Partly allowed

Gurrala Venkata Rao, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Dec 2023CRLRC/887/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the criminal revision, modifying the sentence of the accused (over 70 years old) convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The Court substituted the term of rigorous imprisonment with a fine due to the offender's age, directing payment as compensation to the injured relatives.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified from six months rigorous imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 10,000 payable to the injured parties, with six months simple imprisonment in default.

Gurrala Venkata Rao, Vs State of a.P., Rep… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.887 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Revision is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.109 of 2008 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal by modifying the sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. in the judgment dated 04.04.2008 in S.C.No.393 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kakinada.

¶5

The shorn of facts of the case are as follows:

¶6

On 14.11.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. one Gurala Lakshmi, wife of petitioner herein and her younger brother by name Duba Ramu went to the tiled house purchased by the accused in the name of his wife for collecting rents and one Kollada Srinu also came to help them. On knowing about the same, the accused came and quarreled with them questioning his wife as to why she wanted his house even though she separated from him and went to her parents house. He attacked her with a knife and stabbed on her neck with a view to kill her, due to

¶7

¶8

which she received bleeding injury. When her younger brother tried to restrict petitioner, the petitioner attacked him with knife and caused bleeding injury below his left side chest and left hand middle fingers. When K.Srinu and others gathered at the scene of offence and tried to catch hold of the petitioner, he absconded with the knife. Later the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On medical intimation, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

¶9

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

¶10

The trial Court held that the accused found not guilty for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C but found guilty for the charge under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.

¶11

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by modifying the judgment of the trial

¶12

¶13

Court with regard to the sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

¶15

Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that self-serving testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 are not worthy and no credence be given to their testimonies and there are no independent witnesses to corroborate the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2. The medical evidence is inconsistent with ocular evidence as well there are contradictions

¶17

in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are not considered by both the courts giving much weight to the testimony of PW.1 is incorrect and erroneous even if prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused, might have given concession/benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

¶18

As against the same, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is no consistency in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner; that initially, accused denied the case of the prosecution totally, later, they came forward with a defence that in view of altercation, when PW.1

¶19

¶20

pushed down the petitioner, at that time, the incident was happened and the third defence was that in exercise of self defence, the accused had taken knife, which was lying on the side of birthday cake and inflicted injuries to PWs.1 and 2.

¶21

The learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is consistent and proved the guilt of the accused that he attacked PW.1 and PW.2 with a knife resulting to the injuries and those injuries have been proved. Therefore, the investigating officer placed MO.3, sharp edged weapon, which was said to be used by the accused while attacking PW.1 and PW.2. It is also found by both the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court that MO.3 is having sharp edge on one side. May be true that the injuries of PW.1 and PW.2 are simple in nature but attack with a knife at the vital parts of body i.e. PW.1 received injuries on neck and PW.2 also received injury on the left side chest below nipple. He also submits that except simple minor discrepancies, nothing was found in the material to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and there are no merits in this revision.

¶22

11. The point that arises for consideration in this revision is:

¶23

“Whether the trial Court or the appellate Court recorded the findings without considering or ignoring the material evidence and whether exercised jurisdiction arbitrarily or perversely while imposing sentence by the Sessions Court?”

¶24

¶25

This Court closely perused the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 as well PW.8. It is stated by PW.1 and PW.2 that PW.1 is none other than wife of the petitioner and living separately. When they went to collect rents from the tenants of the tiled house, the petitioner came and attacked them with a knife, causing bleeding injuries initially to PW.1. When PW.2 tried to save PW.1 from further attack, he was also inflicted with injury below his chest as well on the left-hand middle fingers.

¶26

It is also proved from the testimonies of PW.4 and PW.5 that when PW.1 and PW.2 demanding them to pay rents, at that time, the petitioner/accused came there. PW.1 raised dispute and at that point of time, there was altercation between petitioner/accused and PW.1, who pushed down him, then accused in order to save himself, took knife from the house of PW.5, which is available at that time as PW.5 made arrangements for her daughter’s birthday function and with that knife poked PW.1 and PW.2. Their evidence also speaks that PW.1 and PW.2 received injuries. The evidence of medical officer, who was examined as PW.8, stated incise wound received by PW.1 on left side neck is 1 X 5 cm. Likewise, PW.2 received injury on left side chest, which is 1x3 cm.

¶27

The trial court, after elaborate discussion regarding an incise wound deep injuries as well stab injuries, ultimately held that though initially accused was charged under Section 307 IPC but the evidence

¶28

¶29

show that the injuries received by PW.1 were simple in nature. Thereby, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C and was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. Even the Sessions Court, considering all the facts placed on record before the trial court, found that accused married two women and they are also deserted him and married PW.1 as third wife about 17 years back and they also blessed a son. But for the reasons best known to the petitioner/accused and PW.1, they were living separately for the last six years.

¶31

The material placed on record shows that the petitioner also purchased a tiled house in favour of PW.1 situated at Racharlapet besides, purchased 600 sq.yards site at Sarpavaram. Before the appellate Court, the petitioner pleaded mercy as he was more than 60 years, to impose fine instead of sentence. But, in view of the gravity of the offence, the appellate Court took a lenient view and modified the sentence imposed by the trial Court from two years to six months of Rigorous Imprisonment, on which the present revision is filed.

¶32

¶33

Admittedly, both the Courts concurrently found that the accused attacked PW.1 and PW.2, who said to be received simple injuries in the hands of accused. The alleged incident taken place on 14.11.2006 and at that time the accused was aged about 55 years. Now he is more than 70 years. Since the accused is more than 70 years having faced the trial as well appellate court took a lenient view considering his age, this court after examining the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police¹ , Parkash Chandra Agnihotri v. State of Mandhya Pradesh² and A.P.Raju v. State of Orissa³ , at this point of time it would be harsh to send the petitioner to the jail at the age of 70 years that too after 17 years from commencing the criminal case and that too since PW.1 and PW.2, who were none other than wife and brother-in-law of accused received simple injuries, to meet the ends of the justice, the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- to PW.1 and PW.2 within six weeks from today, in default, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months as ordered by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.109 of 2008.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by confirming the conviction imposed against the petitioner/accused in the judgment dated 06.04.2010 in Crl.A.No.109 of 2008 passed by

¶35

12021 SCC Online SC 445

¶36

21990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 764

¶37

3 1995 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 385

¶38

¶39

the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada for the offence under section 324 of IPC. However, the sentence imposed by the appellate Court against the petitioner is hereby modified as fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable to PW.1 and PW.2, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment of six months. The petitioner/accused is directed to pay the said fine amount within six weeks from today.

¶40