Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Thupakula Venkata Reddy, vs The Stae Of A.P., Rep By Pp.A, And 14 ... on 17 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1793 OF 2008
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Prosecution Witness No.1/defacto-complainant in C.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa (Originally it was on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula), challenging the judgment, dated 28.07.2008, where under the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, found the accused (A.1 to A.14) not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short).
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.38 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short), alleging as follows:
(i) A.1 to A.14 are residents of Vempalli Village. A.7 is their leader. They are supporters of Congress party. The defacto-
complainant-Thupakula Venkata Reddy (L.W.1) is resident of 2 Muthukur village. L.W.2-Thupakula Gangireddy is the brother of L.W.1. They are the supporters of Telugu Desam Party. There was political rivalry in the village.
(ii) On 06.07.2003 at 6-00 p.m., A.7 was distributing kerosene quota in Muthukur village. Both L.W.1 and L.W.2 went to the house of A.7 and asked him as to why he is distributing last month quota. Then, A.2 who is the son of A.7 challenged that he can do whatever he likes. Then, A.7 and A.4 armed with crowbars and A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.13 armed with stones, formed themselves into unlawful assembly and came upon L.W.1 and L.W.2. L.W.1 and L.W.2 ran into the house of L.W.6-Kummari Kondaiah due to fear. All the accused rushed into the house of L.W.6. Then, A.3, A.2 and A.5 beat L.W.1 with stones and caused bleeding injuries to his right leg, neck and right hand. When L.W.2 intervened, A.7 beat L.W.2 with a crowbar on his right hand and caused bleeding injury. A.4 beat L.W.2 with a crowbar on his right leg thrice. A.6 beat L.W.2 with a stone on his head and caused bleeding injury. When, L.W.3-Peram Chinna Chennareddy, L.W.4-Chanda Ramulamma and L.W.5-Chanda Venkata Subba Reddy intervened, A.1 beat L.W.3 with a stone on his head and A.8 and A.9 beat L.W.3 with sticks and caused injuries. A.10 and A.11 beat L.W.4 with stones and caused injuries on her head and cheeks. A.12 beat L.W.5 with a stone on his head. A.13 and A.14 beat L.W.5 3 with sticks and caused injuries. Thereafter, L.W.1 and L.W.2 went to Pulivendala and L.W.2 got admitted in Government Hospital. L.W.7-Badraiah, Head Constable 435, recorded the statement of L.W.1 in the hospital and sent to Vempalli Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.
(iii) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli Police Station, registered it as a case in Crime No.38 of 2003 under Section 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and investigated into. L.W.9- Medical Officer, examined the injured and opined that the injuries sustained by them are simple and grievous in nature. Hence, the charge sheet.
4) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula, took the case on file for the offences under Sections 148, 324, 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and issued summons to the accused. On their appearance and on complying Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charge under Section 148 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.2, A.3 and A.5, charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.4, A.6 to A.14, charge under Section 326 of I.P.C. against A.4, A.6 and A.7, charge under Section 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.3, A.5, A.8 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.1, A.8 and A.9, charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.2 to A.7, A.10 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of 4 I.P.C. against A.10 and A.11, charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.9, A.12 to A.14, charge under Section 324 of I.P.C. against A.12, A.13 and A.14, charge under Section 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C. against A.1 to A.11, were framed and they were explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. While so, according to the orders of the Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Dis.No.8353, dated 15.11.2003, as there was a counter case in S.C.No.160 of 2004, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, the C.C.No.1 of 2004 was transferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
5) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked and on behalf of the accused, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 were marked and further Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.5 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.4 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances, for which they denied the same. They did not let in any evidence.
6) The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused (A.1 to A.14) not guilty of the charges and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of 5 Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the defacto-complainant (P.W.1) filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
7) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision case, the point that arises for consideration is that as to whether the judgment, dated 28.07.2008 in C.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment?
