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.1175 OF 2004 Between: Kurva Karrenna @ Ramudu. - - - 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.1175 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-Accused against judgment, dated 30-06-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2001 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 2. The Petitioner (for short ‘the Accused’) was prosecuted in Calender Case No.325 of 2000 for offences punishable under Section 353 I.P.C. After due trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, convicted the accused under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under sections 353 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen (15) days vide judgment, dated 11-06-2001. 3. As against the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2001 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having gone through both oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 30-06-2004. Challenging the same, the accused has preferred this Revision. 4. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Revision may be stated as follows : On 01-06-2000 at about 07-30 p.m. Abdul Ameer (de-facto complainant) constable came to Aize from Medikonda village to go to Aize police station. While he was coming to Aize police station he noticed the accused in intoxication mood and creating nuisance in the bus stand. He rushed to the spot and asked the accused not to create any law and order problem but, the accused used criminal force to deter the public servant from discharging his duties caught hold of his shirt and pushed him, as a result of which the constable (PW.1) fell on the ground. Syed Rafeeq (PW.5), the Sub-Inspector of Police, Aize police station took up and completed the investigation of the case and later filed relevant Charge sheet. 5. Charge under Sections 353 I.P.C. was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-4 and on behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were marked. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that though ingredients of Section 353 IPC are not established and the evidence of PW.1 makes it very clear that the prosecution failed to produce the Duty Passport of PW.1 to establish that he was on duty discharging his duties at Aize Bus Stand at the time of the date of alleged incident both the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence they are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution case mostly rests upon the evidence of Abdul Ameer (P.W.1) constable and the evidence of M. Maldakal (PW.3) who was working as Hamali in Aize bus stand and also eye witness to the incident and PW.3 deposed that the accused was creating nuisance at the bus stand being in intoxicated mood, PW.1 went and tried to pacify the accused not to make galata and in that process the accused pushed PW.1, as a result of which, PW.1 fell on the ground, then himself and the controller at the bus stand PW.2 intervened and rescued PW.1 and as such none of the findings of the Courts below are irrational or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 8. Now, it is to be mainly considered as to : 1) Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence with regards to the incident in question? 2) Whether the Courts below examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions? and 3) Whether the accused is entitled for acquittal? 9. Point No.1: The de-facto complainant examined as PW.1 deposed in accordance with the prosecution version and PWs. 2 and 4 and PW.3 whereas PWs. 2 and 4 did not support the prosecution version and hence they were declared as hostile witnesses and during the cross-examination of PWs. 1 and 2, 161 Cr.P.C. statements of their relevant portions was got marked as Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively. Further, the report of de-facto complainant (PW.1) marked as Ex.P1 agrees with his evidence. 10. PW.s 1 and 3 gave trustworthy evidence in support of the prosecution version. It is quite significant that it is not a case of any enmity between the accused and the de-facto complainant-PW.1 prior to the alleged incident. So, there was no need for PWs.1 and 3 to speak falsehood for the purpose of convicting the accused and sentencing him. Pertinently, the incident took place while the de-facto complainant (PW.1) was discharging his official duties as the prosecution record discloses. Mainly lit is contended on behalf of the accused that PWs. 2 and 4 examined as eye witnesses of the incident they did not support the prosecution version and PWs.1 and 3 gave untrustworthy evidence which does not inspire any confidence and the evidence of PW.1 is to be viewed with suspicion. The same contention is not tenable. When there is trustworthy evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 it can be accepted for the purpose of convicting and sentencing the accused. In the circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the accused won over PWs. 2 and 4 by taking necessary measures. Ultimately the Revision is liable to be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below. 11. Further, with regards to the quantum of sentence, it is important that the accused has been attending various Courts since 2000, by reason of which, he must have suffered a lot by way of losing his valuable part of life and lot of money by meeting necessary expenditure and facing the conviction and sentence imposed. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, it is quite reasonable to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, while keeping the fine clause in tact. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed subject to the above said modifications. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 04, 2011. Dsh