The High Court disposed of joint Criminal Revision cases filed by the convicted accused against his conviction and by the injured party. The court upheld the appellate court's reduction of the charge from attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) to voluntarily causing hurt (Section 324 IPC) and dismissed both revisions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1661 AND 2147 OF 2004
Date: 13.03.2012
Crl.R.C.No.1661 of 2004: Between: A.Pothuraju …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent Crl.R.C.No.2147 of 2004: Between: D.Venugopal …..Petitioner And A.Pothuraju @ Sivarama Raju and another …..Respondents
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1661 and 2147 of 2004 COMMON ORDER:
These two revisions which arise out of the same case can be disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1661 of 2004 is the accused in S.C.No.70 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali (trial court). He was tried on a charge under Section 307 IPC and the trial court after considering the evidence by its judgment dated 22nd November 2011 convicted him of the said charge and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a find of Rs.2,000/- with a default clause prison sentence. Challenging the same the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.563 of 2001. The appellate court i.e. the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, by its judgment dated 24th September 2004 after reappreciating the evidence altered the conviction into Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence into one of six months rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial court.
3. Questioning the judgment of the appellate court, the petitioner filed Crl.RC.No.1661 of 2004. However P.W.1 Dulla Venugopal who is the de facto complainant and the injured in his turn filed Crl.RC.No.2147 of 2004 questioning the findings of the appellate court converting the conviction into Section 324 IPC on
the ground that it is against evidence and in stead the appellate court should have confirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC while maintaining the sentences imposed by it. That is how both these revisions arise out of the same case and have been taken up for disposal by this common order.
4. Heard Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is hereinafterwards referred to as accused, appearing in Crl.RC.No.1661 of 2004 and Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant/injured who is the petitioner in Crl.RC.No.2147 of 2004.
5. To appreciate the rival contentions, the prosecution case should be noted. The accused and P.W.1 and other material witnesses are all residents of Chinthalapudi Village. P.W.5 Dulla Sambasiva Rao is a relative of P.W.1 Dulla Venugopal. According to the prosecution, P.W.5 had a proposal to give one of his daughters in marriage to the accused and in that connection he requested P.W.1 to enquire about the antecedents of the accused and report to him and it is stated that P.W.1 informed P.W.5 that the accused was a drunkard and habitual offender and was involved in several criminal cases also. It is stated that basing on the said information given by P.W.1, P.W.5 has cancelled the marriage alliance of his daughter with the accused and thereupon the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and was waiting for an opportunity to attack P.W.1.
6. Regarding the incident it is stated that on 09.07.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.1 returned from Tenali to his village in a bus and was proceeding from the bus stand to his village and that on the way near Srirama Temple in the village, the accused attacked
him with an iron rod and caused serious injuries to P.W.1 in an attempt to murder him. Subsequently on the report of P.W.1 a case was registered against the accused and he was chargesheeted. The charge under Section 307 IPC was framed by the trial court based upon the above prosecution version.
7. The trial court after considering mainly the evidence of P.W.1/injured and also his brother P.W.3 D.Sivaganta Babu and the medical evidence consisting of oral testimony of P.W.4 Dr.B.S.V.Sivaranjani, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon of Tenali Government Hospital and evidence of the investigating officers accepted the prosecution’s case and convicted the accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
8. In the appeal filed by the accused, the appellate court again considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 in detail and concluded that the evidence of P.W.1 regarding attack on him by the accused is consistent and convincing. It however held that the evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose that the accused attacked him with an intention to cause his death and it was mainly on that ground and having regard to the medical evidence that the injuries suffered by P.W.1 were simple in nature, it altered the conviction into Section 324 IPC. In doing so, it accepted the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused used dangerous weapons namely iron rod and knife in the offence. This finding is however challenged by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. His arguments is that all the injuries suffered by P.W.1 were on his head and the dangerous weapons were admittedly used and therefore the appellate court was wrong in holding that the charge under Section 307 IPC was not established whereas Sri S.Nageswara Reddy says that the finding of the appellate court on this count and also on the
genuineness of the prosecution’s case cannot be sustained.
9. As already held by the trial court and appellate court, the evidence of P.W.1 who is the injured regarding the attack on him by the accused by an iron rod and also by the knife can be said to be convincing. The appellate court however rejected the evidence of P.W.3 holding that he was a relative and his evidence regarding his presence at the scene of offence was doubtful. It should however be noted that according to the rules of evidence enacted in the Evidence Act, the testimony of a single evidence is enough for recording conviction if the same is found to be convincing. The appellate court concluded that the evidence of P.W.1 who is the injured is convincing.
10. Sri S.Nageswar Reddy however pointed out that P.W.5 who was introduced by the prosecution to speak about the above motive for the accused to attack P.W.1 did not support the case at all inasmuch as he denied about offering his daughter in marriage to the accused and therefore argued that when once the motive part of the case is not proved, the whole prosecution case has also to be rejected.
11. It is true that P.W.5 did not support the case inasmuch as he denied that he offered his daughter in marriage to the accused. It is however well settled now that just because the prosecution is not able to prove the motive, the evidence regarding occurrence cannot be rejected when it is otherwise convincing. This is the situation in this case, and in my opinion, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would show that there is nothing in it to reject his version regarding the attack on him by the accused. It is the admitted case that both P.W.1 and the accused are also well acquainted
with each other and therefore the question of any dispute regarding identity also does not arise. The appellate court also gave convincing reasons to accept the evidence of P.W.1 and I do not see no infirmity in its judgment on that aspect.
12. Then turning to the correctness of the finding of the appellate court that an offence under Section 324 IPC is made out, but not one under Section 307 IPC, I am of the opinion that the reasons given by it on this aspect are also convincing. It should be noted that P.W.1 in his evidence nowhere stated that the accused attacked him with an intention to kill him. This apart, the prosecution also could not place any convincing circumstances to show that an offence under Section 307 IPC is made out.
13. However Sri G.Venkateswar Rao pointed out that as P.W.1 suffered all the injuries on his head and nose which are vital parts of the body having regard to the weapons used i.e. iron rod and knife which are danger weapons, the intention on the part of the accused to murder P.W.1 can be inferred. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be noted that according to P.W.4 the medical officer all the injuries are simple in nature and she stated that if more serious injuries have been caused that would have resulted in the death of P.W.1. The distinction is that the accused did not cause any serious injuries and this makes all the difference. Consequently the contention of Sri G.Venkateswar Rao is rejected. The judgment of the appellate court altering the conviction into Section 324 IPC does not suffer from any other illegality or infirmity. Accordingly the finding of the appellate court altering the conviction of the accused into Section 324 IPC is confirmed and the plea of the accused with regard to the same is rejected.
14. Then coming to the sentences, the appellate court awarded a sentence of six month RI while maintaining the fine of Rs.2,000/imposed by the trial court. Having regard to the injuries suffered by P.W.1., I am of the opinion that the above sentences cannot be said to be harsh and consequently I find no ground to interfere even with regard to the sentences.
15. In the result, for all the aforesaid reasons, both the criminal revisions are dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
13th March, 2011 Tjmr
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1661 AND 2147 OF 2004
DATE: 13.03.2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court correctly altered conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC due to lack of evidence of intention to kill.
Whether the accused A.Pothuraju is entitled to the criminal revision filed against the appellate judgment.
A.Pothuraju
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
D.Venugopal @ Sivarama Raju
A.Pothuraju and another
N.Ravi Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
