IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.882 OF 2004 Between: Gudala Ramesh. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.882 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Petitioner-first Accused against judgment, dated 23-02-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2001 by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, preferred against conviction and sentence imposed in S.C. No.459 of 2001 on the file of I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal. 2. The Revision Petitioner is A-1 in the Sessions Case No. 459 of 2001 and appellant in the Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2001. He was prosecuted in the Sessions Case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C., whereas A-2 to A-5 in the case were prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. After due trial, the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Warangal convicted A-1 under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and further sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. further holding that in default of payment of the fine under the two counts he should suffer simple imprisonment for six months each, whereas A-2 to A-5 in the case were acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. vide judgment, dated 19-11-2001, whereas against the said conviction and sentences, the first Accused filed Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2001 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and also confirming the conviction imposed for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. but reducing the sentence of 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 5 years while retaining the fine clause observing that the fine amounts were already paid. 4. For the sake of convenience the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in Sessions Case No.459 of 2001. 5. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Revision may be stated as follows : The first accused married the de-facto complainant namely G. Swaroopa (PW.3) and they lead happy marital life for a period of ten years. During their marital life, they begot a son but for six months prior to the alleged incident the first accused started harassing his wife with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,000/- from her parents. Further, about one month prior to the date of the alleged incident, the first accused also beat his wife indiscriminately and sent her out of the house reiterating the demand to bring the additional dowry following which, she went to her parents house and informed about the incident to her brothers following which the matter was informed to one S. Saraiah, Surpanch of the village, who summoned the first accused and his wife but the first accused did not respondent. However, on 04-09-2000 a mediation was conducted in the presence of elders but then the first accused answered the elders recklessly asserting that he would continue to harass his wife to bring the additional dowry from her parents. Further, on the same day during evening when the de-facto complainant Sadaiah (PW.1), Ramesh (PW.3) and Rajaiah brother of G. Swaroopa were at the pan shop of one Devender, all the accused went there and pounced upon them and then the first accused stabbed with knife in the stomach of PW.2 with an intention to kill him and caused grievous injury and at the intervention of Devender and others all the accused fled away from the scene of offence. Later, the injured was shifted to Venkatapur police station. Further, PW.1 gave a report about the incident to the Station House Officer, Venkatapur police station on the basis of which the case was registered in Crime No.77 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Later, after first aid at the Government Community Hospital, Mulug, the injured was referred to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, where he was treated. Further, The sub-inspector of Police, Venkatapur police station conducted the investigation of the case and later filed charge sheet before the committal Court i.e., the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulug. 6. A-1 to A-5 pleaded not guilty of the charges. For the prosecution PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-5 were marked when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A-1 to A-3 denied incriminating evidence adduced. 7. The defence version is that PW.1 along with his brother PW.2 beat A-1 one week prior to the date of incident and caused injury on his head and A-1 went to the police station for presenting report which was prevented by the police giving an assurance that they would settle the matter and PW.2 did not receive any injury as the prosecution claims but he received injury while tapping a tree and taking advantage of that a false case was foisted against A-1 to A-5. 8. Now the points for consideration are : 1) Whether the prosecution placed good evidence about the charges leveled against the first accused? 2) Whether the courts below properly examined the mater and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the Appellate Court are tenable or not? 9. Point No.1: The main prosecution witnesses deposed as per the prosecution witnesses. PW.2 injured also deposed that A-2 to A-5 were also present at the scene of offence. Here the medical evidence adduced is very important. PW.8 the Medical Officer deposed that he treated PW.2 on 04-09-2000 at 10-00 p.m. on a request given by the Station House Officer, Venkatapuram with a request to examine PW.2 and accordingly he examined PW.2 and found incised wound measuring 7” x 5-1/2” x 2” on the left side of his abdomen which was grievous in nature and which could have been caused by means of a sharp penetrating instrument about one or two hours prior to the examination and then the petitioner was referred to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and he issued Ex.P-5 Wound Certificate. 10. The prosecution failed to examine any doctor pertaining to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. However, the evidence of PW.8 was not rebutted and accordingly it is accepted to be true and correct. Further, PW.5 is an independent witness and his evidence inspires confidence. Further, whereas the alleged incident took place at 06- 00 p.m. the report was given to the police at about 08-00 p.m. and the doctor treated PW.2, injured on the same day at 10-00 p.m. Further, nothing was elicited from the prosecution witnesses, which is favourable to the defence so far as the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is concerned. Further, PW.3 clearly deposed about the harassment she suffered in the hands of the accused for bringing additional dowry in accordance with the prosecution version corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also the evidence of PW.4 elder who claimed to have participated in the corresponding mediation. In fact, the said mediation was not disputed. Further, there is ample evidence from the main prosecution witnesses and also the investigating officer and the mediator about the scene of offence. 11. There is no basis to say that a false case was foisted against the accused. The evidence adduced with regards to the offences in question is quite trustworthy and accordingly it is accepted to be true and correct. 12. The Courts below properly examined the material available on record and disposed of the matter and there is no reason to set aside the conviction imposed against the first accused for the alleged offences. It is pertinent to note here that the remaining accused i.e., A-2 to A-5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 Read with Section 149 IPC under benefit of doubt. 13. Further, with regards to the quantum of sentences it is important that the first accused has been attending various Courts since 2001 by reason of which he must have suffered a lot by way of losing his valuable part of life and facing the conviction and sentences imposed and wasting lot of money towards expenditure. It is also important that he has not been living along with wife, which also must have brought him lot of misery. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from seven years as imposed by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge and modified and reduced to five years by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge to Rigorous Imprisonment for one (1) year for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment of three years imposed by the learned I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge and confirmed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge to six (6) months for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC keeping the fine clauses intact. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 04, 2011. Dsh