THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1864 of 2003 Date : 25-2-2010 Between : Kurma Vittal s/o. Shankaraiah and others .. Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1864 of 2003 ORDER: 1. This Court while admitting the Criminal Revision Case on 29-12-2003 in Crl.M.P.No.8780/2003 made the following order: “Petitioners shall be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the revision, on their executing a bond for Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) each with two sureties each in a likesum each to the satisfactioin of the Additional J.F.C.M., Sangareddy”. 2. Heard the Counsel. The learned Counsel representing the petitioners had pointed out to the specific grounds raised and would maintain that several contradictions had not been taken into consideration and the evidence was not appreciated properly and hence the Criminal Revision Case to be allowed. 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that in fact the appellate court partly allowed the Appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Revision petitioners under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC and found A-1 to A-3 and A-5 and A-6 guilty under Section 325 IPC r/w. Section 34 IPC and hence it is not a fit matter to be interfered with. 4. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed as against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.64/2001 on the file of I Additional Session Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The said Appeal was filed being aggrieved of the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.609/99 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The court of first instance on appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6 and also Exs.P-1 to P-5 came to the conclusion that the accused to be convicted under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a find of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the matter was carried by way of Crl.A.No.64/2001 aforesaid. The appellate court at para-7 had formulated the following Points for determination : 1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charge under Section 325 r/w.34 IPC against all the accused for beating PW-1 beyond reasonable doubt ? 2. Whether the Judgment of the trial Court is sustainable under law or liable to be set aside ? The appellate court recorded reasons commencing from paras 8 to 15 and partly allowed the Appeal setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC but however found A- 1 to A-3 and A-5 and A-6 guilty under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It is stated that the petitioners had been in custody for some time and subsequent thereto they were released on bail by this Court. 5. The principal ground on which the appellate court had set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC while modifying the same and finding them guilty under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 IPC was that the wounds certificates were not proved. The S.I. of Police, Indrakaran Police Station filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-6 under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC with the following allegations : “On 27-7-1999 at about 3.00 p.m. when PW-1 Baikadi Ramulu and PW-2 Mohd.Nizamuddin are sitting at Hanuman temple, all the accused came and beat PW-1 with hands, sticks and caused injuries on the left knee, back of PW-1 due to previous enmity. When PW-2 Mohd. Nizamuddin tried to rescue him, the accused also beat PW-2 questioning him why he was interfering. In the meanwhile, PW-3 Bakki Mogulaiah, PW-4 P.Narsimulu and (LW-4) Chettukindi Mallesham rescued PW-1 from the accused. Thereupon, on the same day at 5.00 p.m. PW-1 went to the police station with injuries and gave statement before the Police. On that the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case under Section 324 r/w. Section 34 IPC in Cr.No.18/99, took up the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses, sent the injured to the Government Hospital, Sangareddy, visited Kalivemula village and seized the blood stained clothes from PW-1 in the presence of PW-5 C.Narsimha Reddy and another, obtained the wound certificates, effected the arrest of A-1 to A-6, sent them for judicial remand and filed the charge sheet against A-1 to A-6 under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC”. It is stated that during the pendency of the Appeal, appellant No.4 died and thus it was recorded that the case as against appellant No.4 stood abated. 6. The charge is that on 27-7-1999 at about 3 p.m. when the defacto complainant PW-1 and PW-2 were sitting at Hanuman temple all the accused came and beat and caused injuries on his left knee, back and head due to previous enmity. They also beat PW-2 when he tried to interfere and rescue PW-1. Meanwhile PW-3 and PW-4 intervened and rescued PW-1. 7. PW-1 and PW-2 are the injured. PW-1 deposed in detail all the facts and PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in all particulars. The evidence of PW-4 is not clear and categorical and the nature of evidence of PW-4 also had been taken into consideration. The evidence of PW-3 also was appreciated and appropriate findings had been recorded by both the court of first instance and also the appellate court. Apart from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 also had been considered. PW-5 deposed that he found PW-1 with injuries and police had seized the blood stained clothes under the cover of Ex.P-2 panchanama. PW-6 is the Investigation Officer who deposed about the details of investigation. Exs.D-1 and D-2, the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 also had been taken into consideration. Several of the grounds which had been raised and the submissions made in elaboration are in relation to the factual controversies and appreciation of evidence. 8. In a Criminal Revision Case when findings had been recorded by both the court of first instance and also the appellate court relating to facts, unless such appreciation is totally perverse or there was total misappreciation of the same and being not in accordance with law, normally such findings not to be interfered. The appellate court in fact had taken pains to record reasons in detail and also had taken note of the fact that the wounds certificates had not been duly proved and further came to the conclusion that in such a case the conviction and sentence imposed by the court of first instance under Section 325 r/w. Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained and accordingly while setting aside the same they were found guilty under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 IPC. However, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and inasmuch as the appellate court also had imposed find of Rs.500/- on each of accused, since the find amount had been paid and since it is stated that the petitioners/accused had been in custody for some time, inasmuch as the language of Section 323 IPC being “…..shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or both”, this Court is inclined to set aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 r/w. Section 34 IPC on the revision petitioners and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. But however, the payment of fine amount of Rs.500/- each by the petitioners/accused is hereby confirmed. 9. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the appellate court on the revision petitioners/accused is hereby modified to the extent indicated above limiting the same to the payment of fine amount only as already specified supra. The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 25-2-2010 AM