POINT:-
8) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri D. Kodandda Rami Reddy, would contend that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the injured witnesses, had corroboration from the medical evidence and the medical officer and there were minor discrepancies only in the evidence let in and the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, did not believe the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 without proper reasons and there was consistency with regard to the manner of attack and the place of attack and without proper appreciation of the evidence, the respondent Nos.2 to 15 were acquitted, as such, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
9) No arguments are advanced on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 to 15.
6
10) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,
representing the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for first respondent, submits that he is leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.
11) As seen from the evidence let in, P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the injured witnesses. P.W.5 is the medical officer, who examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and issued wound certificates. P.W.6 is the Panchayat Secretary, who was the mahazar witness to the observation of the scene of offence. P.W.7 is another medical officer, who examined A.2 with regard to the injuries received by him. P.W.8 is the Head Constable, who received hospital intimation from Area Hospital, Pulivendula and recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.9 is the investigating officer.
12) Before going to appreciate the contentions, this Court would like to make it clear that the defacto-complainant filed this Criminal Revision Case challenging the judgment of acquittal.
Under Section 401(3) of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot convert the order of an acquittal into conviction. It is well settled that in a Criminal Revision Case filed by the defacto-complainant against the acquittal, the scope of the Criminal Revision Case is very limited that is as to whether the judgment of the Court below was perverse and as to whether the judgment was rendered overlooking the evidence on record. In such an event only, the 7 Court has power to remand the matter. Keeping in view, the evidence is to be appreciated.
13) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, the injured witness, on 06.07.2003 at 6-30 p.m., he went to the house of A.7 for drawing kerosene. A.7 has taken kerosene ration coupons for the month of June and July and told him that he will give kerosene quota for only one month against two months. He questioned him to give two months quota. Meanwhile, A.2, son of A.7 came there. Meanwhile, his brother (Tupakula Gangireddy) came there. A.4, A.3, A.5 and A.6 were also there. A.4 and A.7 were holding crowbars. A.2 holds a stone. A.3 was holding a stone. A.5 and A.6 were holding stones. They tried to beat him and his brother. They started running away and entered into the house of Kummara Kondaiah. A.1 to A.14 entered into that house. A.2 beat him with a stone on his right toe. A.5 beat him with a stone on the left side of his neck. A.6 beat him on his right upper arm with a stone. A.7 beat his brother Gangireddy with crowbar on his right upper arm. A.4 beat his brother Gangireddy with crowbar on his right leg thrice and his leg was fractured. A.6 beat his brother Gangireddy on his right side of the head with stone. Peram Chinna Chennareddy, Chanda Ramulamma and Chanda Venkata Subbareddy came to their rescue and questioned the accused. All the accused beat them and went away. Meanwhile, 8 police jeep came to their village. Police took them to the hospital. He gave report in Government General Hospital, Pulivendula. Ex.P.1 is his report.
14) The evidence of P.W.2 on material aspects is that about four years back, he found the accused beating P.W.1 and his brother Gangireddy. He questioned them as to why they beaten them. Then, A.1 beat him with a stick on the right side of his head and he received bleeding injury. A.9 beat him with a stick on his left leg. He fell down on the ground. Then A.8 beat him with a stick on his left toes. His three toes of left leg were fractured. A.8 and A.9 beat him on his knees and on his buttock. When his sister Ramulamma questioned, the accused beat her. Ramulamma fell down.
15) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, about four years back on one day, at 6-30 p.m., she was in the house. She heard commotion at the house of A.2. She and her son Venkata Subba Reddy came out of their house. They went to the house of A.2. There, they found A.4 and A.5 beating P.W.1 and Thupakula Gangireddy with crowbar. A.3, A.5, A.2 and A.6 beat P.W.1 with stones. Tupakula Gangireddy was beaten with stones on the right side of the head by A.4 and A.7. When Peram Chinna Chenna Reddy questioned them, A.8, A.9 and A.1 beat P.W.2 with sticks and stones. When she went to rescue her brother, A.10 beat her 9 on the right side of her head with stone. A.11 beat her on her face below right eye. A.13, A.12 and A.14 beat her son Venkatasubba Reddy when he came to her rescue. After some time, police came there and shifted them to the hospital.
