Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 440 (AP)

Ch. Pitchavadhanulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2010-06-08

GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

body2010
JUDGMENT The petitioner herein-sole accused was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Addanki, in SC No.330 of 1997, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs.1 to 3 were marked. On behalf of defence, no witnesses were examined, but Exs.D1 to 06 were marked. On a careful consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and directed that out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the injured-PW1, by judgment dated 11.8.1998. Assailing the said judgment, the petitioner filed Crl. A No.69 of 1998 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole. The learned Sessions Judge after perusing the material placed on record held that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.l,000/-, by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, by judgment dated 31.10.2003. The same is questioned in this revision. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as they were arrayed in SC No.330 of 1997. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is a Typist, PW1 is a Lecturer, PW2 is an Attender, PW3 is a Record Assistant, PW4 is an old student, PW5 is the present Principal and PW6 is Ex-Principal of the Government Junior College, Addanki. Accused used to pick up quarrels with other staff and disobey the instructions of his superior officers. Previously, a case was registered against him in Cr.No.21/1995 for the offences under Sections 324, 352, 323 read with 144 IPC. In the year 1988, when his son was writing an examination, the accused tried to malpractice. Then, PW6, the then Principal, caught him and sent a special report, for which, the accused grew wild and abused PW6. Previously, a case was registered against him in Cr.No.21/1995 for the offences under Sections 324, 352, 323 read with 144 IPC. In the year 1988, when his son was writing an examination, the accused tried to malpractice. Then, PW6, the then Principal, caught him and sent a special report, for which, the accused grew wild and abused PW6. Subsequently, a case was registered in Cr.No.145 of 1988 for the offences under Sections 477, 506 IPC read with Section 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R. Act against the accused and the same was ended with conviction. Thereafter, he was removed from service on 3.1.1991. But however, in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court he was reinstated into service and joined duty on 19.5.1997. The accused developed ill-feeling towards his staff the then Principal. (i) On 15.7.1997 at about 12.30 hours the accused picked up a quarrel with PW2 and suddenly picked up a knife and tried to stab him with an intention to do away life. PW1, the lecturer, who was the tried to chastise the accused. Then accused grew wild and with an intention do away the life of PW1 the accused stabbed PW I with M.O.3 at left axilla, back of left arm and on the left thigh, caw severe bleeding injuries. PWs.2 and 4 witnessed the same and rescued PW1 shifted him to Addanki Police Station. PW9 recorded Ex.P1 statement and registered a case in Cr.No.69 of 1997 against accused and after completion of investigation laid charge-sheet for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused is even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, the petitioner-accused never had intention to attack PW1 and his intention was to attack only PW2 because of certain rivalry. In the absence of any intention, Courts below cannot find the petition accused guilty. The learned Counsel further submitted that because of rivalry in the aft of the College, wherein the petitioner working as a Typist, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he made to run from pillar to post and Pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court, was reinstated into service. 5. The learned Counsel further submitted that because of rivalry in the aft of the College, wherein the petitioner working as a Typist, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and he made to run from pillar to post and Pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court, was reinstated into service. 5. The learned Additional Put Prosecutor opposed the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petition and contended that the petitioner-accused attempted to kill PW2 and when PW2 intervened, he stabbed PW1 with an intention to kill him. The prosecution established guilt of the petitioner-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for t petitioner-accused, this Court looked at the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW8. As per t evidence of PW1, he has been working a Lecturer in the Government Junior College Addanki, for seven years. PW2 is also working as Lab attender and PW3 was working as Record Assistant in the said college. When PW1 was explaining about the vocational courses to students, the was an altercation between PW2 and 1 petitioner-accused, and in that context when the petitioner was coming speed with an intention to attack PW2, PW1 intervened to stop the petitioner, during the course of which, PW1 received bleeding injuries. Thereafter, PW1 was shifted the Government Hospital, where he was treated by PW8. The said evidence is totally corroborated by PW2. PW8 i.e., the doctor who treated PW1, stated that PW1 received three injuries which are as follows: (1) A lacerated stab injury below the left axiller measuring 2 inches in radius 2 ½ inches depth. The injury is round in shape. (2) A cut injury over the back of the left arm measuring 2 inches x ½ inch red in colour. (3) A crush injury over the left thigh measuring 2" x 2". 7. According to PW8, the said injuries are simp1e in nature. No doubt, it is true as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused that the prosecution has come forward that PW1 received on two injuries. Whereas the medical evidence is to the effect that PW1 received three injuries. 7. According to PW8, the said injuries are simp1e in nature. No doubt, it is true as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused that the prosecution has come forward that PW1 received on two injuries. Whereas the medical evidence is to the effect that PW1 received three injuries. But from that, it cannot be concluded that there is a deliberate attempt to foist false case against the petitioner-accuse From an overall reading of the evidence of the prosecution, mainly PWs.1, 2 and 8, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there was an attack, during the course of which, PW1 received simple injuries. 8. When it came on record that the main intention of the petitioner-accused was to attack PW2, but not PW1, and the evidence establishes that PW1 received minor injuries, this Court has to see what is the offence committed by the petitioner. In this context, this Court looked into Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. The essential ingredients to make out an offence under Section 324 IPC should be that there must be voluntarily causing hurt and also the required intention. In other words, to constitute an offence of voluntarily causing hurt, there must be complete correspondence between the result' and the intention or the knowledge of the person who causes the said hurt. When we look into the case in those angles, it is clear that it was not the intention of the petitioner-accused to attack PW1 and his intention was only to attack PW2 because of some altercation or disputes between them. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-accused cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 9. But from the evidence, it is clear that PW1 received injuries which are simple in nature In those circumstances, this Court has to see what is the offence committed by the petitioner. The answer to the said question is section 337 IPC. It reads as under: "337 IPC - Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tem1 which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." 10. Here in this case, there is no complete correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge of the petitioner-accused, but there is hurt. Therefore, it shall be construed that it is an accident falling under Section 337 IPC. In fact, the lower appellate Court has discussed these aspects in proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the alleged offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not made out. But, in my considered view, the lower appellate Court ought not have convicted the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, for the reason that the said act does not satisfy the required ingredients i.e. voluntarily causing hurt or intention. In fact, the lower appellate Court in its judgment has also discussed certain aspects with regard to the disputes between the petitioner-accused and the Management of the College wherein the petitioner accused is working, and from that, it appears that the petitioner is not having cordial relationship with the Management of the College. 11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court also erred in holding that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court is liable to be set aside and in the alternative the petitioner accused shall be convicted for the, offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. 12. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that because of disputes between him and PW2, the petitioner-accused was removed from service, and if the petitioner is again convicted for the offence under Section 337 IPC, there is every likelihood of taking vengeance against the petitioner by the Management of the College. 13. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. When once the accused has committed the offence, he shall be punished for that offence. May be it is true that the petitioner-accused is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC and there is every likelihood of removing him from service. This Court is of the view that it is only in cases where moral turpitude is involved then only the public servant is to be removed from service for the reason that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of IPC. This Court is of the view that it is only in cases where moral turpitude is involved then only the public servant is to be removed from service for the reason that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of IPC. Here is a case where this Court is finding the petitioner-accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and in my considered view the said conviction would not involve moral turpitude so as to remove the petitioner-accused from service. 14. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner accused by the lower appellate Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is hereby set aside, and instead, the petitioner-accused is convicted for the offence under Section 337 IPC for causing hurt on PW1 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1 ,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).