Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Cherukuru Naguru, vs Chinna Baba Saheb Gari Baba Fakruddin on 30 January, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Revision Case No.710 of 2019
Judgment:
This criminal revision case is preferred under Sections
397 and 401 of Cr.P.C questioning the order dated 10-4-2019
passed in Crl.M.P. No.698 of 2019 in C.C.No.278 of 2018
whereby the petition filed by accused 1 and 4 to discharge
them from the said case was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the
petitioners; Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent/State.
3. Facts germane to dispose of this revision case may be
stated as follows:
(a) On the report lodged by the de facto complainant
stating that on 09-4-2019, when the drainage water is being
passed in front of their house, he went to the college which is
behind his house and met the Correspondent by name Nagur
and informed him that the drainage water from the college is
being passed in front of his house. Accused No.1 is the said
Correspondent. He grew wild on the de facto complainant
and stated that "Mee Pani Sayantram Chepthara Naa
Kodaka".
(b) Thereafter, at 06.30 p.m. in the evening on that day,
accused No.1 along with other accused, who are accused 2 to
5, came to the house of the de facto complainant in Innova
vehicle holding sticks and rods and they entered his house
2
CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 and attacked him and his wife and beat them with the said sticks and rods and caused injuries to them. In the said attack, they removed the clothes on the person of his wife. When his daughter-in-law interfered and requested the accused not to beat her parents-in-law, all the accused caught tuft of her hair and dragged her. Thereafter, all the accused threatened the de facto complainant and his family members with dire consequences. The de facto complainant sustained bleeding injuries on his arm and on his knee. His wife also sustained injury on her leg. Therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences.
(c) The said report lodged by the de facto complainant was registered as a case in Crime No.99/2018 of Proddatur Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police only against accused 2, 3 and 5. Charge-sheet was not filed against the petitioners herein, who are accused 1 and 4.
(d) The trial Court has taken the charge-sheet on to its file. However, the trial Court having held that the FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the de facto complainant speaks against all the accused i.e. accused 1 to 5, he has taken cognizance of the case against all the accused i.e. accused 1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued summons to them.
3
CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019
(e) Pursuant to the summons issued, all the accused 1 to 5 made their appearance in the trial Court. At the time of framing charges, the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, filed a petition to discharge them from the case on the ground that the other witnesses i.e. the wife of the de facto complainant and daughter of the de facto complainant and the alleged eyewitnesses, who are examined in this case as L.Ws.2 to 6, did not state anything against these petitioners and that they have specifically eliminated the presence of these petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, at the time of the alleged offence and as such there are no grounds to frame charge against them and thereby prayed to discharge them from the case.
(f) The said petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that it is stated in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.1 regarding the involvement of these petitioners in commission of the said offences along with other accused and as such the said fact relating to their involvement is to be decided during the course of trial. So, the trial Court declined to discharge the petitioners in the case.
(g) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present revision case questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order.
4. As can be seen from the case set up by the prosecution, it is the case of the prosecution that all the accused, who are accused 1 to 5, came to the house of the 4 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 de facto complainant on 09-4-2018 in Innova vehicle armed with sticks and rods and entered the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him and his wife, who is L.W.2 and beat them with the said sticks and rods and caused injuries to them and in the process, they have also outraged the modesty of L.W.2, who is the wife of the de facto complainant. It is also the case of the prosecution that when L.W.3, who is the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant, interfered to rescue the de facto complainant and his wife, that the accused have also caught tuft of her hair and dragged her and thereby outraged her modesty. Therefore, the accused are liable for prosecution under Sections 324, 354 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, would contend that the victims relating to the said offence of outraging the modesty of the women are L.Ws.2 and 3, who are the wife and the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant and they did not state anything in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C against these petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, that they have entered their house, armed with sticks and rods and attacked them or the de facto complainant or that they have outraged their modesty. He would submit that they have clearly stated that these petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, are not at all present at the time of commission of the said offence by the other accused. He also submits that even the other witnesses examined as L.Ws.4 to 6, who are cited as eyewitnesses to the 5 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 said offences, also clearly stated that these petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, are not present at the time of the offence and thereby excluded their presence at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the offences. So, in view of the said statements given by L.Ws.2 to 6 who did not state anything regarding the complicity of these petitioners in commission of any of the said offences, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are absolutely no grounds to frame any charge against them to prosecute them for the alleged offences. So, he contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition in toto.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that although L.Ws.2 to 6 did not state anything against the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4 and excluded their presence at the scene of offence at the time of commission of the offence, the de facto complainant, who was examined as L.W.1, during the course of investigation, clearly stated that the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, also participated in commission of the said offence along with the other accused and this statement of L.W.1 prima facie shows that the petitioners beat him and caused injuries to him along with other accused and as such the offences under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are clearly made out. So, it cannot be said that the charge against them is groundless and that they are entitled for discharge in the said case.
6
CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019
7. L.Ws.2 and 3 are the two women against whom it is alleged that an offence under Section 354 of IPC of outraging their modesty and causing injuries to them was committed. As can be seen from the statements of L.Ws.2 and 3, who are the wife and the daughter-in-law of the de facto complainant, they clearly stated that the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, are not at all present at the time of commission of the said offences by the other accused. They have unequivocally stated in clear terms that the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, did not participate in commission of the said offence. Since the offence under Section 354 of IPC is relating to outraging the modesty of a woman is relating to these two witnesses, who are L.Ws.2 and 3 and as they are the alleged victims of the said offence, if any, they are the best persons and competent witnesses to speak whether any offence of outraging their modesty punishable under Section 354 of IPC was committed by these petitioners against them or not. As these petitioners clearly stated in their statements that the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, did not participate in commission of any such offence and as the eyewitnesses also, who were examined as L.Ws.4 to 6, stated that the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 4, did not participate in commission of the said offence, this Court is of the considered view that there are absolutely no grounds to frame any charge against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Since the victims i.e. L.Ws.2 and 3 did not state anything regarding the commission of the said 7 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 offence under Section 354 of IPC against accused 1 and 4, they are not liable for prosecution under Section 354 of IPC. So, the charge against them for the said offence is clearly groundless and legally unsustainable.
8. However, even though L.Ws.2 to 6 stated that these petitioners have not participated in commission of the said offence, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, the de facto complainant, who is cited as a witness as L.W.1, clearly stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C that these petitioners along with the other accused entered their house and attacked him and beat him and caused injuries to him and also to his wife and to his daughter-in-law. Although there is inconsistency in the versions between the statements given by the de facto complainant and his wife and daughter-in-law, who are examined as L.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard, whose statement is true as far as the said offence under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, is the matter relating to appreciation of their evidence by the trial Court, which is to be recorded during the course of trial in the trial Court in the final adjudication of the case. At this stage, since the de facto complainant examined as L.W.1 stated clearly regarding the complicity of these petitioners also in commission of the offence against him at least for the offence under Section 324 of IPC against him, the said material is sufficient to frame charges under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The truth of the matter is to be decided in the final adjudication of the 8 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 case after the trial is concluded after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution to that effect. It is well settled law that in a petition filed seeking discharge of the accused, the Court cannot scrutinize the evidence at pre-trial stage to decide the veracity of their statements or truth or otherwise of the version given in their statements. It is the task to be undertaken after conclusion of the trial in the final adjudication of the case. So, it cannot be said that charges under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are wholly groundless and the petitioners are not liable for prosecution for the said offences in view of the categorical statement given by L.W.1, the de facto complainant in his statement. There is prima facie material by way of his statement at least to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. So, to that extent, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable under law and it holds good.
9. Therefore, the impugned order as regards the offence under Section 354 of IPC is concerned, is not sustainable. There is no prima facie material at least to frame any charge under Section 354 of IPC against the petitioners. As regards the other offences i.e. under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are concerned, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is sustainable under law as there is prima facie material to frame a charge to that effect.
10. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed and it is held that there are no valid grounds to frame 9 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 a charge under Section 354 of IPC against these petitioners. The impugned order in respect of other offences holds good. The revision case is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
30th January, 2020.
Ak 10 CMR, J.
crlrc_710_2019 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Criminal Revision Case No.710 of 2019 30th January, 2020.
(Ak)