Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandam Srinivasa Rao And 2 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 22 January, 2020
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 993 of 2007
ORDER:
1. The present Revision is filed under Sections 397(1) and 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the conviction and sentence imposed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2006, dated 20.7.2007, on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.856 of 2003, dated 30.12.2005, on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada.
2. The petitioners herein, who are three in number, were tried and found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court.
3. The facts in issue show that sometime prior to the date of incident, P.W.1 and others insulted the modesty of one Nandam Swathi, who is the daughter of A2, which is subject matter of crime No.268 of 2002, registered under Section 509 I.P.C. Thereafter, the accused therein faced trial in C.C. No.237 of 2003. While things stood thus, the accused developed grouse and were planning to attack P.W.1. On 19.4.2003 at about 8.45 PM while P.W.1 was at Velpuru, all the accused attacked P.W.1 and his elder 2 brother with iron rods. A1 is said to have dashed P.W.1 with cycle and when P.W.1 questioned about the same, he started abusing him. Thereafter, A2 and A3 armed with iron rods made P.W.1 fell down and beat him on his hands and waist. Thereafter, A1 picked up an iron rod from A2 and dealt a blow on his head. It is said that when P.W.2 came to the rescue of P.W.1, A2 beat him with iron rod on his head and A3 beat him on his left side back. Basing on the statement of P.W.1, P.W.10 - ASI of Police, Kankipadu Police Station, registered a case in crime No.108 of 2003 under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. After investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence, except marking Ex.D1 - 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Basing on the evidence of eyewitnesses, the trial court convicted the accused, which was confirmed in the appellate court.
4. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an adverse inference should have been drawn for non-marking of weapons alleged to have been used by the accused. In other words, his plea is that even accepting the entire case, no offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is established.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that non-marking of material object does not matter much in a case of this nature where the evidence of all the witnesses is consistent and gets corroboration from the medical evidence. 3
6. It is no doubt true that weapons alleged to have been used were not marked. In fact, the plea that an adverse inference shall be drawn was never raised before the trial court. At no point of time, it was a case of the defence that the prosecution case has to be thrown out as the weapon said to have been used is not marked.
7. Apart from that as seen from the record, there are three eyewitnesses, of whom P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured eyewitnesses. Their evidence with regard to participation of the accused in the commission of offence is consistent. Not only their evidence is consistent, but the same also gets corroboration from the evidence of the Doctor, who treated them and issued Exs.P2 and P3. Therefore, not marking of the weapon may not lead to suspicion of the prosecution case.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners pleads that since the offence is of the year 2003 and as nearly 16 years have elapsed, and accused were in jail for some period, pleads reduction in sentence. The same is not seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. Having regard to the fact that petitioners were in jail for few days and since the incident in question took place in the year 2003, sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone, but, however, fine amount imposed by the trial is increased from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- against each of the petitioner. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court within a period of four weeks 4 from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On such deposit, an amount of Rs.8,500/- each, in respect of the amount deposited by each of the petitioner, shall be paid equally among the two injured
- P.W.1 and P.W.2 in terms of under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date:22.01.2020 skmr