Partly allowed

Tottaramudi Simhachalam v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Dec 2024CRLRC/2202/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted under Sections 326 and 324 IPC for knife attack injuring five persons; revision against concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts failed on merits, but sentence reduced from four years to two years rigorous imprisonment considering seventeen years elapsed since the offence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced from four years to two years rigorous imprisonment for Section 326 IPC; rest confirmed; set off for period already undergone under Section 428 CrPC.

Tottaramudi Simhachalam Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010600042011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2202/2011

¶7

Between: Tottaramudi Simhachalam

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State Of Ap Rep Byits P P

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner: SURYAM GANNAVARAPU

¶13

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

Assailing the judgment dated 14.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 16.04.2009 in S.C.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Amalapuram, for the charges under Section 326 and 324 of Indian Penal Code

¶17

¶18

(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶19

The revision case was admitted on 05.11.2011 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.3309 of 2011.

¶20

The shorn of necessary facts are that:

¶21

i). On 21.12.2006 at about 07.00 p.m., the accused came to the shop of P.W.1 with a knife in drunken state, and asked him to keep the said knife in his shop. On that, P.W.1 kept the same under the table in his shop. Then the accused questioned P.W.1 that his (P.W.1’s) brother had illicit intimacy with his (accused) sister-in-law and demanded him to call his brother. Since, the accused is in drunken state, P.W.1 requested him to come on the next day morning. But, the accused felt that P.W.1 is supporting his brother, grew wild, picked up the knife, attacked on P.W.1 with an intent to kill him. On that, P.W.2 intervened to rescue her husband (P.W.1), then accused hacked on her both hands palms and caused severe bleeding injuries on her both palms. When P.Ws.3 and 4 tried to rescue them, accused attacked on

¶22

¶23

the elbow and right finger of P.W.3, on the left shoulder, right chest and right palm of P.W.4. The accused also thrown a stone on P.W.5, resulted he sustained injury on the right foot. Then the accused left the place.

¶24

ii). Basing on the hospital intimations Exs.P.13 and P.14, P.W.14-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Ainavilli Police Station recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.110 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC and investigated into.

¶25

After completion of investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance vide P.R.C.No.7 of 2007 on the file of Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Amalapuram and committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Amalapuram, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC, vide judgment dated 16.04.2009, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of four (4) years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three (3) months, also to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, for the respective charges.

¶26

¶27

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.63 of 2009, before the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 14.06.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused.

¶28

Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.

¶29

Heard Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri Suryam Gannavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

¶30

Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?”

¶31

Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel representing Sri Suryam Gannavarapu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 is interested in nature; that there is dispute between P.W.1 and accused regarding the illicit intimacy with the

¶32

¶33

community lady of P.W.1; that the medical evidence is not supported the prosecution version; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶34

Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5/injured coupled with Exs.P.1, P.8 to 12, categorically shows the injuries sustained by them in the hands of accused; that the testimony of P.Ws.6 and 8, who are eye witnesses to the incident, categorically proved the offence committed by the accused; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said charges; that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by examining P.Ws.1 to 13 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 8, thereby, the present revision has no merits.

¶35

In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is the specific contention of the accused that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 is interested and cannot be relied upon.

¶36

¶37

P.W.1, who is injured eyewitness, testified that he is running a tailoring shop, which is situated in front of his house. On 21.12.2006 at about 07.00 p.m., accused came to his house by arming knife, called him and gave knife to him with a request to kept the same under his bunk, then the accused stated to him that his sister-in-law had illegal contact with his (P.W.1) brother Nedunuri Anandarao and asked him to call his brother and further asked him whether he knew the said fact. On that P.W.1 gave reply that he does not know about the same. Then accused uttered that when his (P.W.1) brother came he will kill him and demanded him to bring his brother. When P.W.1 told to the accused that it is already dark and they could talk on the next day morning, since, he did not call his brother, accused grew wild against him, abused him, hacked with knife on his left hand near elbow and also on my right side of collar bone. First the accused aimed on his neck and when he tried to escape, the said blow landed on his left forehand near elbow. He also sustained injury on his right side collar bone. 13. He further testified that on hearing cries, his wife (P.W.2) came there and questioned the acts of accused. On that accused caused injury to P.W.2 on her both hand palms. When P.Ws.3 and 4 intervened, they were also received injuries in the

¶38

¶39

hands of accused. Accused also thrown mortar stone on P.W.5, who is son of P.W.1, resulted P.W.5 sustained injury on the right leg foot. Then the accused escaped from the spot. He also testified that he handed over M.O.1 blood stained shirt to police. Police recorded his statement under Ex.P.1.

¶40

Except the bare suggestions and admitted facts regarding their caste, nothing incriminating was elicited during the cross examination of P.W.1 and no specific defence was taken to disbelieve the prosecution version. Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.1 is fully supported and corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 to 5. Moreover, the testimony of P.W.6, who witnessed the incident and found P.W.1 with injuries, categorically shows that immediately after the incident, he got shifted P.Ws.1 to 5 to the Area Hospital, Amalapuram. The testimony of P.W.8, who is also eyewitness to the incident, categorical regarding the manner of the incident committed by the accused. The testimony of P.W.7 is also clear that on came to know the incident, he went to the house of P.W.1 and found P.Ws.1 to 5 with injuries. The testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5 coupled with testimony of P.Ws.6 to 8 categorically proved the offence committed by the accused against P.Ws.1 to 5.

¶41

¶42

Now, coming to the testimony of P.Ws.13 and 16 doctors, who treated P.Ws.1 to 5 immediately after the incident on 21.12.2006, coupled with Exs.P.8 to P.12 would certificates, it is categorical that the injury Nos.1 to 3 sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature and it is caused by sharp object as well blunt object. The injury No.2 sustained by P.W.2 is grievous in nature and the X-ray to left forearm with wrist and hand shows the multiple fracture involved ulna and 4^th metacarpal bone. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by P.Ws.3 to 5 are simple in nature and it is possible to cause the said injuries with M.O.7 weapon. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their testimony as well Exs.P.8 to P.12.

¶43

Having regard to the above, the testimony of prosecution witnesses categorically proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all doubt. Furthermore, it is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand¹ , 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 first Appellate Court”.

¶44

1 (2004) 7 SCC 659

¶45

¶46

By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 326 and 324 of IPC, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court.

¶47

It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.17.

¶48

All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the accused attacked on P.Ws.1 to 5, caused injuries to them and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said charges. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the charges under Section 326 and 324 of IPC.

¶49

¶50

However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the incident was occurred on 21.12.2006 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts below. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi)² , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment.

¶51

He also brought to the notice of this Court another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v. State of Delhi³ , wherein also the APEX Court considered the relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-.

¶52

As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana⁴ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence

¶53

2 AIR 1977 SC 892

¶54

3 AIR 1973 SC 2127

¶55

42019 (3) Crimes 89

¶56

¶57

took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.”

¶58

No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said to be happened on 21.12.2006 and by this time seventeen (17) years have already been lapsed.

¶59

Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two (2) years from four (4) years for the charge under Section 326 of IPC.

¶60

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of two (2) years rigorous imprisonment instead of four (4) years for the charge under Section 326 of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 16.04.2009 in S.C.No.174 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Amalapuram, which was affirmed by the judgment dated 14.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, shall stands confirmed. The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the

¶61

¶62

petitioner/accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Amalapuram to serve the remaining sentence, if not, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused.

¶63

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

¶65

shall stand closed.

¶66

_______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS

¶67

Date: 31.12.2024 Krs

¶68

¶69