THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1779 of 2004 Dated:- 24th June, 2010 Between: Bandi Venkata Subba Rao …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No.1779 of 2004 ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel on record. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2003 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the judgment dated 08.12.2003 passed in C.C.No.230 of 2003 by the VII Additional Munisif Magistrate, Guntur, convicting the petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month was confirmed. The petitioner herein will be hereinafter referred to as A-2 for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence adduced, are as follows:- The material prosecution witnesses and both the accused belong to Vangipuram Village of Guntur District. Originally, A-1 and A-2 were tried by the trial Court. A-2 is husband of A-1. A-1 was acquitted and, therefore, the present revision is by A-2. According to P.W.1, he was asked to work as Coolie under A-2. When A-2 offered to pay Rs.30/- as daily wage, P.W.1 refused to take the amount and categorically stated that he was entitled for Rs.50/- per day, which is a normal rate being paid to coolies. Subsequently P.W.1 returned to his house and informed about the incident to his parents on 08.05.2003. On the next day, i.e., on 09.05.2003 at about 04:00 P.M., P.W.1 and his mother – P.W.2 went to the house of the accused and asked them to pay the wages to P.W.1. Then, the prosecution case is that A-1 caught hold of P.W.2 and A-2 beat her with a stick on the right side of her head and caused bleeding injury. When P.W.1 intervened, A-2 beat him with a stick on his back. Then, P.W.2 was taken to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, and after treatment, she was discharged from the hospital. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 have approached the village elders who promised them to settle their dispute. But, however, the dispute was not settled and P.W.1 went to police station and lodged complaint under Ex.P.1. 4. It is evident from the deposition of P.W.2 that P.W.1 is her son. On the date of incident, she, along with P.W.1, went to the house of the accused to ask for wages to be paid to P.W.1 and there, A-1 caught hold of her and A-2 beat her with a stick on the right side of the head and caused bleeding injury. According to her, when P.W.1 intervened, A-2 beat him with a stick on his back and caused injury. She has also deposed that she was referred to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, wherein, she was treated. P.W.3 – I.Pedda Rao and P.W.4 – U.Ramaiah, who were said to have advised P.Ws.1 and 2 to settle their dispute, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. 5. P.W.5 is Sub-Inspector of Police. According to him, on 01.06.2003, he received Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 and basing upon the same, he registered a crime in Crime No.35 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 and 506 IPC in Ex.P.2. P.W.6 – Dr.M.S.Khadri is the doctor who was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Guntur, and who examined P.W.2 on 09.05.2003 and issued Ex.P.3 – Wound Certificate. The evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P.3 reveals that P.W.2 sustained (1) a laceration of 1 x ¼ cm over right parital area; and (2) complain pain and tender in lumbar region. Though X-Ray was taken, it did not reveal any bone injury. P.W.6 categorically denied that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.3 are self-inflicting injuries. 6. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court, having believed the version of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced A-2 as stated supra. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was abnormal delay in lodging complaint with the police and that both P.Ws.3 and 4, who were said to have advised P.Ws.1 and 2 not to lodge complaint with the police, turned hostile and in the above circumstance, the prosecution failed to examine the delay in lodging FIR. It is also submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witnesses and, therefore, convicting the accused on their interested testimony is not justified. 7. It is true that P.W.1 is son of P.W.2. Their specific case is that A-2, having extracted work from P.W.1, did not pay the usual wage of Rs.50/- but offered to pay Rs.30/- only. P.W.1 refused to take the said amount, went to his house and informed his parents. On the next day i.e. on 09.05.2003, when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the accused, it is alleged that A-1 caught hold of P.W.2 and A-2 beat her with a stick on right side of her head and caused bleeding injury. It is also their case that when P.W.1 intervened, he was also beaten with the stick on his back by A-2. Whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been inspiring confidence or not, whether there is corroboration to their evidence or not and whether P.W.2 had sustained injuries in the alleged incident or not are the important points that arise for consideration. Admittedly, the evidence of P.W.6 – the doctor corroborates with the evidence of the injured witness and P.W.1. P.W.6 had also categorically deposed that on 09.05.2003 at about 04:00 P.M., he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and after obtaining X-Ray, opined that P.W.2 sustained simple injury and laceration of 1 X ¼ over the right parital area and issued Ex.P.3 – Wound Certificate. Thus, it is clear that even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is treated as interested witnesses, their evidence has been corroborated with the medical evidence. 8. As far as the delay in lodging FIR is concerned, P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed that on the advise of the village elders, they waited for settlement in the village and in the above circumstances, they did not approach police to lodge a report till 01.06.2003. It has to be seen that P.W.3, who is one of the village elders, has categorically admitted that he is related to the accused. In the above circumstances, much importance need not be given for lodging belated report with the police. What is to be seen is whether the alleged incident is true or not and whether P.W.2 sustained injuries or not and whether A-2 caused injuries to P.W.2 or not. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been inspiring confidence and the same is corroborated by medical evidence and in the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to intervene with the reasoned judgments of both the Courts below. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prayed this Court that since P.W.2 sustained only simple injuries and the alleged incident occurred as long back as in the year 2003, the sentence imposed on the petitioner may be modified. Of course the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same. 10. Since it appears that on a petty issue some quarrel took place between A-2 and P.Ws.1 and 2 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that P.W.2 sustained only simple injuries and that the alleged incident occurred as long back as in the year 2003 and that A-2 has no past criminal history, I deem it appropriate to modify the sentence and inclined to order as follows:- a) The conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed. b) It is submitted that the petitioner had already undergone imprisonment of about 20 days after dismissal of the Criminal Appeal by the lower appellate Court. Thus, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. c) The petitioner is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to P.W.2 as compensation. Time for payment of fine is fourty five (45) days from today. 11. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR June 24, 2010 Bvv