THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2030 of 2004 JUDGMENT: 1. This Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against common judgment dated 07.12.2004 in Crl.A.Nos.91 and 94 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sriakulam, whereunder and whereby judgment dated 07.07.1999 in Sessions Case No.116 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta, was confirmed. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 6. 2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the Criminal Revision Case may be stated as under:- P.W.1, who is the injured witness, and all the accused are residents of Ichapuram. There were ill-feelings among them since long time, and the accused were waiting for an opportunity to take vengeance against P.W.1. On 19.07.1992, when P.W.1 left the house in the morning to attend natural calls, at about 7.15 a.m. when he reached the tank bund of Kodada Rama Swamy temple, all accused, who are hiding in the bushes armed with deadly weapons like knives and spades, came and surrounded him, and accused No.1 proclaimed to kill him and all the accused beat him, indiscriminately. On hearing the cries of P.W.1, persons nearby came to the spot and on seeing them, all the accused ran away. Then the injured went to the Police Station, lodged a complaint, and the Police registered a case in Crime No.47 of 1992 and he was sent to Government Hospital for treatment. Police also seized the blood stained clothes. Police visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation report. The Doctor, who treated the injured, found three fractures on him. After completion of the investigation, Police filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections 148, 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. against all the accused. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 I.P.C. against all the accused; under Section 326 I.P.C. against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4; and under Section 324 I.P.C. against accused Nos.2, 5 and 6. When the charges were readover and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12, and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 besides case properties - M.Os. 1 to 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused. 4. The trial Court, having accepted the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the medical evidence found accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each; accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each, while acquitting all the accused of the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. On appeal, the said convictions and sentences were confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the same the present revision is filed. 5. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused vehemently contended that there were long standing civil disputes among P.W.1 and the accused and in view of the same a false case is foisted against the accused by P.W.1 and others; that P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 did not support the case of the prosecution; that there is no evidence to show that X-rays taken by the Radiologist are relating to P.W.1; that the names of P.Ws.6 and 7 were not mentioned in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) as eye-witnesses; that the F.I.R. was registered within fifteen minutes after the incident and that after due deliberations Ex.P-1 statement was recorded by the Police and hence, he prays to discharge the conviction and sentence. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor stated that the concurrent findings of the Courts below need not be interfered with as there is no illegality in the convictions and sentences recorded by the Courts below; that the evidence of P.W.1 is very clear that he was attacked by the accused and received eleven injuries of different sizes on his body; that as immediately i.e., within fifteen minutes from the time of the incident, P.W.1 gave a report, there is no possibility or scope to foist a false case against the accused, and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence. 8. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless a finding is shown to be illegal, incorrect or improper, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the concurrent findings of two Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is not based upon any evidence. If the trial Court has taken into consideration inadmissible evidence or admissible evidence has been overlooked, then it can be said to be a perverse finding. 9. As regards the case on hand, it entirely rests upon solitary evidence of P.W.1. When a case rests upon the evidence of a solitary witness, the law is well settled that it must be unimpeachable, true, and trustworthy, and must be put in the category of ‘wholly reliable’. When such evidence is put in the category of ‘wholly reliable evidence’, there would be no illegality in accepting such evidence. The incident alleged to have taken place on 19.07.1992 at about 7.15 a.m., and within fifteen minutes thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint with specific overtacts against each of the accused. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is one kilometer. Therefore, there is no difficulty in covering such distance within fifteen minutes even by walk. Further, on hearing the cries, P.W.2 rushed to the scene of occurrence and found P.W.1 lying with injuries. 10. The Doctor, P.W.3, who examined P.W.1, injured, found the following injuries: 1. Incised wound of 1” X ¼” skin deep on the back of left four arm 1” below the elbow. Red in colour. X-ray 6777/82 dt.20.7.92 of M.K.C.G. Medical college Hospital show fracture of ulna upper third. 2. An incised wound of 3” x ½” on the back of and middle left four arm. X ray 6777/92, dt.20.7.92 shows fracture of ulna at lower third. 3. An incised wound 2” x ¼” skin deep on the right upper arm, 4” above the elbow 4. An incised wound of 3” x ¼” skin deep, on the back of the right elbow. 5. An incised wound of 3” x ¼” muscle deep on the root of the right plam. 6. An incised wound of 2” x ¼” skin deep, on the back of the right wrist, X ray vide same no. shows fracture of the right ulna, on the lower third. 7. An incised wound of 3” x 1” muscle deep, on the outer aspect of the right ankle. X ray vide same no. noted shows fracture of the right libia and fibula on the lower third. 8. An abrasion of 2” x 3” on the upper part of the right lower leg, below the knee. 9. An abrasion of 1” x 1” below the right knee. 10. An incised wound 2“ x ½“ skin deep, on the inner aspect of the left ankle. 11. An abrasion of 1” x ¼“ on the left chest 1” below the left nipple. Out of the above injuries, injury Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7 are said to be grievous injuries. P.W.3, Doctor, issued Ex.P-3 wound certificate and the injured person was referred to Berahampur for further treatment. P.W.12, Radiologist, certified that he examined P.W.1 and took X-rays and that as per Exs.P-10 to P-12 X-rays, three fractures were found. His opinion was marked as Ex.P-13. The said report was furnished to P.W.3, Doctor. Therefore, when the evidence of P.W.3 is read in consonance with the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Exs.P-3, P-10 to P-13, it is established that P.W.1 is the person who was referred to the hospital and who was treated by P.W.3 and also by P.W.12. Considering these aspects, the lower appellate Court rightly held that non-identification of P.W.1 by P.W.12 cannot be a ground to discredit his evidence, especially in view of the fact that it is not in dispute that P.W.1 sustained as many as eleven injuries out of which three incised wounds are shown to be fractures. It is not the case of the accused that P.W.1 sustained those injuries at a different place, at different time and at the hands of different persons. 11. Further more, within fifteen minutes after the incident, the précised version has been stated in Ex.P-1, which is equally in corroboration with the evidence of P.W.1 and immediately thereafter F.I.R. was sent to the Court. Similarly within half an hour after the incident P.W.1 was examined by P.W.3. There would be absolutely no time to foist a false case against the accused after receiving so many injuries by P.W.1. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of P.W.1 can be put in the category of ‘wholly reliable evidence’ in spite of the fact that there are some disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. Though P.Ws.6 and 7 were examined by the trial Court as eye witnesses to the incident, their evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court on the sole ground that their names were not mentioned in F.I.R. P.W.1 might not have seen P.Ws.5 and 6 as the persons witnessing the incident. If their evidence is taken into consideration, it is clear that the assailants on P.W.1 are the accused. In view of the same, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 12. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) 28th January, 2010 GHN