HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No.1302 OF 2005 Dated 24th August, 2011 Between: Kankara Narayana Reddy and others. Petitioners. And: The State of Andhra Pradesh through the Station House Officer, Navipet Police Station, Nizamabad District, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No.1302 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: A.1 to A.3 in C.C.No.364 of 2001 on the file of the Additional J.FC.M, Nizamabad are the revision petitioners herein. They were charge sheeted and were charged for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. They allegedly caused grievous injuries to P.W.3. After recording the evidence of six witnesses in P.Ws.1 to 6, the learned trial judge considered that A.1 to A.3 were guilty of the charge levelled against them. He sentenced them to R.I for a period of one year. He also sentenced each of them to a fine of Rs.1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. The three accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is laid by the three accused. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of enmity with P.W.3, the accused conjointly attacked P.W.3 on 25.12.2000 near the house of P.W.3 and caused grievous injuries to P.W.3. The attack was by A.1. A.2 and A.3 allegedly assisted him. 3. Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the trial Court and the appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and did not appreciate the fact that Atchamma (L.W.4), another eye witness was not examined by the prosecution. 4. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. As already pointed out, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The defence in its turn examined D.Ws.1 and 2. D.Ws.1 and 2 spoke about the alibi that the accused were not present at the scene of offence at the time of the commission of the offence. Needless to state that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 is found to be not trustworthy and was rejected by the trial Court and the appellate Court. I see no reason to differ from the view adopted by the trial Court and appellate Court. Barring from making a statement that the accused were not present at the scene of offence at the time of the commission of the offence, D.Ws.1 and 2 failed to establish that it was improbable for the accused to be present at the time of scene of offence at the time of the commission of the offence. 6. Curiously, the injured was examined by the prosecution as P.W.3 since the complaint under Ex.P.1 was not lodged by P.W.3 but was by P.W.1. P.W.1 was a neighbour of P.W.3. P.W.2 was also a neighbour. P.W.1 is a nephew of P.W.3. It is the case of prosecution that the accused suspected the complicity of the members of the family of P.W.3 in the murder of the brother-in-law of A.1. 7. It is stated by P.W.3 that on 25.12.2000 at about 3 P.M., A.1 to A.3 in consortium attacked P.W.3 at her house and caused injuries upon her head and body. It is the case of P.W.3 that while A.2 and A.3 caught hold of P.W.3, A.1 administered a blow with an axe on the head of P.W.3. 8. P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated P.W.3 regarding the circumstances in which the injuries were caused to P.W.3. They speak about the attack and also speak about the injuries sustained by P.W.3. P.W.4 was a neighbour of P.W.3. He was not an eye witness to the incident. After P.W.3 was attacked by A.1 to A.3, P.Ws.1 and 3 raised alarm. P.W.4 rushed to the scene of offence. P.W.3 was found to have sustained injuries. P.W.4 saw the presence of the accused at the scene of offence. He, however, did not witness the incident proper. 9. However, the evidence of P.W.3 that she was attacked by A.1 to A.3 was supported by P.Ws.1 and 2. As already pointed out, the corroboration of P.Ws.1 and 2 is complete and thorough. 10. There is yet another circumstance to check the veracity of the evidence of P.W.3. There is medical evidence in this case. P.W.5 is the doctor who treated P.W.3 when P.W.3 was brought to him. P.W.5 issued Medical Certificate that P.W.3 sustained three lacerated injuries over the head and that two of these injuries were grievous in nature. There was a fracture to the skull. Ex.P.3 is the x-ray film which reveals fracture of right temporal and occipital bones. Consequently, it is evident that P.W.3 suffers grievous injuries. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which corroborates Medical report, I have no hesitation to accept the claim of the prosecution that the prosecution established the guilty of A.1 to A.3 beyond reasonable doubt that A.1 to A.3 caused grievous injuries upon the person of P.W.3. 11. Learned counsel for the accused inter- alia contended that the non-examination of Atchamma (L.W.4) is fatal to the prosecution case. His contention is that P.Ws.1 to 4 are related inter se and that the prosecution deliberately chose not to examine independent witness and Atchamma. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the accused. There is nothing to doubt the veracity of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Merely because, P.Ws.1,2 and 4 are relatives of P.W.3, their evidence need not be discarded. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborated by Ex.P.2 Wound Certificate and the Medical evidence of P.W.5. I, therefore, am constrained to reject the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the non examination of any independent witness is fatal to the prosecution case. 12. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that there was un-explained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The incident occurred at 3 P.M., on 25.12.2000. P.W.5 treated P.W.3 at 4.15 P.M., on the same day. It would appear that the F.I.R. however was registered at about 11.30 A.M., on 26.12.2000, i.e., on the next day. P.W.3 went to P.W.5 who was a government doctor to bring the matter to the notice of police. Further, the police at the Out Patient Ward were also expected to take note of the admission of P.W.3. Apparently, they have not chosen to do so. I am afraid that when P.W.3 reported herself before the doctor at 4.15 P.M. itself on 25.12.2000, the delayed lodging of F.I.R. has no efficacy and need not be considered. The trial Court and the appellate Court therefore did not err in finding A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. 13. Regarding the quantum of sentence, it may be noticed that the incident occurred in December, 2000. Added to it, A.2 was 21 years at the time of incident and A.3 was 19 years at the time of incident. A.1 however was 43 years old. There is no allegation that any of the accused were indulging in any nefarious activity at any point of time. The accused are said to be formers. I, therefore, consider that the sentences of imprisonment deserves to be reduced. The accused were convicted by the appellate Court on 8.8.2005. On the same day, they were remanded to the judicial custody. It would appear that their sentences were suspended in October, 2005. Thus, the accused would appear to have been in Jail for about 2 months. 14. Where A.2 and A.3 are quite young at the time of the commission of the offence, I consider that lenient treatment deserves to be accorded to A.2 and A.3. They served sentence for about 2 months. I consider that it would be just and proper if the sentence already undergone by A.2 and A.3 is treated as sufficient. 15. I do not wish to differentiate A.1 from A.2 to A.3 where A.1 is no other than the father of A.2 and A.3. Although he was over 40 years old at the time of the commission of the offence, where the sentences against A.2 and A.3 deserves to be reduced to imprisonment already undergone, it would be just and proper to treat the sentences of imprisonment undergone by A.1 also as sufficient sentence. The fine recorded by trial Court and confirmed by appellate Court, however, deserves to be maintained. 16. The revision, accordingly, is dismissed in so far as the recording of the conviction by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is concerned. The sentence of imprisonment is modified to imprisonment already undergone by the accused. The fine imposed by the trial Court is maintained. __________________ Justice K.G.SHANKAR Dated 24th August, 2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No.1302 OF 2005 Dated 24th August, 2011