Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Criminal Revision Case Is Filed By ... vs Unknown on 30 January, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1028 OF 2009
ORDER:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the Prosecution Witness No.1/defacto-complainant in Sessions Case No.286 of 2006, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, challenging the judgment, dated 12.05.2008, whereunder the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of 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 Sessions Case No.286 of 2006 arose out of P.R.C.No.22 of 2006, on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on 18.08.2006 and thereupon it was numbered as Sessions Case and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram.
2
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet in Crime No.69 of 2005 of Narsapuram Town Police Station, is as follows:
(i) All the accused are residents of Arundatiyapeta and belonging to Schedule Community. There is a water tank called as "Rajakula Cheruvu" in Arundatiyapeta, Narsapur and the water is being utilized by both Rajaka and Arundhati people for washing clothes since long time.
(ii) About one year back, some differences arose in between both the communities in respect to the right over the said tank.
Rajaka people claimed right as the tank is known as "Rajakula Cheruvu" and the Arundhati people claimed the tank, as the said tank is located in their vicinity. The Municipal Authorities intervened and ordered that both communities have no claim of right over the said tank, as it is classified as Municipal Tank. The Rajaka people are rearing fish in the said tank.
(iii) On 01.05.2005 at 8-00 P.M., the Arundhati people removed the outlet of the said tank. Having known about the same, Mittaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) and others went there and replaced the outlet and scolded the persons, who removed the same. The accused Nos.1 to 10 formed as an unlawful assembly, armed with iron rods and sticks with intent to kill Mattaparthi 3 Venkata Rao (L.W.1), Reketi Srinivas (L.W.2), Achanta Satyanarayana (L.W.3), rushed to the tank and attacked them. A.1 beat Mattaparti Venkata Rao (L.W.1) with stick on his head, right side chest, left hand and A.8 beat with stick on his right forehand, rest of the accused A.2 to A.7, A.9 and A.10 beat on his back causing bleeding injuries. A.1 and A.8 beat Reketi Srinivas (L.W.2) with sticks on his mouth, head and left forearm. The teeth dislocated from upper and lower jaws causing injuries to the person. All the accused beat Achanta Satyanarayana (L.W.3) with sticks and rods and caused bleeding injuries on his forearm, elbow, left leg, right shoulder and right foot. Antharvedipalem Nageswara Rao (L.W.4), Bhimadole Adinarayana Rao (L.W.5), Mattaparthi Srinivasa Rao (L.W.6), Sankaraguptam Satyanarayana (L.W.7), Rella Nagamani (L.W.8), Bhimadole Savitri (L.W.9), Antharvedipalem Durga (L.W.10), Bhimadole Padma (L.W.11), Rella Malleswari (L.W.12) witnessed the incident and Mattaparthi Srinivasa Rao (L.W.6) and Sankaraguptam Satyanarayana (L.W.7) shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Narsapur, for medical treatment.
(iv) On intimation from the hospital, S.N. Issack, ASI of Police (L.W.16) recorded the statement of Mattaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) on 01.05.2005 at 11-00 P.M. and registered the 4 same information in Crime No.69 of 2005 under Sections 143 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and T. Tata Rao, Sub Inspector of Police (L.W.17), took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined as many as 12 witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the presence of mediators, Tenneti Chandrahas (L.W.14) and Mutyala Venkateswara Rao (L.W.15) and got drafted the observation report, seized blood stained clothes under the cover of mediators report and prepared rough sketch. During the course of investigation, Section 307 of I.P.C. was added by the Sub Inspector of Police (L.W.17) to the earlier Sections 143 and 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. On 04.05.2005 at 1-00 P.M., the Sub Inspector of Police (L.W.17) arrested A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.9 and sent them to judicial remand. The remaining accused Nos.1 to 4, 8 and 10 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before the Court.
