Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gurajala Ramesh And Ors. vs State Of A.P. on 21 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD(CRI)13, 2003(2)ALT(CRI)95, 2003CRILJ3584
ORDER M. Narayana Reddy, J.
1. These Orders, according to Law, arise out of a Criminal Revision Case, filed by the revision petitioners, against the sole respondent-State, under Sections 397 and 401, Cr.P.C., 1973, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra.
2. Judgment, dated 19-7-2002, of the Court of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore, made in Criminal Appeal No. 101/97, of its file, inter alia, confirming, in toto, the earlier Judgment, dated 15-12-1997, of the Court of the Asst. Sessions Judge, Kovur, made in S. C. No. 143/95, of its file.
3. Perused the material papers of the Record.
4. Arguments were heard of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent-State.
5. The three revision petitioners herein correspond, respectively, to appellants 3, 4 and 5 in the said Criminal Appeal No. 101/ 97, and A. 4, A. 5 and A. 6 in the said S.C. No. 143/95, of the said Trial Court. The Appellate Court recorded, that, A.3 in that Sessions Case, corresponding to the second appellant therein died, and that, hence, the case against: him is abated. A. 1 in that Sessions Case corresponds to the First Appellate in that Criminal Appeal. He is not a party to this revision case. The Trial Court, in its Judgment, recorded, that, the case against A.2 before it had abated. The sole respondent in this Criminal Revision correspondent, respectively, to the sole respondent in that Criminal Appeal and the sole complainant in that Sessions Case, being the State represented by the Inspector of Police, Buchireddipalem.
6. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said Trial Court, in that S.C. No. 143/95, unless, otherwise, so specified.
7. In total, six accused were prosecuted by the prosecution, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 398, I.P.C. alleging, that, on 22-12-1994, around 2.30 a.m. in the early hours, A. 1 to A. 6 boarded the lorry, bearing No. AP-26-T-0079, near Rajupaiem Centre, paying Rs. 5/- each, and that, by the time it reached Ulavapalla, on the National Highway, the accused demanded the Cleaner to stop the lorry, and that, A. 1 pointed out a knife at the Driver, and A.2 pointed out a knife at the Cleaner and threatened to kill them, and that, if they failed to part with their valuables, etc. and, later, took their valuables under that threat, and on the Driver and Cleaner raising alarm, the patrolling police, including the Inspector of Police, surrounded the lorry, arrested the accused, seized the knives, and, later, registered a crime against the accused, and, after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet against them under Section 398, I.P.C. etc.
8. After committal by the Committal Court, it resulted in the said S.C. No. 143/95. The said Trial Court tried the same, in respect of A.1 and A.3 to A.6 therein, in respect of the offence and common charge, punishable under Section 398, I.P.C., following the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C., 1973, for trial of the Sessions Cases, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, and exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. P. 1 to P. 3, and Object evidence, by way of M.Os. 1 and 2, and, later, after due arguments there into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its Judgment, dated 15-12-1997, set fort in para 2, supra, as under :--
I) Finding A. 1 and A.3 to A.6 guilty of the alleged offence, as also, the common charge framed against them, both, punishable under Section 398, I.P.C.
II) Consequently, convicting A.1 and A.3 to A.6, in respect thereof, under Sub-section (2) of Section 235, Cr.P.C., 1973, and, hence, sentencing them under that penal provision of Section 398, I.P.C., as under:--
"Each of A.1 and A.3 to A.6 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years."
9. Aggrieved thereby, and, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, A. 1 and A.3 to A.6 filed the said Criminal Appeal No. 101/97, which, after due enquiry there, into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its Judgment, dated 19-7-2002, set forth in para. 2, supra, as under :--
I) Confirming, in toto, the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court, in respect of A. 1 and A.4 to A.6; and II) Finding, that, the case against A.3 (2nd appellant) abated, as he died.
10. Aggrieved thereby, and, questioning the validity and legality thereof, A.4, A.5 and A.6 filed the present Criminal Revision Case, urging, that, the convictions and sentences are illegal, incorrect and improper, and hence, unsustainable at Law, and hence, have to be set aside, as such, etc.
11. Even, according to the case of the prosecution, it is the then Inspector of Police, by name, D.C. Abraham, examined as P.W. 3, while under patrolling duty in that right, found the offence and arrested the accused and also investigated into the crime and filed charge-sheet in the case.
12. Apart from that, it will be manifest from the police proceedings, covered by Ex. P. 2, that, the same Inspector of Police, who found the crime and also arrested the accused and prepared that panchanama and seized the two pen knives, exhibited as M.Os. 1 and 2, also, as can be seen from Ex. P. 3, is the same Inspector, who gave report to the Police Station Dagadarthi, which was registered by that Police as Crime No. 61/ 94. So, he is the defacto-complainant therein.
13. Again, he gave evidence before the Trial Court as P.W. 3 and deposed about the same aspects, including the detection, or, finding the crime and investigation there into, and his final filing of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet bears his signature, There is no other Investigating Officer, other than P.W. 3.
14. So, therefore, even according to the prosecution, as also, the material on record, the same Police Officer who detected, or found, the offence, gave F.I.R. and also investigated the crime and filed charge-sheet.
15. In this context, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners relied upon a Ruling in (Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan), delivered, inter alia, interpreting Sections 165 and 173 of Cr.P.C., 1898. In para. 5 thereof, it is postulated, that, the infirmity arising from the investigation by Head Constable, to whom bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the F.I.R. as an informant, or, complainant, will be an infirmity, which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the case of the prosecution.
16. In the case, on hand, three witnesses were examined, out of whom P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the Driver and Cleaner of that Lorry, only other witness being P.W. 3, the said Inspector of Police.
17. In the circumstances, it is manifest, that, illegality was committed by the same Police Officer, who detected, or, found the offence, or, crime, also giving the F.I.R. recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3), Cr.P.C. 1973, and also otherwise investigating into the crime, and finally filing the charge-sheet, and giving evidence as P.W. 3.
18. Hence, the impugned convictions and sentences, as confirmed by the Appellate Court, are unsustainable at Law, and hence, have to be set aside, as such, invoking the powers vested under Sections 397, 401. Cr.P.C. 1973, as is being done, hereunder.
19. Hence, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Revision Case, as under :--
I) Setting aside, in toto, the Judgments, referred to, in para. 2, supra, but, only, insofar as the same pertain to A.4 to A.6 in that Sessions Case No. 143/95; and II) (a) Consequently, finding A.4 to A.6, not guilty of the offence and charge under Section 398, I.P.C., and hence, acquitting them in respect thereof; and
(b) Consequently, directing, that, A.4 to A,6 be set at liberty, forthwith, in respect thereof.