Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 136 (AP)

Kantamneni Koteswara Rao v. State Of A. P.

2020-02-18

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C. No. 386 of 1996, dated 12.07.1999, which was confirmed to an extent of conviction but modified to the extent of sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1999, dated 28.03.2008. 2. The circumstances which lead to the filing of the Appeal are as under: i. Accused No. 1 and 2 are the Revision Petitioners. Originally, Accused No. 1 to 3 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 read with 109 IPC. The Trial Court found Accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,500/- was directed to be paid to PW2 as compensation. Accused No. 2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,500/- was directed to be paid to PW2 as compensation. Challenging the same, Crl. A. No. 368 of 1999 came to be filed, wherein, the sentence of Accused No. 1 was reduced to three years while retaining the fine amount and the fine imposed against Accused No. 2 was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: (i) The accused and the prosecution witnesses are residents of Kondalpaturu village. There were disputes between Accused and PW1 which lead to filing of O.S. No. 84 of 1994 and I.A. No. 721 of 1994, but there was no order of injunction. (ii) While things stood thus, on 17.03.1995 at about 8.00 AM, when PW2 came to the disputed site along with his grandson Sunil Choudhary, the accused armed with axe and iron rod attacked him with an intention to do away with his life. It is said that accused no. 1 beat PW2 with an axe on his head and caused fracture on the skull and also beat him on left toe causing fracture. Accused No. 2 beat PW2 with iron rod on his back and also on the right calf causing bleeding injuries. It is said that accused no. 1 beat PW2 with an axe on his head and caused fracture on the skull and also beat him on left toe causing fracture. Accused No. 2 beat PW2 with iron rod on his back and also on the right calf causing bleeding injuries. It is said that, accused no. 3 instigated accused no. 1 and 2 to do away the life of PW2. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW1, PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW11. 4. Basing on a report given by PW1, a case in Crime No. 15 of 1995 was registered and immediately the injured-PW2 was sent to hospital for treatment. The blood stains clothes of PW2 were seized in the presence of mediators under a mediator report. The Doctor who treated PW2 noticed four [04] injuries and injury no. 1 and 4 were found to be grievous injuries, while the remaining injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to filed which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 16 of 1995. On appearance of the Accused, copies of all the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and later on it was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. 5. On appearance of the accused, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but did not adduce any oral defence evidence, however, got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 - Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. 7. Considering the evidence of PW1, PW2 and others, the Trial Court convicted the accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accused no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. On appeal, the Appellate Court while confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, reduced the sentence to three years. The fine imposed on Accused No. 2 was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed. 8. Sri. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. On appeal, the Appellate Court while confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, reduced the sentence to three years. The fine imposed on Accused No. 2 was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Revision is filed. 8. Sri. T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would contend that the trial court erred in believing the evidence of PW1 and PW2 whose evidence is highly interested and discrepant in material particulars. According to him, the medical evidence is inconsistent with the oral evidence and hence pleads that the accused are entitled for an acquittal. 9. The same is opposed by the Public Prosecutor. 10. Pw1 is the elder brother of PW2. He is not a direct witness to the incident. However, he speaks about the existence of civil disputes between the accused and himself regarding his site. In his evidence, he deposed that, the father of accused no. 3 filed a Suit in the year 1997, which was dismissed. Accused no. 3 and his father again filed a Suit O.S. No. 84 of 1994 claiming right over the site, which is said to be pending. 11. