IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1555 of 2004 THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Between: Parvatham Srinivasa Reddy and others ….PETITIONER(S) a n d The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad ….RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1555 of 2004 ORDER: This revision case is directed against the judgment dated 10.09.2004 in Crl.A.No.303 of 2002 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners by judgment dated 07.08.2002 in S.C.No.80 of 2000 by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, was confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as A-1 to A-3, are friends; and A-4 and A-5 are wife and husband. P.W.1, P.Srinivasa Reddy, who is a victim in this case and relative of A-4 and A-5, fell in love with one Vani the daughter of A-4 and A-5. But, A-4 and A-5 wanted to give their daughter in marriage to A-1, who is the younger brother of A-5, and they refused to give their daughter in marriage to P.W.1. On account of the dispute with regard to the marriage of Vani, in the above manner, A-4 and A-5 have engaged the petitioners to attack P.W.1. In pursuance of the above conspiracy, on 14.07.1998, during night when P.W.1 was returning home, after witnessing a movie along with his friends i.e. P.Ws.3 and 4, and when reached near Sivalayam, the petitioners came there in an auto and asked him to accompany them to Tenali in order to see off A-3 as he was going to Madras by train. P.W.1 followed them. They went in a taxi up to Tenali railway station. There, the 1st petitioner went into the railway station and came out and informed that the train was coming late. All of them were walking on the railway track. After they went to some distance, around midnight, 3rd petitioner caught hold of P.W.1 and the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 beat him with stones on his head. When P.W.1 fell down unconscious on the railway track, thinking him dead, the petitioners went away. P.W.5, Sri P.Yebu, who was working in the railway as Gangman, found P.W.1 on the railway track at about 7.00 a.m. on 15.07.1998 and informed the same to P.W.6, Sri L.B.Sekhar Babu, who was working in the railways as Permanent Way Inspector, and, on his instructions, shifted P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Tenali, and admitted him there. P.W.9, Dr. K.Hema, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who treated the P.W.1, referred him to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment and expert’s opinion. As P.W.1 was still unconscious, the police could not record his statement. P.W.1 was shifted the Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he regained consciousness on 11.08.1998 and presented a report to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. On the basis of which P.W.16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.268/98 under Sections 364, 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., investigated into and filed charge sheet. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 364 and 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners; and under Section 120-B I.P.C. against A-4 and A-5; read over and explained to them in Telugu for which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.O.1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses and the material on record, the trial Court found the A-4 and A-5 not guilty of the charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. But, the trial Court found the petitioners guilty of the charges under Sections 364 and 307 I.P.C., convicted them, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C.; further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.; and further directed the sentences to run concurrently and the period of remand, if any, already undergone by them to be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the lower appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 3. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that there is absolutely no case made out against the petitioners and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charges against them and the trial Court has erroneously convicted and sentenced them without proper appreciation of evidence and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court without proper appreciation of evidence and so the petitioners are entitled for acquittal. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that as many as 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and P.W.1, who is the victim in the case, himself spoke about the manner in which he was attacked by the petitioners and his evidence is supported by the material on record and as both the Courts below found the petitioners guilty, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in revision. 5. Now the points for consideration are whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether there are any sufficient grounds to allow the revision? 6. The case of the prosecution is that on the midnight of 14.07.1998, while P.W.1 was returning home after witnessing a movie, the petitioners requested P.W.1 to follow them to Tenali to give send off to the 3rd respondent as he was going to Madras by train. P.W.1 accompanied them and, when they reached Tenali railways station, on the pretext that the train was running late, all of them were walking along the railway track and after going to some distance the 3rd petitioner caught hold of P.W.1 and the 1st and 2nd petitioners beat him with stones and when P.W.1 became conscious and fell down, thinking him dead, the petitioners left the place. On the next day i.e. on 15.07.1998, at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.5, who was the railway Gangman, found P.W.1 lying by the side of railway track and informed the same to P.W.6, who was the Permanent Way Inspector, and, on his instructions, shifted P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Tenali. Therefore, the incident as alleged took place on the intervening night of 14/15.07.1998. But, as can be seen from the Ex.P.19, F.I.R., the report was given on 11.08.1998. The learned senior counsel contends that the evidence of P.W.1 and the circumstances given in the F.I.R. would collectively go to show that the prosecution case is in correct. 7. