Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1005 (AP)

Kudipudi Nagooru S/o Veera Raju v. Gollakuti Krishnayya S/o Tatarao Paddy

2025-08-20

T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

body2025
- ORDER : 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant assailing the Judgment dated 22.10.2008 passed in C.C.No.522 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku (for short "the trial Court") whereby the trial Court acquitted the Respondents/A.1 to A.8 for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. - 3. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are that: (a) P.W.1, Kudupudi Nagooru, was cultivating the lands belonging to L.W.9, Tammisetti Venkanna, under a magatha arrangement. It is alleged that A.1 had expressed his desire for L.W.9 to transfer the cultivation rights to him instead, but L.W.9 refused. As a result, A.1 allegedly abused P.W.1. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 27.05.2004 at around 8:00 P.M., A.1 to A.5 assaulted P.W.1 with hands and legs while he was at the Ramalayam Temple in East Vipparru Village. Subsequently, at about 9:00 P.M., A.1 to A.8 reportedly came to the house of P.W.1, dragged him onto the road, and beat him with a cool drink bottle, causing a bleeding injury. (b) In the meantime, when P.W.2, Kudupudi Srinu, and L.W.3, Kudupudi Ganapathi, attempted to intervene and rescue P.W.1, the accused allegedly assaulted them as well. Following the incident, P.W.1 approached the police on 31.05.2004 and gave a statement. Based on this statement, P.W.8, B. Nageswara Rao, Head Constable at Iragavaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 41 of 2004 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, P.W.8 visited the scene of the offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses, and upon completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet accordingly. 4. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, took cognizance against the accused under sections 324 and 323 r/w. 34 of IPC. 5. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.?.?. - 6. 4. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, took cognizance against the accused under sections 324 and 323 r/w. 34 of IPC. 5. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of the prosecution documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.?.?. - 6. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w.34 of IPC and claimed to be tried. 7. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P6 were marked, and during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel for the accused elicited contradictions which were marked as Exs.D1 to D.4. 8. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and stated that they had no defence witnesses and pleaded not guilty. 9. The Trial Court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found A.1 to A.8 not guilty of the offences stated supra, vide its Judgment dated 22.10.2008 in C.C.No.522 of 2004, and acquitted A.1 to A.8. 10. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal of the accused, the de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, challenging the Judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.522 of 2004. 11. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Was the trial Court justified in acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 8? POINT 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant contends that the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who categorically deposed that the accused assaulted P.W.1, thereby causing injuries. It is argued that minor discrepancies, such as whether the assault was committed with a soda bottle or a beer bottle, do not undermine the overall credibility and substance of the prosecution's case. Learned counsel further submits that the defence has not produced any rebuttal evidence during cross-examination to disprove the prosecution's version. It is argued that minor discrepancies, such as whether the assault was committed with a soda bottle or a beer bottle, do not undermine the overall credibility and substance of the prosecution's case. Learned counsel further submits that the defence has not produced any rebuttal evidence during cross-examination to disprove the prosecution's version. Moreover, it is contended that the oral testimony adduced by the prosecution witnesses, in itself, sufficiently establishes the commission of the offence by the accused. - 13. I have heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the material available on record, including the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. 14. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand , (2004) 7 SCC 659 , that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1 st Appellate Court”. 15. I have carefully examined the witness depositions and considered the submissions from both sides. Learned counsel for the Respondents/A.1 to A.8 points out to the specific allegation in Ex.P1 that P.W.1 sustained a head injury during an incident on 27.05.2004 at around 9:00 P.M. The prosecution alleges that A.1 to A.8 went to P.W.1's (Kudupudi Nagooru) house, where A.6 and A.8 called him out, dragged him to the road, and assaulted him with a cool drink bottle, causing bleeding. However, the trial court judgment reveals inconsistencies among the eyewitness accounts regarding who inflicted the injuries. P.W.1 testified that while he was at the Ramalayam Temple, A.3, A.7, and A.8 dragged and assaulted him with a beer bottle. P.W.2, his brother K. Srinu, stated that ten persons attacked P.W.1 with a beer bottle before he lodged a police complaint. - 16. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Accused argues that the initial report does not specify the type of bottle used in the assault. On reviewing Ex.P1, it is noted that P.W.1 merely mentioned being beaten with a bottle, without identifying it as a beer bottle. Therefore, the reference to a beer bottle is a later development introduced during the trial. 17. In Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs. State of Karnataka , (2004) 12 SCC 492 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 12. On reviewing Ex.P1, it is noted that P.W.1 merely mentioned being beaten with a bottle, without identifying it as a beer bottle. Therefore, the reference to a beer bottle is a later development introduced during the trial. 17. In Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde vs. State of Karnataka , (2004) 12 SCC 492 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: 12. The word “contradiction” is of a wide connotation which takes within its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of a case, a court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount to contradiction. 18. It is a well-settled legal proposition that, when evaluating the evidence, the Court must consider whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude as to materially affect the trial. In S. Govidaraju vs. State of Karnataka , MANU/SC/0839/2013 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. 19. P.W.3 (M. Srinu), an eyewitness, stated that A.2, A.5, and A.6 to A.8 came to Ramalayam Temple, dragged P.W.1, and that A.7 struck him on the head with a "soda" bottle. Notably, P.W.1 did not specifically attribute the injury to A.7 or mention a beer bottle. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 raises doubts about the involvement of the various accused as narrated. Additionally, P.W.5 (B. Polayya) testified that A.1, A.2, A.4, and A.5 assaulted P.W.1 on 27.05.2004 at around 8:15 P.M. near Narasimha Murthy's pan shop. 20. The witness depositions reveal apparent discrepancies concerning the accuseds' involvement and the type of bottle used in the offence. The trial court noted these inconsistencies, as well as contradictions in Exs. D.1 to D.4, which were elicited during the cross-examinations of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.6. The witnesses stated that they did not make the statements attributed to them in Exs. D.1 to D.4 during their examinations. - 21. P.W.6 (P. Annapurna) testified that at Ramalayam Temple, A.1 and others dragged P.W.1, and A.7 struck him with a Gold Spot bottle. If the incident had occurred as narrated, such discrepancies and inconsistencies regarding the type of bottle used would not have arisen in the witnesses accounts. 22. D.1 to D.4 during their examinations. - 21. P.W.6 (P. Annapurna) testified that at Ramalayam Temple, A.1 and others dragged P.W.1, and A.7 struck him with a Gold Spot bottle. If the incident had occurred as narrated, such discrepancies and inconsistencies regarding the type of bottle used would not have arisen in the witnesses accounts. 22. The medical evidence does not corroborate the witnesses' accounts. P.W.7 (Dr. G. Rama Devi) examined P.W.2 on 28.05.2004 and found an abrasion on his neck (Ex.P2). She also examined P.W.1, noting a lacerated injury on the left parietal region and an abrasion on the left shoulder (Ex.P3). Neither certificate indicates a head injury. This discrepancy raises doubts about the accuracy of the Ex.P1 report, which mentions a head injury. It suggests possible falsification at the time the report was lodged. Overall, the medical evidence conflicts with the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.6. 23. The trial court highlighted another discrepancy regarding the delay in registering the case. P.W.8 (Investigating Officer) waited four days after receiving Ex.P1 before registering the complaint. He stated that the case was registered on 31.05.2004 at around 8:00 P.M., based on the wound certificates, upon receiving the complaint and wound certificates from the Government Hospital, Tanuku. However, Exs.P2 to P4 show that the wound certificates were issued on 01.06.2004. This raises the question of how P.W.8 could rely on wound certificates dated after the registration. The trial court concluded that P.W.8's investigation appeared superficial. Additionally, the Station House Officer delayed sending the FIR to the Magistrate; although required to be sent immediately, Ex.P6 shows it was forwarded only at 6:15 P.M. on 01.06.2004, over 22 hours later, despite the short distance between the police station and the Court. - 24. The trial court, in paragraph 23 of its Judgment, thoroughly examined the inconsistencies regarding the type of bottle used in the offence. The Ex.P1 report mentions that four persons assaulted P.W.1 with a cool drink bottle. However, P.W.1 testified that A.3, A.7, and A.8 beat him on the head with a beer bottle, despite no head injury being found. P.W.3 claimed A.7 used a soda bottle, while P.W.6 stated A.7 struck P.W.1 with a Gold Spot bottle. 25. The Ex.P1 report mentions that four persons assaulted P.W.1 with a cool drink bottle. However, P.W.1 testified that A.3, A.7, and A.8 beat him on the head with a beer bottle, despite no head injury being found. P.W.3 claimed A.7 used a soda bottle, while P.W.6 stated A.7 struck P.W.1 with a Gold Spot bottle. 25. Now, it is relevant to refer to certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesha v. Sharanappa, (2014) 1 SCC 87 wherein it was held that: “In a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the High Court from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of the informant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of the Revisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of the case. By way of abundant caution, we may herein observe that interference with the order of acquittal in revision is called for only in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure and in those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order of acquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The High Court may also interfere in those cases of acquittal caused by shutting out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. In such an exceptional case, the High Court in revision can set aside an order of acquittal but it cannot convert an order of acquittal into that of an order of conviction. The only course left to the High Court in such exceptional cases is to order.” 26. Further, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.12 as follows: “12. … Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Further, in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar , 2002 SCC (Cri) 1448 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.12 as follows: “12. … Sub-Section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid subsection, which places a limitation on the powers of the Revisional Court, prohibiting it from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a retrial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court have laid down the parameters of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.” - 27. After going through the prosecution's evidence, the trial court correctly noted discrepancies regarding the identity of the person who caused the head injury. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the prosecution has proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 28. The trial court also held that the Investigating Officer failed to seize the bottle allegedly used in the offence, and given the inconsistent descriptions of the bottle and the absence of this material evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 29. 28. The trial court also held that the Investigating Officer failed to seize the bottle allegedly used in the offence, and given the inconsistent descriptions of the bottle and the absence of this material evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 29. Given the discussions above and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge has rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order is not perverse or illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. 30. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed , confirming the Judgment dated 22.10.2008 passed in C.C.No.522 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated, and miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. -