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW2 would be relevant to the case on hand. He in his evidence deposed about the existence of civil disputes between them. According to him, on the date of incident, he went to the vacant site along with grandson of PW1. At that time, one Veeraiah and Mandava Subba Rao, were sitting on the pial of Guntupalli Venkateswarlu. After reaching the vacant site, while the grandson of PW1 was playing, suddenly, accused no. 1 and 2 came from behind the manure heap. On seeing, PW2 raised cries, then, accused no. 1 beat him with an axe on the left side of his head twice; the first blow fell on his head and the second blow fell on his left leg, resulted in fracture injuries. Thereafter, accused no. 2 is said to have beat PW2 with iron rod on his back and on right calf, as a result of which, he fell down. Accused no. 1 and 2 kicked PW2 while going away and accused no. 1 stated that they have beaten him to death and informed the same to accused no. 3. Thereafter, accused no. 2 is said to have beat PW2 with iron rod on his back and on right calf, as a result of which, he fell down. Accused no. 1 and 2 kicked PW2 while going away and accused no. 1 stated that they have beaten him to death and informed the same to accused no. 3. This incident was said to have witnessed by PW3, PW4 and PW5, who were present at the scene. After the arrival of PW1, he narrated the incident to him and thereafter he was taken in a tractor to the hospital for treatment. 12. The evidence of PW3, PW5, PW6 and PW11 would show that, on hearing the cries of PW2, they turned towards the vacant site and found the accused attacking PW2. 13. Pw10 is the Doctor who treated PW2 and issued Ex.P5- wound certificate. He noticed five injuries on the body of PW2. Out of which, injury no. 1 and 4 were found to be grievous in nature while other injuries are simple in nature. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 who is an injured eye witnesses to the incident cannot be doubted. More so, when his evidence gets corroboration not only from the medical evidence but also through the evidence of other eye witnesses. 14. It is no doubt true that there are some civil disputes between the parties, but, motive is a double edge weapon and in the instance case, PW2 was injured in the attack and immediately thereafter he was taken to doctor for treatment and the law was sent into motion at the earliest point of time. Further, the injuries found on PW2 cannot be treated as self-inflicted injuries as they were found on vital parts and skull bone was broken. Having regard to the above, the finding of the Trial Court in convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC cannot be said to be illegal, improper and incorrect. Therefore, there is no illegality, incorrectness in convicting the accused no. 1 under Section 307 PC and accrued no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that, the incident took place in the year 1995 and the accused no. 1 was aged about 20 years then, and he is aged about 45 years as on today. 1 under Section 307 PC and accrued no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that, the incident took place in the year 1995 and the accused no. 1 was aged about 20 years then, and he is aged about 45 years as on today. Hence, pleads for reduction in sentence by imposing substantial amount as compensation. 16. It is no doubt true that the incident took place in the year 1995. The Judgment of the Appellate Court was pronounced in the month of March 2008 itself. But, lapse of time by itself, in all circumstances cannot be a ground to reduce the sentence. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 17. As seen from the evidence of PW10 -Doctor who treated the injured, noticed five injuries on the body. X-ray of the skull reveals fracture on left frontal and left parietal bone and also fracture on 2nd and 3rd meta tersel bones. Patient was admitted in neuro surgery head injury unit, G.G.H, Guntur. Due to head injury, he was hospitalized for nearly two weeks. The injuries no. 1 and 4 on the body of PW2 was found to be lacerated injuries with bleeding present over left frontal and left parietal region of scalp exposing interlining skull bone. The 4th injury was a swelling present over dorsum of left foot measuring 14 x 8 c.m. 18. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by PW2, I am of the view that the relief as sought for by the Petitioner, namely reduction of sentence to the period undergone by enhancing the fine amount cannot be accepted. It is not the case where both the parties have settled their disputes and seek to compound the offence. 19. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the manner in which the incident took place cannot be found fault with. It is not the case where both the parties have settled their disputes and seek to compound the offence. 19. Having regard to all the circumstances stated above, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the manner in which the incident took place cannot be found fault with. However, having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the year 1995 and since the Petitioners herein underwent an ordeal of criminal case pending against them for the last 20 years, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the Court below against Petitioner No. 1 is reduced from three [03] years to Six [06] months, while confirming the fine imposed against Accused No. 1 and 2. The period of imprisonment already undergone, if any, by the Petitioner No. 1 be given set off. 20. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.