Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 11 (AP)

Ambati Vykunta Rao v. State Of A. P.

2003-01-03

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM

body2003
DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/accused filed appeal against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under section 325 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and found guilty of the offence under Sec. 3 (l) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, srikakulam laid charge-sheet against the accused before the Additional District and sessions Judge, Srikakulam alleging that the de facto complainant Banna Simhadri, belong to Mala community and that on 21-2-1997 at about 8 a. m. when the victim Simhadri was watering his fields through the bore-pump, the accused obstructed the course of water and diverted the same to his field and when he asked the accused, the accused beat him, caught hold of his right hand and caused fracture and on his complaint the case in crime No. 24 of 1997 was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was laid. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in all examined p. Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Ex. P-1 to P-6. B. Simhadri, who is the de facto complainant, is examined as P. W. 1. B. Ramesh, brother of p. W. J is examined as P. W. 2. B. Karunakara rao, father of P. Ws. 1 and 2, is examined as p. W. 3. P. Ws. 2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 and spoke about the incident. P. W. 4 is Dr. Uma and P. W. 5 is dr. A. S. Murty. P. W. 6-N. H. V. Anand, the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case and took up investigation. P. W. 7 sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Deputy superintendent of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by P. W. 6 and after completing investigation laid charge-sheet. The learned Additional district and Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire evidence, relying on the evidence of P. Ws. P. W. 7 sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Deputy superintendent of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by P. W. 6 and after completing investigation laid charge-sheet. The learned Additional district and Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire evidence, relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offence under section 325 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (v) of sc and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted the accused accordingly. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the judgment of conviction, the appellant /accused filed appeal contending that the learned additional District and Sessions Judge committed error in relying on the interested and discrepant testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 3. The additional District and Sessions Judge went wrong in relying on the oral evidence of p. W. 1 which was not corroborated by medical evidence. The learned Additional district and Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of the injury. The lower court failed to appreciate the evidence P. W. 4, who deposed that the injury might have been caused by blunt object. The lower court failed to appreciate that Rule7of SCandst (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 contemplated investigation by Deputy Superintendent of police and it is mandatory and in the present case Deputy Superintendent of Police only verified investigation, but he did not conduct the investigation and therefore the trial is vitiated. ( 5 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the Additional District and Sessions judge committed error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offence under Section 325 IPC and under section 3 (1) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 and if so the appeal is liable to be allowed? ( 6 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 21-2-1997 at about 8 a. m. when the de facto complainant-Simhadri was watering his fields, the accused diverted the course of water and when the victim questioned the accused, the accused beat him and caused the injuries. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers and p. W. 3 is the father of P. Ws. 1 and 2. Except the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, there is no independent evidence. The learned additional District and Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of P. Ws. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers and p. W. 3 is the father of P. Ws. 1 and 2. Except the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, there is no independent evidence. The learned additional District and Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 to base his conviction. ( 7 ) SRI Hari Prasad, appearing on behalf of sri C. Praveen Kumar learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 is inconsistent and the evidence of P. W. 1 is not in conformity with the medical evidence and therefore the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be relied to base conviction. It is further contended that the case was not investigated by the Deputy superintendent of Police as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules and therefore the trial is vitiated. He relied on the decision reported in Viswanadhula Chittibabu v. State of A. P. wherein it was held that Rule 7 has to be interpreted as mandatory in nature and investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police suffers from inherent defect in complying with the mandatory procedure and safeguards resulting in prejudice to the accused and hence the trial is vitiated. ( 8 ) THOUGH the charge-sheet was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he did not take up the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. It is his evidence that he verified the investigation done by P. W. 6. In view of the fact that the deputy Superintendent of police did not, investigate the case, the trial is vitiated and therefore the Additional District and Sessions judge committed error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 3 (1) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and hence the conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. So far as the offence under Section 325ipc is concerned, the lower court relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. P. W. 1 is the de facto complainant who deposed that his right hand was fractured due to twisting by the accused. P. W. 4 is the medical Officer who examined P. W. 1 and issued wound certificate Ex. P-2. He opined that the wound was grievous in nature and it might have been caused by any blunt object. P. W. 1 is the de facto complainant who deposed that his right hand was fractured due to twisting by the accused. P. W. 4 is the medical Officer who examined P. W. 1 and issued wound certificate Ex. P-2. He opined that the wound was grievous in nature and it might have been caused by any blunt object. The prosecution did not elicit that the injury would have been caused by twisting as deposed by P. W. 1, but on the other hand p. W. 4 admitted that the injury mentioned in ex. P-2 is also possible by a fall on rough surface. Further the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is contradictory. Though, P. W. 2 deposed that he saw the accused twisting the hand of p. W. 1, in the cross-examination he stated that by the time he went there, he saw p. W. 1 fell down in an unconscious state. P. W. 1 did not state that P. W. 2 was an eyewitness to the occurrence and P. W. 1 did not assert that the incident was witnessed by p. W. 2. P. W. 3 came to know about the occurrence subsequently. There is no consistent version about the accident in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, which is interested and contradictory. Though the complaint was given at about 10 a. m. on 21-2-1997 it reached the court only on the next day i. e. , on 22-2-1997 at about 2 p. m. , and the delay is not properly explained by the prosecution. ( 9 ) AS already observed the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 is contradictory and not trustworthy. The evidence of P. W. 1 is not in conformity with the medical evidence. For the above said reasons, the Additional District and Sessions Judge committed error in relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and erroneously came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 325 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the conviction and sentence on both counts are liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. 1 to 3 and erroneously came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 325 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the conviction and sentence on both counts are liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. ( 10 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence under Sec. 325 ipc and under Section 3 (1) (v) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside and the appellant/accused is found not guilty of the offences alleged against him and he is acquitted. The fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded.