Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 180 (AP)

KONATHAM RAMA SASTRULU v. State Of A. P.

2003-02-03

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, machilipatnam, Krishna District in S. C. No. 2 of 1987 dated 13. 5. 1987. ( 2 ) THE accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 19 and 23 are the appellants herein. They are all residents of Chilakalapudi. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows. P. W. 1, who is a resident of Chilakalalpudi submitted a complaint, Ex. P-1 dated 12. 9. 1985 before the Sub-Inspector of police, Kuchipudi Police Station to the effect that at 11 a. m. on the same day A-1 armed with spear followed by 22 others armed with sticks came to his house with a common object of doing away with him. He stated that on seeing them, he and his wife went inside the house, bolted the door from inside and he climbed the attic and sat there. While so, it is alleged, A1 and other accused entered the house damaging the door, which fell down, and demolished the walls after entering the house. Thereupon, the accused dragged P. W. I from the attic and beat him with sticks. It is alleged that p. W. 2 and P. W. 3, the wife and mother respectively of P. W. 1 were also injured when they tried to intervene. In the complaint, ex. P-1 the complainant furnished all the names of the persons who witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of the said complaint a case was registered in Cr. No. 62 of 1985 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 448, 427, 324 and 307 IPC. After completion of investigation a charge- sheet was filed. The charge-sheet was taken on file as P. R. C. No. 9 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, avanigadda, who committed the matter to the Court of Session, Krishna, which was registered as S. C. No. 2 of 1987. When the charge sheet was read over the accused pleaded not guilty. ( 3 ) IN support of the case of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined and documents Exs. P-1 to P-19 and M. Os. 1 to 5 were marked. On behalf of the defence none were examined but documents exs. D-1 to D-24 and M. O. 6 were marked. ( 3 ) IN support of the case of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 15 were examined and documents Exs. P-1 to P-19 and M. Os. 1 to 5 were marked. On behalf of the defence none were examined but documents exs. D-1 to D-24 and M. O. 6 were marked. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court convicted A-1 to a-3, A-5, A-19 and A-23 for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to suffer R. 1. for one year each. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to undergo R. I. for one month. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 426 ipc and sentenced to suffer R. 1. for two months each. A-1 was also convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R. I. for one month. For the offence under Section 324 ipc, he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and for the offence under Section 450 ipc, he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer R. I. for one month. A-2, a-3, A-5, A-19 and A-23 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for four years each and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer R. I. for one month each. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year each. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 450 r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to suffer R. I. for one month each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court A-1, a-2, A-3, A-5, A-19 and A-23 preferred this criminal appeal. ( 4 ) EARLIER, a learned Judge of this Court through judgment dated 13. 4. 100/- each, in default to suffer R. I. for one month each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court A-1, a-2, A-3, A-5, A-19 and A-23 preferred this criminal appeal. ( 4 ) EARLIER, a learned Judge of this Court through judgment dated 13. 4. 1988 dismissed this appeal while confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same appellants herein carried the matter to the Supreme court in C. A. No. 813 of 1991. The Hon ble supreme Court took the view that the judgment passed by the learned Judge of this Court was perfunctory and does not conform to the order of an appellate Court. The Supreme Court observed that this court (High Court), being the first appellate court, ought to have discussed the evidence at length more so when the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court are being confirmed. Thus observing, the supreme Court remitted the matter to this court through its order dated 10. 9. 2002. ( 5 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-accused submits that are several contradictions and improvements in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 8, who are said to be eye-witnesses, and the evidence on record does not corroborate the incident as complained of in Ex. P-1. He further submits that the trial Court erred in according differential treatment to various accused when the allegation made against them is identical. The learned Counsel ultimately submits that the sentences imposed are unduly severe when compared to the imputations against the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that in his complaint, P. W. I had only stated the incidents in brief as had occurred on the relevant date and they were detailed in the oral evidence. He contends that the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial Court do not warrant interference, since the same are based on the oral and documentary evidence, in particular, the medical evidence. ( 7 ) FROM a reading of Ex. P-1 it is evident that the allegations made against the accused, who are 23 in number, are identical except as regards A-1, who is said to have been armed with spear. ( 7 ) FROM a reading of Ex. P-1 it is evident that the allegations made against the accused, who are 23 in number, are identical except as regards A-1, who is said to have been armed with spear. No specific act as such was attributed to any of the accused by p. W. I in the complaint. ( 8 ) DURING the course of evidence P. Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 8 have attributed specific acts to the respective accused. A serious objection was raised before the trial Court on behalf of the accused as to such improvements over Ex. P-1. A further objection was taken as to the admissibility of evidence of interested witnesses. It is true that the trial Court discussed the matter at length with reference to the various decisions cited before it by both the parties. The fact, however, remains that the trial Court was not able to furnish any legally acceptable reasons as to how any improvement can be permitted over and above the version contained in Ex. P-1 complaint. ( 9 ) THE complainant cannot be expected to present the entire case in the complaint. However, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution should be consistent with the allegations and averments made in the complaint. It is pertinent to note here that there exists discernable difference between an elaboration and an improvement. An elaboration is expansion of what is basically mentioned in the complaint. An improvement is one, which does not have any origin or basis in the complaint. While expansion is permissible, improvements are unacceptable. ( 10 ) MERE attribution of specific overt act in general terms would not do. It must be in categorical terms. Further, such overt acts have to be spoken to and revealed at the earliest point of time. In other words, specific overt acts, if at all existed, should be evident from the complaint itself. If such specific acts are permitted to be submitted at a later stage, the complainant will have the scope to meditate upon and meddle with the evidence to suit his case. Exception taken by the Court to belated complaints is based upon the general principle that the delay in submission of the complaint will enable the complainant to think over, knit a story and mould the entire incident in a manner which may suit his convenience. Exception taken by the Court to belated complaints is based upon the general principle that the delay in submission of the complaint will enable the complainant to think over, knit a story and mould the entire incident in a manner which may suit his convenience. Therefore, attribution of specific acts unless indicated in the complaint, atleast in brief, cannot be permitted to be introduced for the first time during the course of trial. ( 11 ) FROM the evidence on record, it emerges that only omnibus allegations are made against all the accused and what was sought to be undertaken during trial was attribution of specific acts to various accused. Whatever may be the desirability or otherwise of permitting such course of action, in matters of this nature particularly faction cases it is not safe to rely on such evidence. Existence of medical evidence may establish the factum of the complainant receiving an injury. However, the Court cannot convict the accused solely on the basis of existence of wound certificate, unless the injuries are proved to have been inflicted by any particular accused. ( 12 ) AS regards the acceptability of evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and 5, reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Shankar, 1981 Crl. LJ 23. Having referred to the relevant part of the judgment, the trial court observed thus: there may be some omissions and some contradictions and some improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses here and there. We have to consider the nature where illiterate and rustic witnesses are giving evidence after a period of one and half years. Therefore, some omissions and contradictions and some improvements are bound to be there, especially when the witnesses are illiterate and rustic in nature and it strengthens the case of the prosecution as they are natural witnesses. I am afraid I cannot agree. If such latitude is given in a matter of appreciation of evidence, any one can be roped in on the basis of the subsequent improvements or contradictions. Therefore, this Court is not convinced that the trial Court had adopted the proper parameters in appreciating the evidence on record. ( 13 ) THE criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Since it is reported that A-19 died, the appeal shall stand abated as against him.