THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1861 OF 2002 O R D E R: 1 ) The present criminal revision case is filed by petitioners/appellant Nos.1,5,16,17,19,20,25,26 and 28, assailing the judgment, dated 15.11.2002 in Crl.Appeal No.117 of 2000 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court) Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the judgment dated 04.12.2000, in S.C.No.18 of 2000 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsipatnam, convicting the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 325 read with 149 P.C. was confirmed but modifying the sentence. 2) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present criminal revision case may be stated as follows: A-15, A-21 and A-22 are residents of Kakinada, while A-13 & A- 14 are residents of J.Naidupalem in Golugunta Mandal and the remaining accused are residents of Tootipala and all the accused are inter-related to each other. At the time of the offence, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with an intention to kill the defacto-complainant, namely, Animireddy Adilakshmi (PW-1) and her family members. Varri Sanyasi (PW-8) is an eye witness to the incident in question. It is the further case of the prosecution that PWs.1 to 7 are the injured persons. There is a land of about Ac 30.00 cents at Tootipala Village and its actual owner Motamarri China Sanyasi Setty was not available in Tutipala Village and his whereabouts are also not known to anybody and since 1920 the residents of Tootipala and surrounding villagers occupied an extent of Ac 91.40 cents in S.No.215 and for about 60 acres of land there is no dispute and the dispute is with regard to the remaining extent of Ac 30.00 cents of land because the accused and the prosecution party shared the land and are trying to occupy the remaining land. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the year 1988, the trouble started between the two parties as both the groups beat each other by claiming the land and as a result of which, Cr.No.32 of 1998 under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and Cr.No.33 of 98 under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 I.P.C., were registered and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were also initiated before the R.D.O., Narsipatnam by the police, to avoid further complications and also to settle the dispute between the parties. It is the further case of the prosecution that the offence in question took place on 30.05.1999 at bout 8.00 a.m., at the agricultural field where PW-1 along with PWs.3, 4 and others were ploughing the land and while so all the accused with a common intention to kill PW-1 and her family members formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and came to the field having been armed with spears and sticks and beat PWs.1,3,4 & 6 and caused them bleeding injuries on their bodies and after that all the accused went to the kallam shed of PW-1, which is situated nearby the agricultural land and beat PWs.5 & 7 with sticks and spears and caused them bleeding injuries to them and the same was witnessed by PW-8. It is the further case of the prosecution that Ch.D.Santho, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Makavarapalem Police Station (PW-13) on receiving information about the offence, proceeded to the scene of offence along with his staff and recorded Ex.P-1 statement from PW-1 and as per Ex.P16-FIR, he registered a case in Cr.No.25 of 1999 on the file of Makavarapalem Police Station and the police after completing their investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that all the 30 accused are liable to be convicted for the offences as stated supra. 3) When the charges under Sections 148 I.P.C., against all and 307 I.P.C., under seven counts were framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 besides case properties Mos.1 to 14. On behalf of the accused, DW-1 was examined and got marked Ex.D-1. 5) The trial court after accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found some of the accused guilty for the charges leveled against them. On appeal, the present petitioners were found guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149, 147, 325 read with 149 I.P.C., on two counts. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 6) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ex.P-1 does not indicate specific overt acts against the petitioners/accused; that no charge has been framed under section 149 I.P.C., and no specific overt acts are attributed against some of the accused; that the medical evidence is not completely in corroboration with the ocular testimony; that as per Ex.D-1, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land and therefore, the prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 7 are the aggressors, that all these aspects have not been considered by the courts below in a right perspective and hence, he prays to set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners. 7) On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that concurrent findings of the courts below need not be interfered with, unless the findings are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record; that none of the findings is shown to be improper or incorrect; that PWs.1 to 7- injured witnesses have categorically stated about the specific overt acts of each of the accused, that in the absence of any perverse findings, the judgments under challenge need no interference and hence, she prays to dismiss the criminal revision case. 8) The point that arises for determination is whether the judgments of both the courts below are correct, legal and proper. 