Allowed

Santha Sathi Babu at Sathiyya, E.G.District v. State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., High Court, Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Dec 2023CRLRC/640/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants miscellaneous applications to implead parties and allows them to compound an offence under Section 394 IPC. The Court set aside convictions and sentences, acquitting the petitioner based on evidence discrepancies and mutual compromise.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted. Fine amount refunded. Parties permitted to compound the offence.

Santha Sathi Babu at Sathiyya, E.G.District… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶2

I.A.NO.1, 2 & 3 of 2023 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.640 of 2011

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Assailing the judgment dated 08.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Kakinada, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner/accused No.2 by the judgment dated 03.03.2009 in C.C.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram for the offence under section 394 of IPC and set aside the said judgment in respect of the conviction and sentence imposed against accused No.1 for the said offence, the petitioner/accused No.2 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

¶5

The revision case was admitted on 18.03.2011 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused No.2 was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.970 of 2011.

¶6

¶7

Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2023 were filed by the petitioner, de facto complainant/P.W.1 and victim/P.W.2.

¶8

I.A.No.1 of 2023 was filed by the Sivakoti Vishnumurthy/de facto complainant/P.W.1 along with his wife Sivakoti Bhagyalakshmi/P.W.2, in which they stated that on the information of his wife/P.W.2, he gave a complaint to S.I. of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station and further stated that they are interested and necessary parties in this case and on the advice of elders and repeated requests made by the petitioner/accused No.2, they filed the present application to implead them as parties to get compromise the matter with the petitioner.

¶9

This court while considering the said application, perused the judgment, dated 03.03.2009 rendered in C.C.No.363 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, wherein the victim/P.W.2, who is wife of P.W.1, by name Bhagyalakshmi, deposed in her evidence that one person came and close her eyes, second person caught hold her neck and one culprit fisted on her mouth. She further deposed that culprits tied a rope around her neck and while she was trying to rescue, she

¶10

¶11

identified one of the said culprits is said to be accused No.2/petitioner herein.

¶12

According to P.W.2, one culprit fisted on her mouth and as a result, her teeth was loosen. Whereas, P.W.8 doctor deposed that there are about six to seven injuries, P.W.8 did not notice any injuries on knee, teeth or mouth and all those injuries said to have been caused by sharp edged weapon and ultimately based on the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 8, the trial Court gave judgement against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and found guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one (1) month each.

¶13

In view of the above, it is to be noticed that, as per the evidence of P.W.8, the injuries said to have been received by P.W.2 are caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas, M.Os.1 to 6 said to be placed before the trial Court are monkey cap, towel, plastic rope and motor bike.

¶14

Subsequently, during the pendency of the appeal against the said conviction, accused No.3 died. Accused Nos.1 and 2 canvased that they did not commit any offence. On perusal of

¶15

¶16

the entire material placed on record, the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada, vide judgment dated 08.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2009, found the accused No.1 not guilty for the offence and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against accused No.2/petitioner.

¶17

But, on perusal of the trial Court judgment as well first appellate Court judgment, no robbery was taken place and only the attempt was said to be made to commit robbery. So, if at all either the trial Court or first appellate Court intended to convict the accused, they would have convicted for the offence under Section 393 of IPC, but not under Section 394 of IPC. More so, it is also found that the appellate Court would not found that accused No.1 not guilty for the offence and accused No.2 alone commit the offence. Even to find out that accused No.2/petitioner attempted to commit robbery without presence of accused Nos.1 and 3, he cannot be convicted as there is a ‘ doctrine of parity’ will apply.

¶18

Now at this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court as stated supra, petitioner/accused No.2 requested many a times with P.W.1/de facto complainant and P.W.2/victim, who is wife of P.W.1, to pardon him and on the advice of elders, they indented to make compromise.

¶19

¶20

For the above reasons, after hearing the parties concerned and both the learned counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that P.Ws.1 and 2 allowed to implead as parties/respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Crl.R.C.No.640 of 2011 and thereby I.A.No.1 of 2023 is ordered. 12. I.A.No.2 of 2023 is filed by the both parties to record the compromise between the parties. Sri Kale Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, submits that the parties herein have compromised and they appeared before this Court to record the compromise with the revision petitioner. 13. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, brought to the notice of this Court judgments of the

¶21

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported between Gian Singh v. State of Punjab¹ as well recent judgment reported between Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala² , wherein considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are permitted to compound the offence even under Section 394 of IPC.

¶22

This Court also perused the above said judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and considering the material placed before the trial Court and there are inconstancies regarding

¶23

1 (2012) AIR (SCW) 5333

¶24

2 (2018) 15 SCC 343

¶25

¶26

injuries spoken by P.W.2 as well P.W.8 doctor. According to P.W.8, the injuries received by P.W.2 might have caused with sharp edged object, whereas, M.Os.1 to 5 are monkey cap, towel, plastic rope and motor bike, as well in the first appeal accused No.1 is acquitted with benefit of doubt as no case was made out rather prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1.

¶27

So far as accused No.2/petitioner is concerned, possibility of conviction is also very remote, in view of the discrepancies in the testimony between P.W.2 and P.W.8 coupled with M.Os.1 to 5, continuing of a criminal case against the accused No.2/petitioner will put great oppression and prejudice to him and extreme injustice would be caused to him by continuing this revision and the said revision is of the year, 2011, and so, the offence said to have taken place in the year, 2005.

¶28

Considering all these facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner as well respondent Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to compromise and thereby, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is ordered.

¶29

Consequently, in view of the above discussion, I.A.No.3 of 2023, which is filed to permit them to compound the offence, is also ordered.

¶30

¶31

Having regard to above, the present Criminal Revision Case is also allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused No2, vide judgment dated 03.03.2009 in C.C.No.363 of 2005 on the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, as confirmed in the judgment, dated 08.03.2011 in Crl.A.No.57 of 2009 on the file of Court of learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada, are hereby set aside. The revision petitioners/accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence under Section 394 of IPC. The fine amount paid by the accused, shall be refunded to him.

¶32

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

Date: 14.12.2023 Krs

108

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶38