Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the petitioner, who was the appellant (A-1) in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2002, on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge'), challenging the judgment therein, dated 16.11.2004, where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and modified the conviction and sentence from Section 376 R/w.511 IPC to that of Section 354 IPC and sentenced the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 354 IPC besides maintaining the fine imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur (for short, 'the learned Assistant Sessions Judge') in S.C. No.109 of 20003, dated 14.02.2002.

AVRB,J LW-1 - D. Ravi, VAO, visited the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased. Hence, he prepared a report and presented it to SI of Police, Poduru Police Station. On the strength of his report, SI of Police registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1999 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. on 29.01.1999 at 10:30 p.m. and investigated into.

On 30.01.1999, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW.1 - VAO and LW.14 - Sannamanda Rajarao and LW.13 - Kondeti Challa Rao. It was opined that the deceased committed suicide due to the acts of A-1 and A-2. On the strength of it, the SI of Police altered the Sections of law to Sections 448, 376 R/w.511 IPC and 306 IPC and issued altered FIR and further continued the investigation. He got referred the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. LWs.15 and 16, team of doctors, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and preserving viscera, issued preliminary postmortem certificate with pending opinion. The SI of Police prepared letter of advice and sent the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada for analysis and report. On the basis of it, the team of doctors issued final opinion with regard to the death of the deceased i.e., the deceased would have died of phorate which is an organophosphate insecticide poison about 18 to 24 hours prior to AVRB,J post-mortem examination. On 31.01.1999, the SI of Police arrested the accused and sent him for remand. Hence, A-1 is liable for punishment under Sections 448, 376 R/w.511 IPC and Section 306 IPC and further A-2 is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC as he abetted the commission of the suicide.

4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law and after complying the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions after numbering the case as Sessions Case made over the same to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on appearance of the accused framed charges under Sections 451 IPC and 376 R/w.511 IPC against A-1 and charge under Section 306 IPC against A-2 and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. POINT: Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, while AVRB,J disbelieving the case of the prosecution against A-2 under Section 306 IPC, believed the case of the prosecution against A-1 for the charges under Sections 451 IPC and 376 R/w.511 IPC without proper reasons and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge erroneously dismissed the Appeal but however modified the conviction to that of Section 354 IPC from that of Section 376 R/w.511 IPC besides maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 451 IPC. In Ex.P-1 report lodged by the VAO, there was no whisper as to the allegations under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC. Though the direct witnesses to the occurrence i.e., PWs.4 and 5 claimed that PW.1 enquired them as to what happened but there was no whisper as regards the allegations under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC. The allegations under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC came to the light of the day only on the next day when the Police proceeded for investigation after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. If really, there was incident under Section 376 R/w.511 IPC or 354 IPC, the direct witnesses would have revealed the same to PW.1 and PW.1 - VAO would have mentioned the same in Ex.P-1. There were disputes between the accused and the Sarpanch of that particular village and on account of the same, the accused was falsely implicated in the case. The testimony of PWs.4 and 5, the so called direct witnesses, suffers AVRB,J with discrepancies, omissions and contradictions. There were no injuries on the person of the victim as regards the allegations of attempt to commit rape. Under the circumstances, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable under law and facts as such the same is liable to be set-aside.