(v) The Medical Officer, Dr.D. Vijaya Kumar (L.W.13) issued would certificates, opining that Mattaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) and Raketi Srinivas (L.W.2) received injuries which are of grievous and simple in nature caused with hard object. The Sub Inspector of Police (L.W.17) also added Section 326 of I.P.C. to the earlier Sections 143, 324, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C., basing on the wound certificates. Mattaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) and others 5 made a counter attack against the accused party, which is the subject matter of the Crime No.68 of 2005 under Sections 143 and 324 of I.P.C. and Section 3(i)(c) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 of Narsapur Town Police Station. Hence, all the accused are liable for punishment under Section 143, 324, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram, took case on file and on appearance of the accused and after complying necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as narrated above.
6) On appearance of the accused before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram and on following the procedure contemplated under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 143 and 307 of I.P.C. were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked and further during the course of cross examination of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 7, Exs.D.1 to D.6 were marked. During the course of cross examination of P.W.9, Medical Officer, Ex.D.7 was marked. Further M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. After closure of the 6 evidence of prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8) Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, on hearing both sides and on considering the material available on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges and accordingly acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the P.W.1/defacto-complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
9) Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment in S.C.No.286 of 2006, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, dated 12.05.2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order?
POINT:-
10) The learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.12.2022 when the matter was coming for service of notice on fifth respondent submitted that in spite of best efforts to serve notice on fifth respondent, notice could not be served, as such, the Criminal Revision Case against the fifth respondent may be 7 dismissed for non-service of notice and the rest of the Revision may be disposed on merits. In this regard, he would contend that the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, the injured witness and some of the witness turned hostile and investigating officer was not examined and the defacto-complainant felt aggrieved of, filed the present Criminal Revision Case and as this Court has no power to convert the order of acquittal into conviction, the Court may dispose the Revision on merits and if the Court found that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse or the evidence is overlooked, it may remand the matter to the trial Court.
11) Ms. Mounika, learned counsel, representing the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10, contended that absolutely there are no grounds even for remand and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is inconsistent, as such, Criminal Revision Case is to be dismissed.
12) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, submits that he is leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court.
13) As this Criminal Revision Case is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram and in view of embargo under Section 401 (3) of Cr.P.C., this Court exercising the powers of Revision cannot 8 convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. So, only course left upon is to decide as to whether the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, is perverse or it is rendered by overlooking the evidence available on record and there are any grounds to remand the matter. Keeping in view, this Criminal Revision Case is to be adjudicated.
14) For better appreciation, this Court would like to make it clear that according to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution, the incident in question was happened near a water tank and both the accused party and the defacto-complainant party were trying to assert their claim over the water tank. It is reflected in the charge sheet and also evident from the evidence.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into the substance of the case of the prosecution, according to Ex.P.1, the statement of P.W.1, recorded by the police when P.W.1 was brought to the hospital after receipt of injuries.
15) The statement of P.W.1 is such that there were previous disputes. In regard to the actual alleged attack, the contents runs to the effect that all the accused (named) came there and Tatiparthy Prabhu (A.1) beaten him with a stick on his head and Sirra Jankiram (A.8) beaten him with a stock on his 9 right elbow and the rest of the accused beaten him on his back and one Reketi Srinivas was also attacked and he received injuries and further one Achanta Satyanarayana also received injuries. This is the substance of the contents of Ex.P.1.
16) Coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he deposed after narrating the issue which led them to go to the water tank, deposed that one among the accused beat him with a stick on his head and he received injury and fell down. He was taken to the hospital by one Mattaparthi Srinivasa Rao and police came there and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement. M.O.1 is the stick with which one of the accused beat him on his head. M.O.2 is his shirt. M.O.3 is his Lungi. So, his evidence has no support from the contents of Ex.P.1. Having attributed an avert against A.1 and A.8 in Ex.P.1, but he omitted to state the same in his evidence. Even he did not name the names of the accused in his evidence. When it comes to cross examination on material aspects, he deposed that he was shown as A.2 in SC & ST Case filed against him by the accused party and it is pending in S.C.No.13 of 2006. On the same day, A.2 was admitted in the hospital with abrasions. One Bosu is A.5 in the ST & ST case by Arundathi people. He denied that he did not receive any injuries. He further deposed that the stick shown to him in the Court is not 10 the actual stick used by the accused. So, a look at the evidence of P.W.1 goes to reveal that he did not speak the facts as narrated in Ex.P.1 and gave a goby to the seizure of M.O.1 by deposing in cross examination that it was not the stick used in the commission of offence.
