IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 1575 of 2004 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in CRL.A NO : 114 dated 27/08/2004 on the file of the Court of the III ADDL.SSNS. JUDGE(FTC) COURT, KHAMMAM Crl. RC to this Hon'ble Court against the Judgment of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Khammam, in Crl. A No. 114/02, Dt: 27.08.04., preferred against the order in CC 220 1996 dated 26/08/2099 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira) Between: Jinugu China Narayana, S/o. Muthaiah, Mahadevapuram. ..... PETITIONER AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 1575 of 2004 Judgment This revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II) Khammam in Crl.A.No. 114 of 2002 (Old Crl.A.No. 109 of 1999), which, in turn, was filed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira in C.C.No. 220 of 1996. The present petitioner is A-1. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.3.1996 at about 3.00 PM, A-1 to A-4 beat PWs 1 to 3 and PW-5 at the house of the accused in Mahadevapuram and caused grievous injuries to PW-2 and simple injuries to PW-3 and 5. According to the prosecution case, the accused and PWs-1 to 5 are residents of Mahadevapuram village. A- 1 and A-4 are brothers; A-2 is the wife of A-1 and A-3 is the sister of A-1 and A-4. PWs-1 and 5 are the sons and PW-2 is the daughter of PW-3. There were disputes on account of village politics between both parties. PW-1 purchased hay for Rs.8,000-00 at Yellandu and was transporting the same to his village on a tractor. The tractor was to pass in front of the house of the accused, on its way to the house of PW-1. While the tractor was passing in front of the house of the accused, the fencing situated in front of the house of the accused was damaged. For that A-1 abused PW-5 and the tractor driver (PW-8) in filthy language for which PW-5 objected and asked A-1 not to abuse the tractor driver. A-1 got annoyed and abused PW-5. PW-5 informed his father PW-3. PW-3 then went to the house of A-1 and asked him about the incident. At that time A-1 beat PW-3 with a cart-peg on his back. When PW-2 questioned the accused, A- 2 and A-3 caught hold of her tuft of hair; A-1 beat on her mouth on account of which, her teeth were broken. A-1 to A-3 also beat PW-5. PW-1 stabbed PW-1 in the same incident with a broken toddy bottle. When PW-1 tried to ward off the blow, it caused injury to his palm. 3. On a complaint, a case in Cr.No. 23 of 1996 under section 326 IPC was registered at PS., Madhira town and the injured was sent to Government Hospital, Madhira and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. On appearance of the accused, charges under section 324 read with 34 IPC and S. 326 IPC was framed against the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution PWs-1 to 11 were examined and Exs P-1 to P-6 were marked. On the basis of the above evidence, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused as under: S.No. Charge Against Sentence For causing injuries to 1 324 IPC A-1 Rigorous imprisonment for three years PW-3 2 324 r/w 34 IPC A-2 & 3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years each. PW-3 3 326 IPC A-1 RI for three years and fine of Rs.500-00 in default to under go imprisonment for two months PW-1 4 326 r/w 34 IPC A-2 & 3 RI for three years and fine of Rs.500-00 in default to under go imprisonment for two months. PW-2 5 324 IPC A-4 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-1 6 324 r/w 34 IPC A-1 to A- 3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-1 7 324 IPC A-1 to A- 3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-5 All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. On appeal, the learned appellate judge partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentences asunder: S.No. Charge Against Sentence For causing injuries to Sentenced reduced by the appellate court 1 324 IPC A-1 Rigorous imprisonment for three years PW-3 RI for three months. 2 324 r/w 34 IPC A-2 & 3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years each. PW-3 Set aside and acquitted. 3 326 IPC A-1 RI for three years and fine o f Rs.500-00 in default to under go imprisonment for two months PW-3 RI for six months and fine of Rs.500-00. 4 326 r/w 34 IPC A-2 & 3 RI for three years and fine o f Rs.500-00 in default to under go imprisonment for two months. PW-2 Set aside and acquitted 5 324 IPC A-4 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-1 The sentence is modified to fine of Rs.1000-00 ID SI for three months. 6 324 r/w 34 IPC A-1 to A-3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-1 Set aside and acquitted 7 324 IPC A-1 to A-3 Rigorous imprisonment for three years. PW-5 Set aside and acquitted All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. Thus, now A-1 stands convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced RI for three months for causing injury to PW-1; and also convicted for the offence under section 326 for causing grievous injury to PW-3 and stands sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500-00 in default to under go simple imprisonment for three months. 7. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate court erred in confirming the conviction of the present petitioner basing on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; that there is no corroboration between the medical evidence and the oral evidence and that it s a case of false implication of the accused. 8. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses, including the injured witnesses clearly establishes the guilt of the petitioner/accused and that there are no grounds to disturb the findings recorded by the appellate judge. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the revision case. 10. The evidence of PW-2 is that A-1 beat her father with a stick on his left hand; A-2 and A-3 caught hold of her tuft and A-1 beat with a stick on her left teeth, on account of that her teeth fell down. A-4 tried to stab her father with a broken bottle. The evidence of PW-3 is that A-1 beat him with a cart peg on his back, while PW-2 was beaten by A-1, while A-2 and A-3 caught her. PW-3 also referred to attack by A-1 and A-4 on him. In the cross examination of these witnesses nothing substantial is elicited to say that they are giving false evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that medical evidence reveals that the injuries sustained by PWs 2 and 3, could be sustained on account of a fall from tractor. May be, there was possibility of sustaining those injuries, on account of a fall from the tractor; but there is no suggestion to these witnesses that they have fallen from the tractor and sustained injuries. As such the injuries sustained by the victims – PW-2 and 3 are received on account of a fall from the tractor cannot be accepted and, in fact, it is no body’s case. There are injuries, as spoken to by the Medical Officer and there is evidence of the injured witnesses, supported by other witnesses, though they are inter-related. When there is substantial medical evidence and one of the injuries is fall of teeth, there is no possibility of false implication of the accused and in case some body had attacked the victims, no reason is shown as to whey they falsely implicated the present petitioner. 12. In all these circumstances, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the courts below. Accordingly the criminal revision case is dismissed. 13. Considering the fact, that the incident has taken place about fifteen years back, it may not be desirable to send the petitioner to jail again, after this length of time. There is also no material to show that the petitioner was earlier involved in offences of this nature. In such view of the matter, instead sending the petitioner to jail, the petitioner is directed to be released under section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.10,000-00 with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira, to keep the peace and tranquility and be of good behaviour, for period of two years. Further, under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000-00 (Rs. Twenty five thousands only) to PW-2, as compensation. Deposit of above amount of Rs.25,000-00 (Rs. Twenty five thousands only) and execution of the bonds shall be made within two months from today. PW-2 is entitled to withdraw the amount, after the appeal time is over. In case of failure to deposit the amount and execution of the bonds, as above, the petitioner/accused shall undergo the imprisonment as confirmed by the learned appellate Judge. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 17, 2010. *BVS