16) P.W.4 deposed that on 06.07.2003 at 6-30 p.m., they heard galata at the house of A.7. He and P.W.3 went to the house of Kummari Kondaiah. A.2, A.5, A.3 and A.6 beat P.W.1 with stones. A.4 and A.7 beat Tupakula Gangireddy with crowbars and his right leg and hand were fractured. A.1, A.8 and A.9 beat P.W.2 when he questioned the accused. A.1 beat P.W.2 with a stone on his head. A.8 and A.9 beat him with sticks. When P.W.3 went to the rescue of P.W.2, A.10 beat P.W.3 with a stone on her head. A.11 beat with a stone on her face. A.12 beat him on his head with a stone. A.13 and A.14 beat him on his back with sticks. The accused ran away. Police came to the village and took them to the hospital.
17) P.W.5 is the medical officer, who testified that he examined P.W.1 and found lacerated injury 2x1x1 c.m. over right grate toe and tenderness over left neck and right palm. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate and the injuries are simple in nature. He also examined P.W.2 and found the lacerated injury of 12x2x3 c.m. over right parietal area. Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate and the injury is simple in nature. He also examined P.W.3 and found 10 lacerated injury of 6x2x1 c.m. over right frontal area and another lacerated injury of 3x2x2 c.m. over right maxilla. Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate and the injuries are simple in nature. He examined P.W.4 and found lacerated injury of 3x2x1 c.m. over right parietal area. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate and the injury is simple in nature.
18) During the course of cross examination Ex.X.1, the accident register, relating to P. Chinna Chenna Reddy is marked.
19) P.W.6 testified about his presence at the time of observation of the scene of offence.
20) According to P.W.7, another medical officer, on 06.07.2003 at 8-30 p.m., Tupakula Gangireddy (A.2) was brought to the Government Area Hospital, Pulivendula by his cousin Venkatareddy. He (P.W.7) examined him and noted down the injury in the accident register. He (P.W.7) referred him to District Hospital, Kadapa. Ex.X.3 is the accident register. Ex.X.4 is the examination of Tupakula Gangireddy. He also examined P.W.1 at 8-30 p.m. Ex.X.5 is the page relating to P.W.1 in Ex.X.3.
21) P.W.8, the Head Constable, spoken that on receiving hospital intimation, he proceeded to Area Hospital, Pulivendula and recorded Ex.P.1 statement from P.W.1. P.W.9 is the investigating officer.
11
22) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 during the cross examination, he denied that he did not state in Ex.P.1 and in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that A.7 took ration coupons for the month of June and July and told him that he will give kerosene quota for one month only. He denied a suggestion that he did not state in Ex.P.1 and in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he asked A.7 to give two months quota and that in the meanwhile, A.2 came there, etc. He further denied that he did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.4, A.7, A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6 were holding crowbars and stones respectively and that he did not state about the presence of A.6, A.8 and A.14. He denied that he stated as in Ex.D.1. He further denied that he did not state in Ex.P.1 and in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he along with his brother were shifted to Government Hospital, Pulivendula. He admitted that he, his brother Gangireddy are the accused in S.C.No.160 of 2004 along with 12 others. Tupakula Pedda Ramireddy and Tupakula Bala Gangireddy i.e., A.7 and A.9 are the accused in S.C.No.160 of 2004. He denied that on that day they beat and caused injuries to A.7 and A.9 and that Tupakula Eswara Rao died on account of injuries.
23) During the cross examination of P.W.2, he denied that he did not state in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that A.8 and A.9 beat him with sticks on his knee and buttock and A.8 beat 12 him with stick on his left toes and his left three big toes were fractured and that A.9 beat him with stick on his right leg. He does not know whether A.7 and A.9 received injuries on the date of incident. He denied that the accused did not beat him and other witnesses. P.W.3 during cross examination denied that she did not state in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that she was beaten on right side of her head. She denied that the accused did not beat her and others. P.W.4 during cross examination denied that he did not state in his Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement before the police that police came to the village and shifted them to the hospital. He denied that the accused did not beat him and others and they did not cause any injuries.
