Partly allowed

Bachu Raju , Rajeshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022CRLA/284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal partly, acquitting the second appellant of Section 324 IPC charge due to lack of evidence linking him to PW-2's injuries, while confirming the conviction and sentence of the first appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed partly: Second appellant acquitted of Section 324 IPC charge; bail bonds cancelled for second appellant; conviction and fine of first appellant confirmed.

Bachu Raju , Rajeshwar Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTzuBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 284 OF 2016

¶6

Petition under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated.22.02.2016 passed in S.C.No.'19 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's & ST's. (POA Act cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District .

¶7

Befween:

¶8

'1. Bachu Raju @ Rajeshwar, S/o. Kutumba Rao, Age: 49 years, Occ: Business, Rio. Plot No.540, Gokul Plots, Miyapur.

¶9

Aritakula Ramesh, S/o. Narayana Swamy, Age: 51 years, Occ: Bulk Drug Consultant, Rio. MIG 63, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally.

¶10

...APPELLANTS/ACCUSSED Nos.1 & 2

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,, through SHO PS Miyapur, Represented by public prosecutor, High court at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

CRLAMP. NO: 464 OF 2016

¶15

Petition under Section 482 Cr PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence^passed in S.C.No.19 ot 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC's & STs (POA) Act cum Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District, dated 22-2-2016 .

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. K VENUMADHAV

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

r-l

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N" TUKARAMJI

¶22

CRIMINAI APPEAI No.284 of 2016

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and sentence dared 22.02.2016 in S.C.No.19 of 201.2 Special Scssions Judge for Trial o[ cases under SC's & ST's (POA) Act, 1989 cum VII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

2 The Appellants/Accused No.1&2 were convicted under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, IPC) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment for one year and awarded of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the victims/ PW1 and PW2 each under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.)

¶26

For the sake o[ convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array before the trial Court.

¶27

Briefly stated the prosecution case is thar on 14.10.2007, in the .- colony of Gokul Plots near Jai Hind Park, a meeting was convened by

¶28

. NTR,J 2 Crla 284'2016

¶29

the residents to discuss about the devclopment of the parkand erectcd a tent. At about 5:30 P.M., the 1,t and 2nd accused along with their follov'ers came to the place and abused Thfuupathaiah/PW-1 and Jagannadham^{/PW-2 in the name of thcircasteand the 1., accused} picked up the tent stick which is with iron edge and caused head injury and the 2"d accused stabbed the P\V-2 on his cl.reek, shoulder and waist with knife, causcd bieeding injuries and fled away. There upon the injured were shifted to the hospitai and later, the PW-1 lodged Police report/Ex.P1.

¶30

After due investigatlon, the invesrigating officer laid charge sheet and the trial Court had taken cognizance and framed charges under Section 324 read with Section 34 of Il']C and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3Q)$) of the The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, SC's &ST's (?OA) Act) and as the Accused pleaded not guilty the Trial went on.

¶31

The prosecution got examined 13 witnesses i.e., PW-1 to Pnil-13 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 and material object MO.1. The incriminaring matcrial rvas addrcst to thc accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., though denied, no delence evidence was adduced in defened-

¶32

¶33

Nl R,j ., Crla 284 20lb

¶34

7 . -I'he uial Court on considering the evidence concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under the SC's & ST's (POA) Act, however, proved the guilt under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and thus recorded conviction and awarded sentence as afore stated.

¶35

In appeal, the 1', and 2"d accused vehemendy contestcd that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to the prosecution evidence on record. Further, the Court should have observed that injures certificates/Exs.P5 and P6 ol P\7-1 and P)7-2 did not mention shape, margin and age of the injuries which are fatal to the prosecution case. Irurthcr, thc contradictions in the version grven by the witnesses as to the 1" accused ploughed out the tent stick and stabbed PW-l and material object, rvhich is a stick are inconsistent. Therefore, the 1't and 2"d accused should be acquitted of the charge. In any case, the sentence imposed is excessive.

¶36

Per contra, lcarned Addit-ional Public Prosecutor adverted^thatall

¶37

the prosecution witnesscs consistendy deposed about the iocident and

¶38

the involvement of the accused and their henchmen. Further, in)uries

¶39

¶40

,l NTR,., Crla 284 '2016

¶41

caused by the accused are fuliy substantiated by the medical evidence o[ the doctor/PW-1l and the injury certifrcates/Exs.P5 and P6. T'herefore, the prosecution had established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, there is no reasofl to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶42

In these rivai pleas the points that arise for determinadon are:

¶43

/. lY/bether the prosecution it able to bing home the gailt of acatsed nnder Section )24 o/IPC bgond reasonable doubt?

¶44

1. lYhether the inpagned jrdgerzent it su$ainable in the fads and /aw?

¶45

In regard to offence the injured witncss P!7-1 and PW-2 consistcndy testified that on 14.10.2007 PM their colony people held meeting for developing the park and at about 5:30 P.M. the 1st accused and his henchmen came to the park and abused them. The PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW7, the residents/other eye witnesses also deposed on the same l.incs regatding the incident and involvement of the 1., accused, his henchmen and the 2"d accused. However, the PS7-4, PW-5 and PW-7 speciFred the presence of the 2nd accused along with the 1., accused and others. As to the over tacts o[ the accused, injured/PW-1 stated that the 1', accused had removed the tent pole and beat him on /

N1'R,J Crla 284 2016

)

-:----7

head and also tried to stab him on his back. However, hc had escaped and [ell on the road. Further, referred that the 1., accused and his henchmen attacked PW-2 and caused injuries. The other injured/PW-2 specified that the 1', accused stabbed him with knifle on left shoulder and on his back.

