Dismissed

C.S.Narayana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Dec 2014CRLRC/1875/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of an accused convicted under Section 324 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, comprising the victim's statement corroborated by medical evidence and witness accounts of a neighbour, was sufficient to sustain conviction despite non-seizure of the weapon.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC upheld.

C.S.Narayana Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Criminal Revision Case No.1875 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/sole accused is directed against the judgment dated 15.06.2007 of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Proddaturu in Criminal Appeal No.272 of 2005, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the said appeal of the accused had confirmed the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram, by his judgment dated 30.12.2005 in C.C.No.113 of 2005 taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have perused the material record.

¶6

3. Now, the points for determination are:

¶7

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC?

¶8

2. Whether the petitioner/accused had made out valid and sufficient grounds for his acquittal and for setting aside the judgment, which is impugned?

¶9

4. POINTS:

¶10

4. (a) The gravemen of the charge is that the accused are having ill feelings with PW3-Nooka Lakshmikantha Reddy and that on 06.07.2005, PW1-Peddireddy Ramachandra Reddy came to the house of his parents-in-law at Kamalapuram and that when he was sleeping in

¶11

front of the house, the accused came over there at 10 PM and beat PW1 and caused a bleeding injury to his right elbow. The further case is that after the said incident, PW3 had lodged a report with the Station House Officer, Kamalapuram Police Station and on the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.50 of 2005 was registered and that after due investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

¶12

4. (b) Before the trial Court, PWs 1 to 5 were examined and exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. On merits, the trial court had found the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but, however, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and suffer simple imprisonment for three months on failure to pay the said fine amount. No substantive sentence of imprisonment was imposed. As already noted, the said conviction and sentence imposed against the accused were confirmed in the appeal.

¶13

4. (c) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would contend that PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and that no independent witness was examined to prove the prosecution case and that there are contradictions in the evidence of the said witnesses and their evidence is discrepant and suffers from infirmities and inherent improbabilities and that the trial Court had failed to see that neither the bloodstained shirt of PW1 nor the weapon with which the injury was caused, were seized and produced before the trial Court and that the prosecution had failed to show any motive for the offence and that in the absence of any motive and reliable and trust worthy evidence, the conviction of the accused is illegal and unsustainable and that the Court below ought to have applied the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act instead of imposing fine on the petitioner, in any view of the matter.

¶14

4. (d) On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

¶15

Prosecutor had submitted that the Courts below having considered the oral and documentary evidence and having adverted to all the contentions of the accused, which were advanced before the Courts below, had recorded concurrent findings that the prosecution case is established as required under the facts and law and therefore, convicted the accused for the offence with which he is charged and that the prosecution evidence is consistent and cogent and that the evidence of PW1, which is well corroborated by the medical evidence, is by itself sufficient to base a conviction and that therefore, there is no merit in the criminal revision case and that the revision case is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

4. (e) In the light of the contentions, it is necessary to refer to the prosecution evidence, which was adduced to bring home the guilt of the accused. PW1 is the injured victim; and he is from another village. On the day of the incident, he came over to Kamalapuram, which is the place of his parents-in-law. According to his evidence, on 06.07.2005, at about 10 PM, while he was sleeping in front of the house of his parents-in-law, the accused came over there and beat him with an iron pipe on his right elbow and caused a bleeding injury and that in the meanwhile, PWs 2 and 3 came there and chastised the accused and on that the accused had run away. Then, he went to Kamalapuram Police Station and reported the matter to the police. Exhibit P1 is his report lodged at 10.30 PM. According to his further evidence, after he was examined by the police, he was sent to Government Hospital, Kamalapuram for treatment. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he knows the accused since last twenty years and that he is related to him and that there are disputes and misunderstandings between him and the accused prior to the incident with regard to small issues and that the accused is an Ex. Market Yard Chairman and that the wife of the accused is Mandal Parishad Chairperson at that time and that the

¶17

accused belongs to Telugu Desham Party. In his cross-examination, PW1 had pleaded ignorance as to whether his mother-in-law and Lakshmikanth Reddy belong to the Congress Party. He had further deposed that he had sustained bleeding injury and his cloths were blood stained and that he did not hand over the bloodstained cloths to the police and that he cannot say the weight of the iron rod but its width is ½ inch. According to him, PW3-Lakshmikantha Reddy scribed exhibit P1 report and that PWs 2 and 3 accompanied him to the Police Station. He had denied the suggestion that the accused had never beat him at any time and that he had not sustained any injury and that due to enmity, he is deposing falsehood against the accused. PW2 had deposed that on 06.07.2005 at about 10 PM, while PW1 was sleeping in front of their house, the accused came upon him and beat him with an iron rod on his right hand elbow and caused bleeding injury and that she along with PW1 went to the Police Station and that police examined her. In her crossexamination, it is elicited that by the time she reached the spot, PW1’s hand is oozing with blood and that she was present and had witnessed the beating of PW1 by the accused and that she had stated before the police that she had witnessed the incident. She had admitted that she did not state before the Police as in exhibit D1. From exhibit D1, it appears that she had stated before the police that when cries were raised, she and Lakshma Reddy came and saw; and had chastised Narayana Reddy (the accused) and sent him away. Thus, exhibit D1 is not helpful to the defence. On the other hand, on a harmonious reading of the evidence of PW2, it appears that she is also a witness to the incident. PW3 had testified that while PW1 was sleeping in front of his in-laws’ house, the accused came upon PW1 with an iron rod and beat on his right elbow and caused bleeding injury and that he was examined by the police. PW3 had stated in his cross-examination that the accused is related to him and that by the time he had reached the spot, PW1 was with a bleeding injury and that they went to the Police Station at about 10