24) Now, it is pertinent to look into the evidence of P.W.8, who recorded the statement of P.W.1. He deposed in cross examination that P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 did not state about the presence and participation of A.6, A.8 to A.14. He did not state that he asked A.7 to give two months quota and that in the meanwhile, A.2 came there. He did not state in Ex.P.1 that Peram Chinna Chennareddy, Chanda Ramulamma and Chanda Venkata Subba Reddy came to their rescue.
25) Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, the investigating officer, the defence counsel confronted with him as regards the omissions that were suggested to P.W.1 to P.W.4 and during 13 cross examination, P.W.9 deposed that P.W.1 did not state before him and in Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that A.7 took their coupons for the month of June and July and told him that he will give kerosene quota for one month only and that P.W.1 asked A.7 to give two months quota and that in the meanwhile, A.2 came there and that police jeep came to the village. He further deposed in cross examination that P.W.1 did not state in his statement about the presence of A.6, A.8 to A.14 in the incident. He stated before him as in Ex.D.1 to the effect that he along with his brother went to Pulivendula hospital. P.W.2 did not state before him that A.8 and A.9 beat him with sticks on his knee and buttock and A.8 beat him with a stick on his left toe and his three big toes were fractured and that A.9 beat him with a stick on his right leg and that police took him and other injured to Vempalli Hospital. With regard to the omissions of P.W.3, he deposed that P.W.3 did not state in her statement that she was beaten on the right side of her head and that police came to the village and took them to the hospital. He further deposed in cross examination that P.W.4 did not state before him that police came to the village and shifted them to Vempalli Hospital in a jeep. P.W.4 stated as in Ex.D.2 that P.W.1 and Tupakula Gangireddy went to Pulivendula Hospital for treatment.
14
26) As evident from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the defence counsel suggested some omissions and contradictions before them which are proved from the mouth of P.W.8-Head Constable and P.W.9-investigating officer respectively. The contention of the revision petitioner that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 was consistent as regards the manner of attack and that there were no omissions or contradictions is not tenable. It is shrouded mystery as to how the police would come to the village on their own. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 negatives the evidence adduced by the prosecution that police came to the village and shifted the injured to the hospital. If Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are considered, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the hospital on their own.
27) It is to be noticed that there is no dispute about the counter case where one person by name Tupakula Eswara Reddy was said to be murdered. During cross examination P.W.9 deposed that he registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2003 at 9-30 p.m., basing on the report of A.9 in this case. Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of the FIR pertaining to Crime No.37 of 2003. He obtained wound certificates of A.7 and A.9 during investigation. He also obtained postmortem certificate of the deceased Eswara Reddy in Crime No.37 of 2003. Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.6 are the certified copies of wound certificates of A.7, A.9 and Eswara Reddy. Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of the postmortem report. Ex.D.8 is 15 the certified copy of the inquest report. Hence, it is clear that there was a counter case in Crime No.37 of 2003 with allegations of murder and accused are able to elicit from the mouth of P.W.9 that A.7 and A.9 received injuries and one person by name Eswara Reddy died.
28) Therefore, the prosecution before the Court below was bound to explain as to how A.7 and A.9 received injuries at the time of offence and on the date of incident. According to the allegations in Crime No.37 of 2003, the complainant party attacked the defacto-complainant therein and caused injuries to A.7 and A.8 and further there was death of one Eswara Reddy. So, it is a case even the prosecution did not explain as to how A.7 and A.9 herein received injuries.
29) As seen from the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, he analysed the evidence of injured witnesses and found that there were material omissions and contradictions. It is apparent from the evidence available that A.7 and A.9 also received injuries on the date of incident at the time of offence which the prosecution failed to explain. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is perverse. Having considered the entire evidence on record, the learned I Additional 16 Sessions Judge, Kadapa, did not believe the case of the prosecution.
30) Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Hence, I see no reason to remand the matter to the trial Court.
31) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 17.03.2023.
PGR 17 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1793 OF 2008 Date: 17.03.2023 PGR