HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.R.C. No. 202 of 2005 DATED: 16.04.2010 Between: Chintada Tavitayya .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. And five others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2004 delivered in C.C. No.20 of 2000 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda, having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, found A1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.750/-, and found A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each, while acquitting A3 to A5 of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.09.1999, at about 06.00 A.M. when A1 to A5 were illegally trying to construct a house in the disputed land against which, a civil suit is pending before the Court, PW1, the de facto complainant - Chintada Tavitayya questioned their high-handedness and illegal construction over his land, then A1 beat him with an axe on his right hand and A2 beat with a stick on his face, as a result, he sustained bleeding injuries. A3 to A5 beat PW2, the wife of PW1, with their hands when she interfered to rescue PW1. Then, PW1 lodged a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakonda Police Station, who registered a case against the accused and filed charge sheet after completing the investigation. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 besides case property M.O.1. on its behalf. The accused got marked Exs.D1 and D2, relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the A1 and A2 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 323 respectively, and sentenced them as stated supra and found A3 to A5 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 IPC, and accordingly acquitted them. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. The learned counsel for the petitioner-de facto complainant, has contended that even though the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 are grievous in nature, the trial Court imposed only fine on A1 and A2, and prays to impose imprisonment on them. He has further contended that even though there is ample evidence with regard to the infliction of injuries on PWs.1 and 2, the trial Court erred in acquitting A3 to A5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. From a perusal of the evidence on record, it is obvious that PWs.1 and 2 deposed on similar lines to the effect that PW2 filed a civil suit with regard to the dispute in respect of 1½ feet of land left by them on the eastern side of their house, and constructed a pucca house in place of old house, and when the accused made an attempt to lay foundation in the disputed site, particularly during pendency of the suit, PW1 raised an objection to it, and then A1 beat PW1 with an axe on the right hand palm, and A2 beat him with a coconut-stem on his face. Even though PWs. 3 to 5 stated in their evidence that they witnessed the incident, they have not stated this fact before PW8 - Investigation Officer during the course of recording 161 Cr.PC statement. As per Exs.D1 and D2, it is quite clear that PWs.3 to 5 heard of the incident, but they are not direct eye-witnesses to it. Therefore, their evidence is not at all useful in proving the offence, but the circumstances under which PWs.3 to 5 rushed to the spot, rescued PWs.1 and 2 and lifted them in a Rickshaw belonging to PW5 would strengthen the case of PWs.1 and 2 as to the commission of offence. As per the evidence of PW6 - Doctor, PW1 sustained injuries on the right hand palm, on the face above the right eye and on the right hand below the shoulder. Concerning the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner-de facto complainant, with regard to grievous injuries as alleged by the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2, got treatment at Government Hospitals, Palakonda, Srikakulam and K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and filed medical record under Exs.P2 to P4 as is clear from their evidence. The evidence of PW6 - Doctor discloses that PW1 did not sustain injury No.1 on the bone, but as per the opinion of the Orthopaedic Surgeon, Injury No.1 is grievous in nature. In order to prove grievous injury, the prosecution has to establish the ingredients under Section 320 IPC, but the eight ingredients as contemplated under the provision, have not been proved by the prosecution. As per X-ray taken by PW6 also, PW1 has not sustained injury on the bone, as such, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, however, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is established to the extent that A1 hacked PW1 on his right hand palm with an axe and the prosecution also seized the axe under M.O.1 and A1 also beat PW1 on his face with a coconut-stem causing injuries on them, therefore, in view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though PW1 received grievous injuries, the trial Court erred in not imposing imprisonment on A1 and A2, cannot be sustained. Insofar as the contention put forth by the learned counsel that the trial Court erred in not convicting A3 to A5 is concerned, it is to be noticed that even though PWs.1 and 2 stated that A3 to A5, who are the family members of A1 and A2, came and beat PW2 all over the body, and PW8 – Sub-Inspector referred them to the Government Hospital, Palakonda, PW2 has not shown her injuries to the doctor. When PWs.1 and 2 visited the Government hospital and got treatment by the doctor it is not known what prevented PW2 from being treated by the doctor, and there is no explanation whatsoever from the prosecution on this aspect. As there is no substantive evidence that is forthcoming from the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offence against A3 to A5. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court erred in acquitting A3 to A5 for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with 34 IPC, is baseless and unsustainable. For the aforementioned reasons, this revisional Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference from this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails, and the same is, accordingly dismissed. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 16th April, 2010 bcj