¶18

or 10.30 PM and that he was examined by the police on the next day. He had also stated that his house and the house of PW2 are adjacent houses and that on hearing the cries of PW1, he rushed to the spot. When it was suggested to him that he had not witnessed the incident and that PW1 had not sustained any injury at the hands of the accused, he had denied the said suggestions. He had also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsehood against the accused because of his relationship with PW1. The evidence of PW1, who is the injured victim, along with the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, which was analysed supra, is sufficient in the well-considered view of this Court, to come to a safe conclusion that on the date of the incident, the accused beat PW1 with an iron pipe and caused injury to his elbow while he was sleeping in front of the house of his parents-in-law. Be that as it may. PW4, the doctor had testified that on 07.07.2005 at early morning hours, i.e., at 12.45 AM, while he was on duty in Government hospital, PW1 came to the hospital along with a Constable with a requisition and that he had examined PW1 and found a contusion - swelling on right elbow joint and that he had also referred PW1 to the Government Hospital, Kadapa to exclude fracture at elbow joint and that after the receipt of x-ray report from Kadapa Government Hospital, he had issued wound certificate exhibit P2 opining that the injury is simple in nature. In his cross-examination, it was elicited that it is possible to sustain the injury mentioned in the wound certificate if one falls on stones. PW1 was promptly examined by the doctor within a short time after the incident and the medical evidence also corroborates his version. PW5 is the Investigating Officer, who had registered the crime on the report lodged by PW1 and investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet. In his evidence, it was elicited that the accused belongs to Telugu Desham Party and that he worked as President, Agricultural Market Committee, Kamalapuram previously. It was suggested to him that he never visited the scene of offence and that all the documents are prepared in the police station and that PW1 gave

¶19

false report against the accused due to political rivalry to wreck vengeance. PW5 had denied all the said and other suggestions.

¶20

4. (f) Coming to the contentions of the accused, at one breath, the accused contends that there is no enmity and motive for the offence and at another breath, the accused contends that due to political rivalry, the case was foisted. In the evidence of PW2, it was elicited as follows: “It is true that there are no disputes in between PW1 and the accused prior to the incident. However, it was suggested to PW1 as follows: ‘There are disputes and misunderstandings between PW1 and the accused and that PW1 and the accused became instruments in the hands of LW2 to spoil the political career of the accused.’ PW1 had denied the said suggestion as `not true’. Even to the Investigating Officer, it was suggested that due to political rivalry, the case was foisted. Therefore, there is no consistency in the defence. Be that as it may. PW1 in his cross-examination had stated that there are no serious disputes between him and the accused, but there are only disputes and misunderstandings between them with regard to small issues. On account of such small issues, PW1 had falsely implicated the accused in an offence of the present nature, cannot be countenanced. It is next contended that PWs 2 and 3 are interested witnesses. But as can be seen, though PW2 is mother-in-law of PW1, her presence during night at 10 PM at her house is quite natural; and, PW3, a neighbour is also a natural witness. She had stated in her cross examination that she is related to the accused. PWs 2 and 3 have no reason to speak against the accused and no motives were suggested to them for speaking against the accused. No contradictions and omissions were elicited in the cross-examination of PW3 to discredit her evidence. Further, as already noted, the direct evidence of the victim, which is wellcorroborated by the medical evidence, is sufficient to base a conviction. Coming to the next contention that the blood stained cloths of PW1 and

¶21

the alleged weapon/Iron Road was not seized and marked, it is to be noted that PW1 had stated that police have not seized his blood stained cloths. Non-seizure of the iron pipe and non-marking of the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of the credible evidence brought on record. Therefore, the contention that the blood stained cloths and the weapon were not seized and produced are not circumstances to disbelieve the prosecution case.

¶22

5. Viewed thus, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the court below calling for interference. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the accused was sentenced to pay fine only and out of the same, some compensation was ordered to be paid to PW1. Points are accordingly answered against the accused.

¶23

6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

____________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶26

05^th December 2014 RAR

C.S.Narayana Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Narayana Reddy, 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

G.Eswaramma Vs The State of A.P.

M.a.Saleem Vs The State of Ap.

Medini Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raghu Goud Vs Ramakrishna Karjee

T.v.Sreenivasa Rao, Vs Annavaram Brahmam

M. Subramuneiah, Vs Smt. B. Krishnaveni