9) There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are truncated. Unless the findings are not based upon the evidence or in- admissible evidence was taken into consideration or legally admissible evidence was discarded or perverse findings were given or mis-carriage of justice was caused, the revisional powers shall not be exercised. So, unless the judgments of both the courts below are perverse, illegal or incorrect, normally, this court cannot sit over as if in an appeal against the order of conviction or acquittal. 10) There is a dispute with regard to the agricultural land between the two groups of Tootipala Village. On 30-05-1999 at about 8 a.m., in the agricultural field of PW-1, the accused with a common intention to kill PW-1 and her family members, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked PWs.1 to 7 and caused bleeding injuries 11) It is not the case of the prosecution that PWs.1 to 7 sustained those injuries at different places, in a different manner, at the hands of different persons. Though it is stated that at the time of incident, the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land and prosecution witnesses are the aggressors, admittedly, none of the petitioners sustained any injuries. Therefore, under any stretch of imagination, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. By the nature of injuries sustained by PWs.1 to 7, it can safely be said that the present petitioners and some others went to the agricultural field of PW-1 and caused injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses and there after they went to the kallam shed of PW-1 and beat two other prosecution witnesses. 12) PW-12 is the Doctor who examined PWs.1 to 7 and issued Exs.P-12, P-15, P-9, P-13, P-14, P-10 & P-11 Wound Certificates to PWs.1 to 7 respectively. PW-11 has taken X-rays in respect of the left and right leg of PW-2 and left leg of PW-5. As seen from Ex.P-8- opinion on X-ray cover, it reveals that PW-2 sustained grievous injuries on both of his legs whereas PW-5 sustained grevious injury on her left leg. 13) One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since both the courts below dis-believed the evidence of PWs.10 and 13 regarding the observation of scene of offence and recovery of MO.1 to 14-sticks and barisa and as the scene of occurrence has not been proved, the petitioners are entitled for acquittal. But the consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 7 would clearly go to show that they were beaten by the accused with sticks and spears. Their evidence is completely in corroboration with the evidence of Doctor and also the opinion of the Radiologist, which was noted on the X-ray cover stating that PWs.2 & 5 sustained fractures. There cannot be any dispute that any fracture sustained in the body is a grievous injury. There is absolutely no reason for PWs.1 to 7 to speak falasehood against the present petitioners so as to inmplicate them in a case of this nature stating that they sustained injuries at the hands of the present petitioners. The incident has taken place at about 8.00 a.m. Therefore, the mistake of false identity of the accused can be ruled out. There is clear evidence of PWs.1 to 7 that they identified the assailants. If really they received injuries at the hands of some other persons, they would not have impleaded the present petitioners. If there is an ill-will or motive for the prosecution witnesses so as to take revenge against the accused and such revenge is not borne out from the records. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there is a dispute between both the parties with regard to the possession to an extent of Ac 50.00 cents of land and the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., are pending in the Court of R.D.O., Narsipatnam and no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioners, cannot be a ground to acquit them. 14) Section 149 I.P.C., creates distinct and specific offence. When the common object of the members of an unlawful assembly is to commit an offence, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every member of that assembly comes within the purview of Section 149 I.P.C. When once it is established that the persons against whom no specific overt acts have been attributed were members of the unlawful assembly, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the accused caused injuries to PWs.1 to 7. 14) In the first instance, all the accused came to the scene of occurrence, armed with deadly weapons and beat some of the prosecution witnesses at the agricultural fields and thereafter, they went to the kallam shed of PW-1 and after causing injuries to two other witnesses, left that place. These circumstances would indicate that all the petitioners shared the common object so as to cause injuries to PWs.1 to 7. 15) Therefore, the trial court after an elaborate consideration of evidence on record came to the correct conclusion that these petitioners are members of an unlawful assembly and caused injuries to PWs.1 to 7 and the said findings of the trial court are rightly confirmed by the appellate court. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law and the same are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, no interference is warranted. However, since the incident has taken place about a decade back and the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses are not on the vital parts of the body, the sentence of imprisonment of one year can be reduced to six months and the same is accordingly reduced. 16) With the above modification of sentence imposed, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ____________ K.C.BHANU J., Dt.10.07.2009 tjs