Partly allowed

Bogala Shambi Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Aug 2014CRLRC/795/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condensed the conviction against the petitioner for voluntarily causing grievous hurt and simple hurt. While affirming the guilt based on material evidence and corroboration, the Court reduced the sentence of six months imprisonment to three months, noting the petitioner was a first offender and an agriculturist involved in civil land disputes.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence of six months imprisonment reduced to three months; fine confirmed.

Bogala Shambi Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.795 OF 2007 Dated 13-8-2014

¶2

Between: Bogala Shambi Reddy.

¶3

..Petitioner.

¶4

And:

¶5

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public . Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶6

…Respondent.

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.795 OF 2007 ORDER:

¶8

This revision is against judgment dated 19-6-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.79 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet, whereunder judgment dated 20-3-2006 in C.C.No.131 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad, is confirmed.

¶9

Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Sub-Inspector of Police, Meilacheruvu filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that on 12-122001 at about 3 P.M., when P.Ws.1 and 2 were sprinkling pesticides in their fields, accused went there and beat P.W.1 with a crow bar on her head due to previous land disputes and when her husband intervened, the accused beat him also with a crow bar on his head, left leg and ankle and thereafter, he left the scene of offence and the same is witnessed by P.W.4 Shanthamma and P.W.3 Linga Reddy who were working in the nearby field. On the report of P.W.1, police registered Crime No.94 of 2001 and investigation revealed that the accused committed offences under Sections 447 and 325 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial

¶10

court examined six witnesses and marked nine documents on behalf of prosecution and no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the charges under Sections 447 and 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. and the entire fine amount ordered to be paid to P.W.2 as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Nalgonda and II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Suryapet, on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred. Heard both sides.

¶11

Advocate for petitioner submitted that except self served testimony of interested witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 who are wife and husband, there is no other supporting evidence to prove the charges levelled against the revision petitioner. He further submitted that there are civil disputes between the parties and as a counter blast for the civil disputes, present case is filed.

¶12

He further submitted that prosecution failed to produce X-rays and radiologist opinion to prove the grievous nature of injuries to attract provision of Section 326 I.P.C. and for all these reasons, judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have failed to extend provisions of P.O.Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C. as the accused is first offender and is not a habitual offender.

¶13

Lastly, he submitted that if for any reason his argument is not accepted, the sentence of six months imprisonment may be reduced reasonably.

¶14

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court after considering evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 found that charges levelled against the petitioner are duly proved and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.

¶15

Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the Judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?

¶16

POINT:

¶17

According to prosecution, the incident was on 1212-2001 at about 3 P.M., in the fields of P.W.1. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and husband and both of them are injured. According to prosecution, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses and out of them, only P.W.3 supported prosecution case and P.W.4 was treated hostile and she was cross examined on behalf of prosecution. According to P.W.3, on the date of incident at about 3 P.M., he went to his fields to feed water and at that time, he heard cries from the fields of P.W.1 and immediately rushed there and found both P.Ws.1 and 2 with injuries and when he questioned them, he informed him that the accused attacked them with a crow bar and in the meantime, P.W.4 also came there. He deposed that immediately he shifted both P.Ws.1 and 2 to Meilacheruvu in an auto. In the cross examination, he deposed that he observed injuries on the head of P.W.2 and on his left leg and further deposed that P.W.1 has not sustained any injury.

¶18

He further deposed that he did not shift them to hospital and he denied the suggestion that he is speaking falsehood only to help the injured victim. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence, the manner in which the accused attacked them. The injuries spoken to by P.W.2 were also narrated by P.W.3 and their testimony is further supported and corroborated with the doctor’s evidence who is examined as P.W.5. The Wound Certificates

¶19

which are marked as Exs.P.3 and P.4 would reveal that both P.Ws.1 and 2 received injuries and some of them are grievous in nature.

¶20

Considering the evidence of injured witnesses, eye witness P.W.3 and medical evidence of P.W.5, both trial court and appellate court have convicted the revision petitioner for both the charges levelled against him. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 were cross-examined on behalf of accused, nothing could be elicited from them to doubt their testimony. Further there are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of these three witnesses on any of the important material aspects.

¶21

On a scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the view that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses and they have not committed any error in accepting their evidence. Further, as seen from the judgments of both courts, their findings are based on material evidence and on sound reasoning.

¶22

I do not find any illegality or incorrect findings in the judgments of courts below on any of the material aspects. All the grounds now urged in the revision were also raised before trial court and appellate court and both courts have rightly discarded the objections and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below with regard to conviction.

¶23

Now coming to sentence part, six months imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/ was imposed for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and fine of Rs.500/- is imposed for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. by the trial court and the appellate court confirmed the same. Now the submission of the advocate for petitioner is that petitioner is not a habitual offender and he is an agriculturist and that there are land disputes between himself and P.W.1 and that the six months imprisonment is on higher side.

¶24

As seen from the material papers, the accused was 45 years as on the date of incident and the incident was in the year 2001. Accused is not a habitual offender and there is no record to show that he is involved in any other criminal cases either prior to this case or subsequent to this case. According to the advocate for petitioner, petitioner is not involved in any other criminal cases and this is the first case and he is the first offender. Considering these aspects, I feel that period of six months can be reduced to three months while confirming the fine amount.

¶25

For these reasons, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming conviction but the sentence is modified and reduced from six months to three months while confirming the fine amount.

¶26

The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

¶27

As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.

¶28

_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶29

Dated 13-8-2014 Dvs.

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR

¶31

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.795 OF 2007 Dated 13-8-2014

¶32

Dvs

Bogala Shambi Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bogala Shambi 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

Smt. B. Geetha Rani, Vs B. Sreeramulu

Manda Krishna Kumar, Vs Budithi Venkateswarlu

Smt. G. Ramadevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yeleti Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppalapati Sriramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vuppala Praneeth Vs D.Santhosh