of justice. 11
24) In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the reversal of Judgment, dated 13.07.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2006, by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur, acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 448, 506 & 290 r/w. 149 IPC.
25) Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
26) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 03.02.2020 SM.
12
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1388 of 2007 Date: 03.02.2020 SM.