Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 32 (AP)

Kuruba E. Adevappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-01-04

V.SRINIVAS

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the judgment dated 04.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 21.10.2009 in C.C.No.229 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, for the offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), the petitioners/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). 2. The revision case was admitted on 14.06.2010. 3. The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Cr.No.70 of 2006 of Parigi Police Station and after completion of investigation, S.I of Police, Parigi Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused and the same was numbered as C.C.No.229 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur. After full pledged trial, the trial Court found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the charge under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and half of the fine amount i.e., Rs.2,500/- shall be given to the complainant/injured as compensation under Section 257 of Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.127 of 2009, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur and the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. 6. Heard Sri K.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is 'whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?' 8. 7. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is 'whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?' 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that P.W.1 lodged the complaint after lapse of two days from the date of alleged incident; that there is no evidence to show that petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1; that there is no medical evidence to support the prosecution version; that without appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below erroneously convicted the petitioners and the same was upheld by the Court of Sessions; that there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1 and that both the Courts below failed to consider the above said aspects. 9. Per contra, Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the prosecution is able to establish the charge leveled against the petitioners by adducing evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and relying on Exs.P.1 to P.6; that the testimony of prosecution witnesses corroborating with each other; that the contents of the complaint is corroborated with the testimony of P.W.1 and thereby this Court cannot interfere with the judgments of both the Courts below. 10. In view of the rival contentions, as could be seen from Ex.P.1 and evidence of P.W.6/A.Srinivasulu, A.S.I., said to be investigating officer, one Police Constable of Hindupur I Town Police Station recorded the statement of P.W.1 Sivaiah. But, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Police Constable No.83 of Hindupur I Police Station neither cited as witness nor examined before the trial Court to prove that he recorded the statement of P.W.1 covered under Ex.P.1. 11. In-order to find the guilt of the accused, according to P.W.1, as per Ex.P.1, accused beat him with stick. Admittedly, there is a delay of two (2) days in registering the F.I.R. from the date of alleged incident. For such delay, the prosecution canvassed an answer that after recording the statement of P.W.1 by Police Constable, Hindupur I Town Police Station, S.I of Police received the same on 30.07.2006, for which the delay was occurred. Even if that is taken into consideration, before to that delay, P.W.1 was examined by P.W.4 Dr.Siva Kumar Swamy. For such delay, the prosecution canvassed an answer that after recording the statement of P.W.1 by Police Constable, Hindupur I Town Police Station, S.I of Police received the same on 30.07.2006, for which the delay was occurred. Even if that is taken into consideration, before to that delay, P.W.1 was examined by P.W.4 Dr.Siva Kumar Swamy. He gave Ex.P.2 wound certificate, which shows that before P.W.4, P.W.1 stated that on 29.07.2006, he was attacked by the accused with axe, whereas, Ex.P.1 discloses that he was attacked with a stick. This discrepancy goes any amount of doubt in the prosecution version. 12. Nextly, except the sole testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to make believe the prosecution story that accused caused injuries to P.W.1 as mentioned in Ex.P.2 wound certificate. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court already made an observation that, P.W.1 stated before the doctor (P.W.4) that he was attacked with axe, but as per the statement of P.W.1, he was attacked by the accused with stick. The said statement in Ex.P.1 was recorded by one Police Constable No.83 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, who was not examined nor even cited as witness to prove the contents therein, because except the signature of P.W.1 the rest of the contents were drafted by said police constable alone. 14. Further, according to the prosecution version and as per evidence of P.W.1, he was beat with stick. On the contrary, he stated before P.W.4 that he was attacked by the accused with axe. However, neither the axe nor any stick or any so called instrument, said to have been used by the accused, was not at all seized by the prosecution. 15. All these facts are totally ignored by the trial Court as well Sessions Court while finding the guilt of the accused. The material lacuna in this case is that the prosecution mainly relied on Ex.P.1 statement, but, which is deferred with Ex.P.2 wound certificate. There is so much of inconsistency in the testimony of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is inconsistent. Admittedly, there is delay in registering the F.I.R. and no proper explanation was forth coming, except stating that after they received hospital intimation only, they registered the F.I.R. But, the so called hospital intimation was neither filed nor marked by the prosecution for the reasons best known. 16. Admittedly, there is delay in registering the F.I.R. and no proper explanation was forth coming, except stating that after they received hospital intimation only, they registered the F.I.R. But, the so called hospital intimation was neither filed nor marked by the prosecution for the reasons best known. 16. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court as well Sessions Court have not properly appreciated the facts on record to find the guilt of the accused and erroneously came to conclusion that accused voluntarily caused hurt with a weapon, which was not at all produced, as already stated supra there is delay in registering Ex.P.1 and there is lot of inconsistency in the prosecution version itself goes to show there is manifest error in appreciating the material on record to find the guilt of the accused by the Courts below. 17. For all these reasons, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the judgments of both the Courts below and thereby, the conviction and sentenced passed against the petitioners by the trial Court under Section 324 of IPC are liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2, vide judgment dated 21.10.2009 in C.C.No.229 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, which was confirmed by the judgment dated 04.03.2010 in Crl.A.No.127 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. The revision petitioners/accused are acquitted of the charge under Section 324 of IPC. The fine amount paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded to them. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.