CRLRC/1710/2006 of Upputuri Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

This revision is preferred against judgment dated16.10.2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2005, whereunderjudgment dated 07.11.2005 in C.C. No. 324 of 2002 on the file ofthe Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, is confirmed.

2. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadikonda policestation, filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner allegingthat on 13.04.2002, at about 11.30 P.M., while KankanalaSeetaramaiah (PW1) was returning home after watching T.V. atMothadaka bus stop center, he was attacked and beaten onforehead and back, as a result he received bleeding injuries. One Nimmagadda Veeraiah (PW2), Nimmagadda HanumanthaRao (PW3) and Sambaiah witnessed the incident and on seeingthem, the accused fled away. Immediately, PW1 is shifted tohospital by his father Kankanala Panduranga Rao (PW4) and onthe statement of PW1, police registered a case andinvestigated, which revealed that the revision petitionercommitted an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

3. The learned trial Court Judge, after framing charge underSection 324 IPC, conducted trial during which six (06) witnesseswere examined. PW1 is victim, PWs 2 and 3 are eyewitnesses, PW4 is the father of victim, PW5 is Medical Officerand PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

4. On a overall consideration of oral and documentaryevidence, the trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to suffersix (06) months simple imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, therevision petitioner preferred the appeal to the Court of the IIIAdditional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

6. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, on reappraisal of the evidence, held that offence under Section 324is not made out, but the evidence on record attracts an offenceunder Section 323 IPC. Accordingly, convicted the revisionpetitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC, sentenced himto suffer three (03) months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Now, aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence,the present revision is preferred.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The advocate for the revision petitioner submitted thatthere is a delay in registering the case and submitted thataccording to prosecution, the incident was on 13.04.2002, atabout 11.30 P.M., but FIR is registered on 22.04.2002. Hefurther submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence ofPWs 1 to 4 and both the trial Court and the appellate Courtnoticed these discrepancies and discarded them on the groundthat they are minor discrepancies. He submitted that thesediscrepancies are not minor, but they are very much material inproving the guilt of the accused. He further submittedaccording to prosecution, attack was made with a stick, but theinvestigating officer has not seized the stick. For all these reasons, the accused has to be given benefit of doubt. Hefurther submitted that for any reason his submission is notaccepted, sentence may be modified, considering passage ofeleven (11) years.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that thediscrepancies noticed by the Courts below are not majordiscrepancies and both the Courts rightly ignored them. Hefurther submitted that both the Courts concurrently held that theaccused committed the offence and that there are no grounds tointerfere with the judgments of Courts below. He submitted thatwith regard to sentence, he would leave the matter to thediscretion of the Court.

10. According to prosecution, the incident was on 13.04.2002,at about 11.30 PM. PW1 deposed in his evidence that onfestival day, in the month of October, 2002, during night time,after watching T.V. programme at the center of his village, hewas going back to his house and at that time, the accused camebehind him and beat him with stick on his head, back and lefthand which caused bleeding injuries. His evidence issupported and corroborated by PWs 2 and 3, who are eyewitnesses. The victim PW1 was examined by PW5 on14.04.2002, at 12.05 A.M., i.e., on the intervening night of13/14.04.2002, before whom PW1 stated that he was beaten bya known person with hands. From the wound certificate, theinjuries sustained by PW1 are simple and the X-ray reveals nobone injury. Considering the evidence of PW1 and the medicalevidence of PW5, the lower appellate Court converted theconviction for the offences under Section 324 IPC into Section323 IPC.

11. From the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 wasattacked with hands only and no weapon is used in thecommission of offence. The lower appellate Court for theoffence under Section 323 IPC imposed punishment of three(03) months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-. Now, therequest of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is thatdue to passage of time and as the offence under Section 323 ispunishable with imprisonment or fine or with both, the fineamount that is imposed on the revision petitioner may beconfirmed by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment.

12. On a perusal of the material on record, and taking thefacts of the case into consideration, I feel imposition of finewould meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the conviction of therevision petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC isconfirmed, but the sentence is modified by setting aside theimprisonment of three (03) months and confirming fine amountof Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC.

13. With this modification, the Criminal Revision Case isdismissed.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in thisrevision, shall also stand dismissed.

31-12-2013vhb

___________________________

JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

vhb

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1710 of 2006

Date : 31-12-2013