Partly allowed

Kothapalli Prabhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Dec 2014CRLRC/1042/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed criminal revision petition against conviction for voluntary causing hurt. Court upheld concurrent findings but reduced rigorous imprisonment to one already undergone, increasing fine by Rs.5000 Payable as compensation to victims.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to one already undergone. Fine increased to Rs.10500 with Rs.5000 each to victims as compensation.

Kothapalli Prabhakar, Vs The State of Andhra… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No. 1042 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`the CrPC’, for short) by the petitioner/A1 is directed against the judgment dated 10.07.2008 of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Khammam passed in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2007, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming the judgment dated 23.04.2007 of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Khammam passed in C.C.No.133 of 2005, had confirmed the conviction recorded against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in addition to the fine of Rs.300/- imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and maintained the sentence of fine insofar as the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC imposed against A1 but had modified and reduced the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment from six months to three months for the said offence.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. I have carefully perused the material record.

¶6

3. Now, the points for determination are: --

¶7

1 . Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 of the IPC?

¶8

2. Whether the accused had made out valid and sufficient grounds for his acquittal for the said offences? And, if so, whether the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside?

¶9

4. POINTS:

¶10

4. (a) The case of the prosecution including the gravemen of the charge is that on 13.08.2014 at 21.30 hours, PW1 came to the Police Station, Tirumalayapalem and gave an oral report inter alia stating that three days prior to the incident, her neighbour/A1 abused her family on the pretext that the shebuffalo of PW1 had damaged their hay-stock and that on 13.08.2014 at about 18.00 hours, PW1 and her husband PW2 asked the accused not to abuse them and that there upon the accused 1 and 2 beat them with sticks and caused injuries and that PWs 1 and 2 went to the hospital of PW7, the R.M.P doctor for treatment and that at about 19.30 hours, the accused 1 to 3 came there and beat them with sticks severely. On the basis of the oral statement, which was reduced into writing, a case in Cr.No.94 of 2004 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After the investigation and on receipt of the medical opinion, the Section 325 of the IPC was also added and a charge sheet was laid against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶11

4. (b) Since this criminal revision case has been preferred by A-1 alone, this Court is concerned with the merits of his case. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and exhibits P1 to P11 were marked. PWs 1 and 2 are stated to be the injured witnesses and PWs 3 to 8 are stated to be direct witnesses to the occurrence. PW10 is the Medical Officer, who examined PWs 1 and 2 and issued wound certificates. PW11 is the Investigating officer.

¶12

4. (c) Now coming to the evidence, which was adduced by the prosecution to bring home the charge, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the injured victims, in the first instance. PW1 testified as follows: ‘She attends

¶13

to coolie work. PW2 is her husband. She knows A1 to A3. About two years ago, her she buffalo went to the backyard of the house of A1 and grazed the grass and for the said reason, A1 bore grudge. The wife of A1 went on abusing her (PW1) and her family members in filthy language. Three days prior to the incident, i.e., on the date of the subject incident, at about 6.30 PM, PW1 had requested the wife of A1 not to abuse her and her family members and offered to pay the cost of the grass grazed by her she buffalo. At that time, A1 and A2 beat her and her husband-PW2 with sticks. A1 beat her with a stick all over her body and also beat her husband PW2 on his right hand. Later, they went to the hospital of PW7, the RMP doctor for treatment. The accused came there with sticks and again beat PW2 with sticks. PW2 had sustained fracture injury to his left hand and also a head injury. When she had raised cries, A2 beat her with sticks all over her body and the incident was witnessed by LWs 3 to 5 and LW10. PW2 went to the house of PW5 to escape from the clutches of the accused. Later, exhibit P1, statement was given to the police.’ PW2 had testified that PW1 is his wife and that the house of A1 was behind his house and that about 2 ½ years back, at about 6 PM, A1 beat him with a stick on his left hand and that A2 had also beaten him with a stick and that the said incident was not witnessed by any person and that later he and his wife went to the hospital of PW7, an RMP doctor and subsequently, his three sons came to the hospital and that while he (PW2) was applying ointment to his hand, all the accused came there and pounced upon them and beat him with sticks on his hand and that when he placed his left hand on his head, they again beat him on his hand and he had sustained fracture injury on his left hand. A1 and A2 also beat his wife PW1 with sticks in front of the house of the said doctor indiscriminately and that he had escaped from the clutches of the accused and went into the house of PW5 and fell unconscious and that the said incident was witnessed by Lws 3 to 5 and 7 to 10. He was in the hospital for about ten days.’ PW3 testified as follows: ‘He knows PWs 1 and 2 and that about two years back, all the accused beat PWs 1 and 2 with bamboo sticks and had caused injuries at the house of PW7 and that PW2 had sustained injuries on his head and hands and PW1 was beaten on her waist. All the accused attacked PWs 1 and 2 and beat them and that when the accused were beating PW2, he (PW2) went to the house of PW5 to escape from the accused and that the children of PWs 1 and 2 also sustained injuries on their backs and that under the

¶14

illumination of the street light in front of the house of PW7, he had identified the accused and that the incident was also witnessed by others.’ PW4, who is the elder brother of PW2 testified that about three years back at about 7 PM, A1 to A3 came near the house of PW5 and beat PWs 1 and 2 with sticks and that when A2 beat PW1, she had sustained injury on her back and waist and that PW2 had sustained injuries on his head and right hand besides bleeding injuries. PW5 had only stated in her evidence that PW1 came into their house with injuries and at that time, she was in the backyard of the house and that she does not know at whose hands and where PW1 had sustained injuries. Thus, she did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW6 had also stated that about two years ago, in front of the house of PW8, at about 7 or 7.30 PM, the accused and PW2 beat each other, but he did not witness the incident. Thus PW6 also has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7, the RMP doctor had also stated that PW2 came to his hospital complaining body pains and that he administered an injection and sent him out of his hospital and that he does not know as to what had happened later. He did not also support the prosecution case. PW8, who is a kirana merchant of that village, had stated in his evidence that he does not know how PWs 1 and 2 had sustained injuries and that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. PW9 is a panch witness who was said to have been present at the time of the observation of the scene of offence. He too did not support the case of the prosecution. PW10 is the doctor who had examined PWs 1 and 2 on the requisition of the police and gave opinion about the injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 2. He testified that PW2 had sustained grievous injuries and PW1 had sustained simple injuries. PW11 is the Investigating Officer who had laid the charge sheet after investigating into the case. Basing on the above evidence, conviction was recorded by the Courts below against A1 for the offences with which he is charged.

¶15

4. (d) The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 had forcefully contended that all the witnesses, who spoke in favour of the prosecution are interested witnesses and that none of the independent witnesses including the doctor and PW5, into whose house the injured victim was said to have entered to escape from the clutches of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution and that

¶16

there are many discrepancies, which inherently improbabilize the case of the prosecution, besides exaggerations in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and that there are also material contradictions and omissions and that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the assault on the left forehand of the PW2 is not corroborated by the testimony of the doctor and that their testimonies in that regard are contradictory to each other. He would further contend that the evidence on record in regard to the later part of the prosecution case, i.e., the assault or attack with sticks by the accused at the house of the R.M.P doctor and that the evidence in respect of the further case of the prosecution in regard to the incident at the house of PW5 are not consistent and that there are high degree of variations and this later part of the prosecution case was not supported by PW7, the R.M.P doctor and PW5, the house owner and that therefore, A1 is entitled to a reasonable benefit of doubt. PW1 had deposed that the accused beat her and her husband with sticks. Whereas, PW2 had stated that the accused beat them with sticks at the hospital and that therefore, in view of the serious discrepancies and exaggeration in the evidence, A1 is entitled to an acquittal or at any rate of benefit of doubt.

¶17

4. (e) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of the victims, PWs 1 and 2, and the evidence of PW3 and the medical evidence which corroborate the versions of the victims are sufficient to base a conviction and that the courts below have properly appreciated the oral evidence and had recorded concurrent findings of fact insofar as the complicity of A1 and that therefore, there is no merit in any one of the contentions of A1 and that the judgment impugned does not call for interference.

¶18

5. I have bestowed my attention to the facts and the submissions. Though there are exaggerations and variations in the testimonies of PWs1 and 2, their evidence when considered harmoniously clearly shows that an incident as stated by the prosecution had happened and that they had sustained injuries in the said incident. Their evidence insofar as the first part of the incident is credible. Be it noted that insofar as the second part of the incident, i.e. the

