CRLRC/55/2005 of ParnamSrinivas Reddy Vs State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed inCrl.A.No.123 of 2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Warangal, thepresent Criminal Revision Case is filed by the unsuccessful accusedin C.C.No.75 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Parkal.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused in the aforesaid CalendarCase. Before the trial Court, the petitioners were charged for theoffence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and they wereconvicted for the said offence and were sentenced to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred appeal. Theappellate Court also gave concurrent finding confirming the convictionand sentence passed by the trial Court.

3. Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed onthe ground that the Courts below failed to notice that P.Ws.1 to 3 havenot supported the prosecution case and the material evidence do notcorroborate the oral evidence; that no specific overt acts attributed tothe accused and accordingly, the orders are illegal and improbable.

4. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugnedjudgment in Crl.A.No.123 of 2004, dated 28.09.2004, is sustainable?5. Before going into the merits of the case, it is just and necessaryto refer the charge sheet averments, which briefly reads as follows:

On 31.12.2001 at about 10.30 PM all the accused consumedalcohol and hatched a plan to beat Thipparthi Raji Reddy-complainant and four others and being armed with sticks, beat those persons and caused injuries. On the complaint lodged by T.RajiReddy, police registered a case in Crime No.102 of 2002 for theoffence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.

6. Before the trial Court, the prosecution in proving the aforesaidcharges, examined as many as 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P.W.10 andgot marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. On behalf of the defence, no witnesseswere examined, but Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

7. As seen from the evidence on record, P.Ws.3 and 6 did notsupport the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile. Theonly evidence remains is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. According to the evidence of P.W.1 on 31.12.2001 at about 10.30 PMhe along with others while coming from the temple and after crossingabout 50 metres distance in front of the house of P.Malla Reddy, A.1 toA.5 came and beat them and he was beaten by A.2 and A.3. Immediately, he proceeded to police station and from there he wasreferred to Government Hospital and lodged Ex.P.1 report. Accordingto P.W.2, A.5 beat him in the abdomen. He also corroborated theevidence of P.W.1. There is no much cross-examination to P.W.2.According to P.W.4, he was beaten by A.1 and A.3. P.W.5 claims thathe was beaten by A.2 and A.3. He claims that he was treated by theDoctor. The independent direct witness P.W.7 deposed that on thedate of the incident when he was returning from the temple, hewitnessed the accused beating P.Ws.1 to 5. Though he was cross-examined in detail, he asserted that at the time of incident there wereabout 30 members in the Bhajan. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who treated theinjured and issued wound certificates relating to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. P.W.9 is another Doctor, who examined P.Ws.4 and 5 and issuedwound certificates. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination ofP.Ws.8 and 9 to disbelieve the testimony regarding the issuance ofwound certificates to P.Ws.1 to 5. The injuries on P.Ws.1 to 5 areproved by the medical evidence, P.Ws.8 and 9. In the cross

examination, all the injured witnesses stated about the incident. Themedical evidence would clearly go to show that the Doctors examinedthe injured and found simple injuries on P.Ws.1 to 5. The Doctors alsoasserted that those injuries can be possible with a blunt object. Themedical evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 proves that P.Ws.1 to 5 weretreated in the early hours at 1.30 A.M soon after the incident. Moreover, these injured were taken to hospital by the police.

8. In view of the cogent, corroborative, convincing and trustworthyevidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 coupled with the medical evidence as spokenby P.Ws.8 and 9, it can be said without any slightest doubt that theinjured took the assistance of police in referring them to the hospital fortheir treatment. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court welldiscussed the evidence on record and came to a right conclusionwhile convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the concurrent findings of both theCourts below needs no interference as both the Courts have takenlenient view on the petitioners while convicting them for the offenceunder Section 323 read with 34 IPC.

9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed whileconfirming the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courtsbelow.

DECEMBER 31, 2012

YVL

__________________

K.S. APPA RAO, J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

YVL

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 55 OF 2005

31.12.2012