¶51

1,2. In this regard, the PW-3, PW-4, P\7-5 and PW-7 had given similar vcrsion to that of thc PW 1 that the 1., accuscd beat the PW1 with tent poie and also tried to stab the P!72. Flowever the P!7-5 stated thatwith the tent pole the 1., accused stabbed the PW-1.

¶52

In addition, the injured/P\X/-2, and the PW-4 stated that the 2"d accused beat IrW-2 by abusing him. As per PW-5, the 2"a accused also beat PW-2 with hands. With these versions and the medical evidence of the Doctor/PW-l1 and the medicoJegai in)uries cert-ificate/Ex.P5 are establishing that the PW1 suffered one lacerated wound of 4x2x1 cm over the head. Further, the PW-2 had suflfered multiple lacerated injuries all or.er the body as reflected in the injuries certificate/Ex.P6

¶53

This positive evidence is establishing the injuries of the P\71, thus, merely on the ground that the shape, margins and size of abrasion

¶54

\ \

¶55

NTR,J 6 Crla 284'2016

¶56

¶57

are not mentioned in the injury certificate/Ex.P6 neither"the injurics rior the occurrence can be disbelieved. Howsoever, the evidence o[ P!7-1 and other eye witnesses are corroborating with each other to the extent that thc 1., accuscd by using the tent pole caused iniury on his head and the medical evidcnce is substantiating the fact of receiving lacerated rvound on the head, which is possible by blunt trauma.

¶58

Whereas the version of the PW-2 that the 1,, accused had stabbcd him with knife is not stated by any of the witness or supported by the medical evidence. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution case is that the 2nd accused had caused injuries to the PW-2 with hands and knife. f'hus, the evidence with regard to the injuries on the person of PW-2 is distorted and mismatching with the prosecution case and the evidence of the direct witnesses.

¶59

l?urther, there is every possibiliry for improving the version and including exaggerations and embellishments and it is human. Therefore, the court shall be on guard and carefully examine the evidence in Frrding the ring of truth. An attentive analysis o[ the materials on record is thus leading to conclusion that the evidence o[ .prosecution^{is establishingthe fact of the 1", accused causinginjury on} /

NTRIJ Crla 284 2016

) )

the head of PW-1 with a tent pole albeit the occurrence and injuries on the person of P!72 is giving scope to entertain any amount o[ reasonable doubt, hence, it shall be held that the evidence is falling short to prove the injuries on the person of PW2.

¶65

It is also point to notc here that none of the prosecution witnesses spoke about any overtact on the part of the 2"d accused, except his presence along with the 1., accused. In absence of any acceptable incriminating evidence, by mere presence, conviction either direcdy or by extending the Section 34 of iPC, is not^justified.

¶66

In this position, the other aspect is to be considered i.e., whether the act of the 1., accused qualifics the requirements of Section 324 of iPC i.e., voluntarily causing the hurt by dangerous \r/eapon or means The dangerous weapon includes the instruments of shooting, stabbing, and cutting. Nevertheless, the instrumcnts which are used as a weapon o[ offence likely to cause death are also included. The 1" accused used woodefl pole/MO.l. It is common knowledge that a stick can be used as a v/eapon likely to cause death, depending the manner of its use. The evidence is clcmonstrating that the hurt rvas caused voluntarily

¶67

NTR,J 8 Crla 284'2016

¶68

¶69

¶70

with a wooden stick aiming at the head i.e., vitai part of body is making out an act rvrthin the scope of this Section

¶71

Resultandy, the judgment of convicuon and sentence against the 2nd accused for the offcncc undcr Scction 324 oIIPC is set asidc and is acquitted for the charge.^'I'he conviction and sentence imposed on the 1., appellant under Section 324 o( IPC is conhrmed and the sentence o[ fine and payment o[ compensation to the P\71 is mairtained. The bail bonds of thc 2"d a:ppcllant f2"d accused are cancelled and the flnc amount paid shall be relurrded.

¶72

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part.

¶73

Misceilaneous petitions, pe nding if any, shall stand closcd.

¶74

Sd/-M.VIJAYA BHASKAR JOINT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/I C+'r.-

¶75

SECTION OFFICER

¶76

To,

¶77

The Special Sessions^{Judgefor Trial of Cases underSC's& ST's'} (PON Act cum Vll Additional^{District & Sessions Judge, R'R'} District.

¶78

The Station House^{Officer, Miyapur Police Station,Hyderabad'}

¶79

Two CCs to^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶80

One CC to SRl.^{K VENUMADHAV Advocate} [OPUC]

¶81

Two CD CoPies

CDL

plp r.x\X

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310912022

ORDER

CRL. A.No.284 of²⁰¹⁶

1*? S IAX€
x
7
c
10 ttB 1i[x !
!)
'.5
C
:-:::

¶89

PARTLY ALLOWING^{THECRIMINALAPPEAL.}

¶90

Bachu Raju , Rajeshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachu Raju , Rajeshwar v. The State of Telangana

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

Birru Savitri Vs Vanaparthy Venkanna and 2 Ors.

Gopalpuri Jai Prakash and Another Vs the Managing Director, Apsrtc and Another

J. Santosh Reddy , Santosh, Hyd Vs P. Narsimha, Hyd and Ano

R.Konda Reddy Vs Mrs.Y.Sailajarani and another

M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs N. Deva Sahayam and 2 Others

M/S Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Hyd. Vs Kummari Shiva Kumar and Another