THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2006 Date: 11.03.2011 Between: Janapana Yerranna Reddy & others …..Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2006 ORDER: As many as 7 accused faced trial before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali in C.C.No.115 of 1998. They were charged for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 448 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 as well as M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali considered that the case was made out against all the accused for the offence under Section 448 IPC. He imposed simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months against all the accused for the offence under Section 448 IPC. The learned trial Judge further found that A-1 to A-3 guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC. Each of them was sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with appropriate default sentence. A-4 to A- 7 were found guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- each with appropriate default sentence. A-4 to A-7 were also convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC read with 34 IPC. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The sentences against the accused were directed by the trial Court to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.173 of 2001 before the II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam. During the pendency of the appal, A-4 died. Consequently, case against A-4 stood abated. After hearing the rival contentions, the appellate Court considered that no case was made out against accused for the offence under Section 448 IPC. All the accused (A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7, who contested the judgment of the trial Court) were found not guilty for the offence under Section 448 IPC and were acquitted by the appellate Court. The appellate Court further found that none of the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam found A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A- 7 guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC. He modified the sentence recorded by the trial Court and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- against each of the convicted accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, A-1 to A-3 and A-4 to A-7 preferred the present revision. The revision petitioners, thus, stood convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution established the guilty of A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 323 IPC and if so, what is the adequate quantum of punishment. Sri K.Bhima Rao, learned Counsel for the accused contended that the bloodstained clothes of P.W.1 were not seized soon after P.W.1 lodged the complaint and that the entire case was manipulated on account of the animosity between the accused and P.W.1. Curiously P.W.1, who is the main victim in this case deposed that there is no dispute between the accused on the one side and P.W.1 and the members of his family on the other side. However, P.W.1 alleged specific overt acts against all the accused for causing injuries to him or to his son P.W.2 or to his daughter P.W.3. To the extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by P.Ws.2 and 3, P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.6 is the doctor, who treated P.Ws.1 to 3 and issued Exs.P-4 to P-6 wound certificates. He also examined Gedala Pottamma, who is the wife of P.W.1 and issued Ex.P-7 wound certificate. It is not clear why the prosecution did not choose to examine Gedala Pottamma, who is also one of the victims. However, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not speak about any overt act by any of the accused against Gedala Pottamma. The examination of Gedala Pottama by P.W.6 and Ex.P-7 wound certificate of Gedala Pottamma are of no consequence. However, the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 that they sustained injuries in the hands of accused has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 and supported by Exs.P-4 to P-6 wound certificates. It is not the case of the accused that P.Ws.1 to 3 inimically foisted this case against them. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners drew my attention to the fact that A- 2 and A-3 also sustained injuries. The injuries upon A-2 and A-3 are admitted by the prosecution. At the same time, the prosecution failed to explain the injuries. The failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries upon the accused by itself would not be a ground to admit the case. If the accused sets up a defence that there was a scuffle or a free fight between the accused and the injured and that the accused and the injured sustained injuries in the said case, the non-explanation of the injuries upon the accused would become relevant. However, no suggestion was made to any of the prosecution witnesses that the prosecution witnesses were the aggressors or that there was a free fight in which the accused as well as the injured sustained injuries. I, therefore, do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused that non-explanation of the injuries upon A-2 and A-3 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the accused, in fact, have not proved the injuries upon A-2 and A-3 at least by marking the wound certificates. At any event, the injuries upon the accused are of no consequence in this case. I have already pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 3 corroborated each other regarding the injuries sustained by him, the manner in which the injuries were caused and the person who caused the injuries. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is further corroborated by P.W.6 and Exs.P-4 to P-6. I, therefore, agree with the finding of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam that the offence under Section 323 IPC is made out against all the revision petitioners. The judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam is not erroneous. Regarding the quantum of punishment to be imposed against the accused, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- against each of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC. It may be recalled that the trial Court imposed a fine of Rs.500/- only against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and against A-4 to A-7 for the offence under Section 323 IPC. I, therefore, consider it appropriate that the fine should not be more than Rs.500/- per head. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the appellate Court against the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 323 IPC is confirmed. The fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Srikakulam is reduced to fine of Rs.500/- payable by each of the revision petitioner. If the entire fine amount had already been paid by the revision petitioners, the amount so paid beyond the fine amount imposed, shall be repaid to the revision petitioners. Their bail bonds stand discharged. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 11.03.2011 TJMR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2006 DATE: 11.03.2011