17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, another injured, his evidence is that A.3 and A.8 beat him on his mouth with a stick. A.8 beat him with a stick on his head. He lost four teeth. During the cross examination, he deposed that he did not state before police that A.3 and A.8 beat him on his head. He denied that he did not state before police that A.2 and A.8 beat him on his mouth. He admitted that he did not state before police that he lost his teeth. The stick applied against him is very stout one. He did not state to police as in Ex.D.1.
18) Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, his evidence is that A.2 beat Achanta Satyanarayana and Achanta Satyanarayana received an injury. P.Ws.1 and 2 also received injuries. During the cross examination, he deposed that he did not state before police as in Exs.D.2 and D.3.
19) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he deposed that he came to know that his father i.e. P.W.1 received injuries and he went to the hospital. So, P.W.4 is not a direct witness to the 11 occurrence. During the cross examination, he deposed that he did not state before police as in Exs.D.4 and D.5.
20) P.Ws.5 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile and during the cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, they denied that they stated before police as in Exs.P.2 and P.3 i.e., 161 of Cr.P.C. statements respectively.
21) According to P.W.7, accused came with sticks and P.W.1, Achanta Satyanarayana and Peketi Satyanarayana sustained injuries. The evidence of P.W.7 did not show who attacked the P.W.1, Achanta Satyanarayana and Peketi Satyanarayana. In cross examination, she stated that she did not state before police as in Ex.D.6.
22) Coming to the evidence of P.W.8, he is a mediator to the observation of scene of offence, who did not support the case of the prosecution.
23) P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued wound certificates. He spoken about the injuries received by P.Ws.1 and 2 and Achanta Satyanarayana. According to him, P.W.1 received five injuries and P.W.2 received nine injuries and they are lacerations and abrasions, as the case may be, and further Achanta Satyanarayana received five 12 injuries. He also examined A.2 in this case and found two injuries.
24) In this case, the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer.
25) It is to be noticed that according to the defence, the overt acts attributed by P.W.2 against A.3 and A.8 are the omissions. Further defence counsel elicited Ex.D.1 contradiction which means that he was at another place at the time of offence. Similarly, the defence counsel elicited contradictions from the mouth of P.W.3 i.e., Exs.D.2 and D.3 and from the mouth of P.W.4 i.e., Exs.D.4 and D.5 and from the mouth of P.W.7 i.e., Ex.D.6.
26) It is to be noticed that as the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer, accused were deprived of an opportunity to establish that the overt acts attributed by P.W.2 against A.3 and A.8 are the omissions. Further accused could not elicit from the mouth of investing officer about Exs.D.1 to D.6. So, it is very clear that P.W.1 did not adhere to the case of the prosecution by speaking about the contents of Ex.P.1. He deposed in cross examination a different scene of offence at Station Road and spoken about 15 people are with him and all of them came to Station Road. He deposed that 20 people gathered and witnessed 13 the occurrence. So, it is P.W.1, who filed this Criminal Revision Case challenging the judgment of the trial Court, having failed to put-forth the case of the prosecution as mentioned in Ex.P.1.
27) Coming to the grounds of revision, the substance of the contention is that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, failed to look into that the offences are made out and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has corroboration from other witnesses and evidence of injured is convincing. It is very difficult to accept the said contention. It is elicited form the mouth of prosecution witnesses that P.W.1 is an accused in SC & ST case filed by the accused party and it was pending for trial as on the date of trial in this case. Though, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured, but on account of previous disputes their evidence has to be scrutinized with care and caution. Prosecution witnesses miserably failed to depose the facts according to the prosecution case. Prosecution for obvious reasons did not examine the investigating officer. On the other hand, according to the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, it has given up the examination of investigating officer, which is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. By any stretch of imagination, the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, cannot be said to be perverse or that it was rendered overlooking 14 the evidence on record. Absolutely, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court by exercising powers of remand.
28) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 30.01.2023.
PGR 15 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRL. REVISION CASE NO.1028 OF 2009 Date: 30.01.2023 PGR