THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1753 of 2004 Judgment: This revision case is directed against the judgment dated 06.10.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2002 by the VI Additional District Judge(FTC), Guntur, whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioners herein in C.C. No.177 of 2001, dated 06.09.2002, by the learned IV Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, have been confirmed. The first petitioner/A1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months and the second petitioner/A2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Both the petitioners hereinafter will be referred to as A1 and A2 for the sake of convenience. The injured eye witness PW.1 - Y. Subba Reddy and A1 and A2 are residents of Sangadigunta village, Guntur District. The specific case of PW.1 is that on 14.02.2001 at about 9.00 PM after completing his work in Motilal Cotton Mill and while he was returning to home, A1 called him aside and then A1 along with his brother A2 beat him with hands. A1 is alleged to have fisted on the nose of PW.1 causing bleeding injury. A2 is alleged to have beat PW.1 with a brick on his right side shoulder. Two other persons who were accompanying A1 and A2 are also alleged to have beat PW.1. Then PW.1 proceeded to Station House Officer, Law and Order PS, Lalapet, Guntur town and lodged Ex.P1 complaint at about 10.00 PM on the same day. The injured PW.1 was referred to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, after PW.6 made an entry in the GD. PW.5 Dr. T. Chiranjeevi Babu has examined PW.1 and noted the injuries as follows. No evidence of external injuries. Complained pain over right shoulder. Movements are normal. Complained pain over the nose. X-rays of nose and nasal bone and right shoulder were taken. X-ray of nasal bone revealed no bony injury. However, x-ray of right shoulder revealed fracture in right clavicle. PW.5 opined that the injury No.2 is grievous i.e., fracture of right clavicle. PW.5 issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. PW.5 also opined that if a person falls on a rough surface injury No.2 is possible. The Sub-Inspector of Police, after receiving wound certificate from the hospital, registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2001 under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and issued FIR in Ex.P3. After completing investigation the SI of Police filed charge sheet. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused and no documents have been marked. PW.1 is the injured witness. According to him, on 14.02.2001 at about 9.00 PM while he was returning to home A1 called him for talks and then A1 and A2 and two unknown offenders beat him. According to him, A1 fisted on his nose and A2 beat with a brick stone on his right shoulder. According to PW.1, the motive for the offence is that A1 was under an impression that PW.1 was responsible for not arranging his marriage with the sister-in-law of PW.1. It was suggested to PW.1 that since PW.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from A1 and when A1 demanded for repayment of the amount, PW.1 foisted this false case against both the accused. According to PW.2, he was working as cooli in Motilal Cotton Mill along with PW.1 and that on 14.02.2001 at about 9.00 PM after completing his work while he was returning along with PW.1, A1 and A2 came there and took PW.1 aside and then he heard the cries and went towards PW.1 and found A1 fisting on the nose of PW.1 and A2 beating with a brick on the right side shoulder of PW.1. According to him, PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. PW.3 is also working in Motilal Cotton Mill and according to him, on 14.02.2001 at about 9.00 PM while he was returning from the company along with PWs.1 and 2, A1 and A2 came there and took PW.1 aside on the pretext of talking. He has also deposed that A1 fisted on the nose of PW.1 and A2 beat on the right shoulder of PW.1 with a brick. PW.4 is the resident of Sangadigunta. According to her, A1 requested her to arrange his marriage with one Sivaparvati the daughter of Audi Narayana Reddy and that PW.1 is the son-in-law of said Audi Narayana Reddy and Siva Parvathi is the sister-in-law of PW.1 and that PW.1 did not agree for the said marriage proposal, and therefore, A1 grew wild against PW.1. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused as referred above. The only contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there is abnormal delay in registering the case. According to him, though the incident had occurred on 14.02.2001 the case was registered on 06.03.2001. His next submission is that the names of PWs.2 and 3 have not been mentioned in the complaint lodged by PW.1 and, therefore, they were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence and that they are chance witnesses. It is also his submission that the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were not properly appreciated by the courts below. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgments of both the courts below and submitted that since the police officers were not sure whether a cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence had taken place on the date of receipt of report, therefore no case was registered and that after making GD entry the injured was referred to hospital and that only after receipt of wound certificate from PW.5 the case was registered and that in the circumstances there is no delay in registering the case and that the prosecution has properly explained the delay. It is also his submission that the evidence on record clinchingly proves that both the accused attacked PW.1 and caused bleeding injuries and that there is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentences passed against the accused. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, the contents of FIR and the evidence of PW.6, it is clear that PW.1 lodged a report on 14.02.2001 at about 10.00 PM. Of course, no case was registered, but admittedly, the injured witness was sent to the Government Hospital for examination and medical report after making GD entry. The wound certificate Ex.P2 reveals that on 14.02.2001 at 11.00 PM the injured was referred to the hospital. The evidence of PW.5 the doctor also shows that he examined the injured on 14.02.2001 at about 11.00 PM. According to PW.6 after receipt of the wound certificate from the hospital, the case was registered on 06.03.2001 at about 5.00 PM. It appears that there is some force in the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the police were not sure about whether the cognizable offence had taken place or not and therefore they were waiting for wound certificate and that only after receipt of wound certificate the police registered the case. In the circumstances, it appears that the prosecution has properly explained the delay. It is true that the names of PWs.2 and 3 have not been mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 given by PW.1. It is settled legal position that the FIR need not contain all the particulars. According to PWs.2 and 3 they were also working in Motilal Cotton Mill, wherein PW.1 was working and that after completing their work they were returning to their home at about 9.00 PM. In the above circumstances, PWs.2 and 3 cannot be said to be chance witnesses. Moreover, it appears that there is nothing on record to say that PWs.2 and 3 were inimically deposed against the accused. The evidence of PW.1, which has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and also medical evidence of PW.5, clinchingly establishes that A1 and A2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC respectively. According to PW.1, A1 fisted on his nose and A2 beat on his right shoulder with a brick. PW.5 – the doctor’s evidence clearly shows that there was no fracture to the nasal bone. However, the doctor found fracture in right clavicle of PW.1. The trial Court, having considered the fact that PW.1 did not mention that he sustained fracture in the right shoulder and simply mentioned that he sustained fracture in the nasal bone, found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and A2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly convicted them. In the circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the findings of both the courts below. Therefore, the conviction recorded by both the Courts below stands confirmed. However, coming to the question of sentence, admittedly, the alleged incident had occurred on 14.02.2001. A1 and A2 were convicted by the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2002. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction by its judgment dated 06.10.2004. Thus, it is clear that since about more than nine years both the accused have been moving around the Courts. Admittedly, there is no criminal history against both the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused are involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the accused submits that the appellate Court passed judgment on 06.10.2004 and when the accused approached this Court, they were granted bail on 11.10.2004, but however, for furnishing bonds etc., it took about another one week time and that both the accused were in jail for more than 20 days. Having regard to the social background of A1 and A2 and the fact that they are not involved in any other case and that they are coming from agricultural families of rural areas, instead of sentencing them again to imprisonment, I consider it just and reasonable to modify the sentence to that of imposing fine amount on them. Accordingly, A1 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, and A2 is directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Out of fine amount, PW.1 shall be paid compensation of Rs.1,000/- from the fine amount of A1 and Rs.1500/- from the fine amount of A2 i.e., total Rs.2500/- shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation. Subject to the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24.06.2010 Nsr