Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Yelamanchili Vijaya Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its ... on 20 March, 2014
Author: S. Ravi Kumar
Bench: S. Ravi Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2189 of 2006 20-03-2014 Yelamanchili Vijaya Kumar .Petitioner. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .... Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M/s. B. Adinarayana Rao Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor <Gist : >Head Note: ?Cases referred: 1. 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 468 (A.P.) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2189 of 2006 Date:20.03.2014 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2189 of 2006 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against judgment dated 16-10-2006 in Crl.A.No.358/2005 whereunder judgment dated 12-09-2005 in C.C.No.440/2004 on the file of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur was confirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On 23-09-2004, when P.W.1 went to the hospital of P.W.2 for treatment, accused entered into the consultation room of P.W.2 following P.W.1 with a chappal in his hand abused her in filthy language and threatened her and that P.Ws.2 & 3 have interfered and on a report from P.W.1, police registered a case and investigated into. Investigation revealed that accused has committed offences under Section 506 & 509 IPC. On these allegations, trial Court examined four witnesses and marked three documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On a over all consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found accused guilty for the offence under Sections 506 & 509 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he preferred appeal to the Court of Sessions, Guntur and III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence.
Now aggrieved by the same, he preferred present revision.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for revision petitioner vehemently argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is with lot of discrepancies and inconsistencies and both the trial Court and appellate Court have not considered the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. It is further argued that there is no evidence to prove the intention of accused to commit either offence under Section 506 IPC or under Section 509 IPC and both the Courts without examining this aspect, convicted the revision petitioner. It is further argued that motive for the offence is also not proved and both trial Court and appellate Court without considering this aspect, convicted the revision petitioner. It is further submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 gave different versions with regard to the stage at which, P.W.1 entered the consultation room of P.W.2 and these discrepancies are not considered by the trial Court and appellate Court. On the on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the Courts have rightly appreciated evidence on record and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. He further submitted that the trial Court only imposed fine though the offences proved against the revision petitioner are under Sections 506 & 509 IPC.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether the judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct?
6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 23-09-2004, at about 6:00 P.M., the incident took place in the consultation room of P.W.2. Here, admittedly P.W.2 is a Doctor practicing at Guntur who is a Psychiatrist. It is also admitted case of the prosecution and defence that accused is no other than the son of P.W.2. P.W.1 deposed in her evidence that when she entered into the room of P.W.2, the accused also entered into the room holding a chappal in his hand by uttering abusive words as Ame lanja ikkadikendukochave and bounced upon her and assaulted her with a chappal and P.Ws.2 & 3 have fully supported and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the abusive words and also about accused entering into the consultation room of P.W.2 with a chappal. All the three witnesses are examined at length on behalf of accused. Except putting a general suggestion denying the offence, nothing was elicited from these three witnesses to doubt their testimonies with regard to uttering abusive words and entry of the accused into consultation room of P.W.2 with a chappal. There is not even a suggestion to any of the witnesses disputing the presence of accused at the time of incident in the consultation room of P.W.2 with a chappal and also there is no suggestion disputing uttering of above referred abusive words. Now the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the abusive words spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3 do not touch the modesty of a woman. I am unable to accept the argument of the counsel for the revision petitioner when a lady is addressed with words Ame lanja ikkadikendukochave, it would definitely touch her character and modesty, therefore, contention of the revision petitioner that the ingredients of Section 509 IPC are not at all attracted cannot be accepted.
6. The other objection of the revision petitioner is that prosecution has not proved the intention and motive, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 506 & 509 IPC. Intention of a culprit has to be gathered from the circumstances and in each and every case, there need not be a direct proof for intention or motive. Here, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that the accused entered into the consultation room of P.W.2 with a chappal following P.W.1 and then uttered the abusive words. Proceeding behind a lady with a chappal in hand would reveal the intention of the accused and there need not be any separate positive evidence for that. With regard to motive, the trial Court already has considered in Para No.17 of its judgment and I do not find any incorrectness in the findings of the trial Court or appellate Court. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited a decision of this Court reported in Paramata John and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh for the proposition for the revisional powers should be exercised when there are some glaring defects in procedure or manifest error on point of law. But here in this case, there is absolutely no glaring defect either in the procedure or manifest error on point of law. The evidence on record do attract ingredients of Sections 506 & 509 IPC and both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
7. For these reasons, revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence.
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Date:20.03.2014