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that on the intervening night of 14/15.07.1998, at about 1 or 2 a.m., the 3rd petitioner caught hold of him from his behind and the 1st and 2nd petitioners beat him with stones on his head and caused injuries and he fell down unconsciously on the railway track; that after about 15 days he regained consciousness at Government General Hospital, Guntur, and came to know that he was taken to Government Hospital, Tenali, and was later shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur; that even after 15 days he could not speak properly but could speak only partially and also could not move his right leg and right hand properly; that on 11.08.1998 he presented Ex.P.1 report to the police and by the time of Ex.P.1 he was able to speak only partially. Thus, even according to the chief examination of P.W.1, after 15 days of the incident, he regained consciousness at Government General Hospital, Guntur, and came to know that he was shifted from Tenali to Guntur, and by that time he could speak partially. But the report shows that it was given to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer only on 11.08.1998 i.e. 11 days after he regained consciousness. According to him, the incident as alleged took place on the intervening night of 14/15.07.1998 and 15 days thereafter he became conscious. In his cross-examination, he stated that one day prior to Ex.P.1 report, he went to Lalapet Police Station and informed the incident to the Sub-Inspector of Police, by name Sri Y.T.Naidu, but the said Sub-Inspector of Police did not record his statement. In his further cross-examination he stated that in the year 1997 his elder brother’s marriage was performed and in the year 1998 his younger sister’s marriage was performed and that A-4 and his family members attended the marriage of his elder brother but did not attend the marriage of his sister and that his sister’s marriage was performed at Nellore. P.W.1 admits that the Ex.P.1 report was given 10 days after his sister’s marriage. 8. The evidence of P.W.2, who is the father of P.W.1, is that on 15.07.1998 at about 1.00 p.m., he received information through phone that P.W.1 was found with injuries on the railway track at Tenali and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Tenali, and that himself and his family members left to Tenali and found his son in unconscious state with injuries on head and he got shifted P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Guntur, through police. P.W.2 further states that one week after the incident, P.W.1 regained consciousness and after regaining consciousness also P.W.1 lost control over his right hand, right leg and also his speech. It is further stated that 20 days after the incident, when P.W.1 was able to speak partially then he questioned P.W.1 as to who caused injuries to him. Then P.W.1 showed photos of A-2 and A-3 and stated that A-2, A-3 and another person caused injuries to him and showed the house of A-1 as the third person that caused injuries to him and the house of A-1 is situated opposite to their house. 9. All the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 looks completely artificial because all the accused were obviously known to P.W.1. The 1st petitioner, A-4 and A-5 were definitely known to him as they were his close relatives. Though there is no evidence about the 2nd and 3rd petitioners being known to him prior to the incident, the fact that he accompanied them would show probably they were known to him as such there arises no question of his showing photographs of 2nd and 3rd petitioners as the persons that attacked him and the reasons for delay in lodging the report are also inconsistent. The evidence of P.W.1 on this aspect is self- contradictory. As already referred to above, the evidence of P.W.2 does not corroborate with the evidence of P.W.1 as to why there was a delay in lodging the report with police, as, according to him, one week after the incident P.W.1 regained consciousness and it is most peculiar that P.W.1 could attend the marriage of his sister which was performed at Nellore but could not give report to the police about the incident. He gave the report only 10 days after his coming back from Nellore after attending his sister’s marriage. P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that after he came to know about the incident through P.W.1, he approached the Sub-Inspector of Police and informed the incident and got prepared a written report and affixed the thumb impression of P.W.1 and the same was got drafted by a third person and he presented the same to the Superintendent of Police. But, no such report is on record. These circumstances create any amount of suspicion with regard to the incident. 10. The motive for the attack on P.W.1 as per prosecution is stated to be that he was in love with one Vani who is the daughter of A-4 and A-5, and that A-4 and A-5 intended to give their daughter in marriage to the 1st petitioner. In his cross- examination, P.W.1 admits that he failed 10th class and that he did not know whether Vani, the daughter of A-4 and A-5, was studying B.C.A. P.W.1 admits that by the time of his giving evidence, he was working as an auto driver and that A-4 was solvent than his family. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 further states that 2 or 3 months prior to the incident A-4 and A-5 offered to give their daughter Vani in marriage to him and that one month prior to the incident, A-4 and A-5 came to their house and threatened him and other family members that if he failed to marry their daughter Vani they will cause harm to him. Even as per Ex.P.1 complaint also as P.W.1 refused to marry Vani, the daughter of A-4, he was attacked. The case of the prosecution in this regard looks unbelievable. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is highly suspicious with regard to the happening of incident, the time of report and the delay in lodging the report. There was possibility of P.W.1 sustaining injuries by fall from train. All these create any amount of suspicion. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below is perverse and cannot be upheld. It is not a case where the prosecution evidence can be accepted to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the petitioners are not found guilty of the charges levelled against them and they are acquitted. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the lower appellate Court are set aside. The bail bonds, if any, of the petitioners shall stand cancelled. ________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J 1st July 2010 CVRK