¶19

incident at the hospital of the R.M.P doctor is not consistent. PW1 had stated that A1 to A3 came with sticks to the hospital of PW7 and beat her husbandPW2 and that he had sustained fracture injury to his left hand and also a head injury and that when she raised cries, A2 had beaten her with sticks all over her body and her husband went into the house of PW5 to escape from the clutches of the accused. She had also testified that the accused did not enter the house of PW5. But when she had given her statement before the police, she had stated that the accused dragged her husband from the house of PW5 and beat him on his head and he had sustained an injury. She had also admitted that she did not state before the police about the specific overt act of the accused near the hospital of PW7. On this aspect, PW2 had stated that when he was applying ointment to his hand at the hospital of PW7, all the accused came there and beat him and also PW1 in front of the house of PW7 and that he had escaped from the clutches of the accused and went into the house of PW5 and fell unconscious. However, he had also stated before the police that the accused dragged him from the house of PW5 and beat him with sticks, but he had denied in his evidence the said version. Thus, in regard to the later part of the version, there are discrepancies in the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. Though PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution, he stated that on that day, PW1 had approached him complaining body pains and he had administered an injection and PW5 had also stated that on that day, PW1 came into her house with injuries when she was in the backyard of her house. Be that as it may, insofar as the first part of the incident, the evidence of PW1 would show that A1 and A2 beat her and her husband (PW2) with sticks and that later they went to the hospital of PW7 for treatment and that A1 to A3 came there with sticks and beat both of them and that at that time, her husband escaped and went into the house of PW5. PW2 had also stated that A1 beat him with a stick on his left forehand and that A2 also beat him with a stick and that later, he and his wife went to the hospital of PW7 and that subsequently, his sons came over there and that PW7 gave an injection and that while PW2 was applying the ointment, all the accused gathered there and pounced upon him and beat him with sticks on his head and that when he placed his left hand on his head, the accused beat him on his hand and he had sustained a fracture injury and also a head injury and that he had escaped from the clutches of the accused and went into the house of PW5. The medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of

¶20

PWs 1 and 2. PW10, the doctor, who had examined PWs 1 and 2 on the requisition of the police and had issued exhibit P7 and P8 wound certificates had testified that exhibit P9 is the X ray report of PW2 and that PW1 had sustained simple injuries and that one of the injuries sustained by PW2 is grievous in nature and that by the time PWs 1 and 2 were examined, they had not received any first aid treatment. In view of the evidence on record, it is not possible to agree with the contention that no incident as stated in the prosecution case involving A1 to A3 had occurred. In the light of the evidence, there are no circumstances even to entertain a reasonable benefit of doubt as to the absence of complicity of A1. The evidence as brought out on record, in the well-considered view of this Court, is sufficient to come to a safe conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in regard to the complicity of A1 for the offence with which he is charged. Therefore, this Court, on a careful examination of the evidence on record, finds that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below insofar as A1 is concerned do not suffer from any infirmity calling for interference.

¶21

6. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for A1, while pointing out from the evidence of PW1 that she had noticed bandage on the head of A1 after the incident, had alternatively contended it was thus brought out in the evidence of PW1 that there is an altercation between the two parties and that A1 had also sustained a head injury in the incident and that therefore, a lenient view has to be taken as case was registered against A1 and others only and not against PWs 1 and 2 for causing injuries to the party of the accused. He would further submit that the incident is by now ten years old and that A1 was aged 35 years and that he is an agriculturist and that he was having children and an aged mother and that if he is sentenced to a term of long imprisonment not only he but also his family members would be put to hardship and that the future of the children would be ruined. He would also submit that a small incident of cattle of PWs 1 and 2 grazing in the backyard of the house of the accused had lead to the whole incident and that on account of grave and sudden provocation, a quarrel had ensued and that in that quarrel, not only PWs 1 and 2 but also A1 had sustained injuries and that therefore, the sentence already undergone by A1 would meet the ends of justice. He had

¶22

further submitted that while reducing the sentence to one already undergone, fine amount may be increased and some amount thereof can be ordered to be paid as compensation to PWs 1 and 2. Having regard to the facts of the case and the fact that A1 was also injured in the incident, this court is satisfied that there are extenuating and mitigating circumstances to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to one already undergone by A1.

¶23

7. Consequently, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and at the same time accepting the explanatory statement, the sentence imposed against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC is modified and reduced to one already undergone. However, the fine amount of Rs.500/- imposed by the court below is increased to Rs.10,500/-. On payment of such fine amount by A1 before the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, Rs.5000/- each shall be paid to PWs 1 and 2 as compensation from out of the said fine amount. On failure to pay the fine amount, A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. On payment of the fine now imposed, the bail bonds of A1 shall stand cancelled, however, after further appeal or revision time is over.

¶24

8. The criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.

¶26

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶27

11^th December 2014

¶28

RAR

Kothapalli Prabhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothapalli Prabhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Chandra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Srinivas Reddy, Vs a.Swaroopa Rani

G.Hanumanth , Hanumanth Rao Vs The State.,Sho.

Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, Vs Asiya Sultana

Dhwarangula Ramesh , Burka, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Ravindranath Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana