IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE THIRTYETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 3 4 9 of 2005 Between: Thatikonda Srinivasu @ Vasu (A-1) … Petitioner V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3 4 9 OF 2005 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the III-Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Khammam dated 25-2-2005 in Crl.A.No.162 of 2002, setting aside the conviction recorded by the Asst.Sessions Judge, Khammam, for the offence under section 307 of IPC and instead convicting him under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year in SC.No.113 of 1997, dated 15-5-2000. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case are as follows : A-1 and A-2 are brothers, A-3 and A-4 are parents of A-1 and A-2. The accused and PWs 1 to 9 are the residents of Vallapuram village. PW-1 is the son of PW-6. PW-3 is the wife of A2 and the daughter of PW-6. About five years prior to the date of incident, PW-3 was married to A-2. They lived together happily for a period of one year. They were blessed with a female child. Thereafter, A-2 addicted to alcohol. He was beating and harassing his wife physically and mentally. PW-1 and PW-6 were consoling PW-3 and subsiding the matter on several occasions. About six months prior to the date of the incident A-1 to A-4 necked out Ramulamma PW-3 from the house of the accused. She came to her parents house and took shelter in the house of her parents. A2 and A4 were visiting the house of PW-6, abusing PW-3 and her parents demanding her to come to her matrimonial house and stay with A-2. While so on 25-1-1996 at 08:00 p.m., there was a procession of god yelagonda swami being Karthika poornima day. PW-6 went to Kirana shop of Rodimalla Bhadra Reddy, as usual to purchase the bodies. A-2 was there and picked up a quarrel with PW-6 for sending his wife to his house. A-3 and A-4 also joined A-2, beat PW-6 on his head and as a result of which PW- 6 fell down and became unconscious. Immediately PW-1 and others tok PW-6 in a tractor to Mudigonda Police Station. PW-1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to PW-10, who registered Ex.P1 complaint as Cr.No. 145 of 1996 under section 498-A, 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC and investigated into the case. PW-11 Dr. Rajashekar Babu, Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital, Khammam examined PW-6 and gave Ex.P11 wound certificate. He was of the opinion that the injuries sustained by OPW-6 can be caused with MO-4 and the injury sustained by PW-6 is grievous in nature. PW-10 visited the scene of offence in the presence of PW7 and Nelluri Seetharamaiah and seized blood stained earth and control earth under Ex.P2. PW-0 seized blood stained clothes of PW6 (MOs 1 to MO-3) under Ex.P3 in the presence of PW-8 and U.Pedda Laxmaiah. PW-10 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 30-11-1996 PW-10 arrested A-1 to A-4 and interrogated them in the presence of PW-9 and Y.Venkatramaiah. A-1 and A-2 have confessed the offence leading to recovery. In pursuance of their confession, MO-4 axe and MO-5 stick were recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-2 respectively. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the formalities as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, Khammam took the case on file as SC.No. 113 of 1997 and made over to the Asst.Sessions Judge for disposal according to law. Thereafter, A-2 evaded to attend the Court inspite of the steps taken against A-2. The police could not apprehend him. The surety bonds of A-2 and also his sureties were forfeited and the case against A-2 was split up and a separate case number was assigned as SC.No. 323 of 1999 by the Sessions Court. A-1, A-3 and A-4 alone faced the trial before the trial court. 4. The learned Asst.Sessions Judge, Khammam examined A- 1, A-3 and A-4 alleging the substance of accusation. The accused denied the substance of accusation. Charge under section 498-A and 307 of IPC were framed against A-1, A-3 and A-4, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-16 and MOs-1 to 5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accused denied the same. 7. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial court found A-1 guilty for the offence under section 307 of IPC and he is convicted under section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. A-3 and A-4 found not guilty for the charge under section 498- A and 307 of IPC and they were acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. 8. On appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Khammam under section 307 of IPC is set aside and instead A-1 was convicted under section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year by the learned III-Addl.Sessions Judge, Khammam. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner confine his arguments only in connection with the sentence and he further prayed mercy of this Court. 10. Considering the fact that the offence is pertaining to the year 1996 i.e., after a lapse of more than one decade, the petitioner has been suffered humiliation and untold hardship. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by the appellate court is confirmed and sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone. But however, the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000- 00 (Rs. Ten thousand only), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, apart from the fine which he already paid in the trial Court. 11. With the above modification in the sentence and also imposition of fine, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO. 30-09-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 3 4 9 OF 2005 Circulation Entry No. 2 9 Date: 30-09-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L