THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1887 of 2003 DATED: 06-04-2010 Between: Medaboina Venkateshwarlu @ Venkatesh. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. … Respondent ORDER: Petitioner herein was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangaon in S.C. No.233 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 326 IPC. 2. Having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 and also Exs.P1 to P7, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of both the offences and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for each offence. As against the said judgment, dated 30-01-2002, petitioner approached the Sessions Court and filed Crl.A.No.29 of 2002, and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal vide his judgment, dated 01-12-2003, confirmed that the petitioner committed the said offence, however reduced the said sentence of five years to three years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, he maintained the same. As against the said judgment, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein married P.W.2 and was blessed with a daughter. While so, petitioner herein insisted P.W.2 to sell away the house, which was allotted to her by the Government of A.P., for which she did not agree. Therefore, the petitioner started treating P.W.2 cruelly by abusing and beating. Ultimately, the matter was resolved by elders in a panchayat, whereby the petitioner and P.W.2 came down to Shivunipalli village from Secunderabad and started staying separately from the parents of P.W.2. Again on 12-11-1999 at 5.00 p.m. the petitioner insisted P.W.2 to dispose off the house at Secunderabad and when she refused to do so, he beat her with a crow bar indiscriminately causing bleeding injury. P.W.1, who is the father of P.W.2, came to know about the incident through P.W.3 and immediately shifted P.W.2 in an unconscious condition to a hospital at Hanumakonda for treatment. Thus the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 5. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that she received head injury but the evidence of the doctors falsifies the same. Further, according to him P.Ws.1 to 4 are all closely related and the said evidence ought not to have been accepted by the Courts below in holding that the petitioner is guilty of the said offences. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said contention stating that the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the said offence and it needs no interference. 7. P.W.1 is the father of the victim. The victim was examined as P.W.2 and the daughter of the petitioner was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the brother of the victim- P.W.2. The entire case rests on the said evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. May be it is true that they are all interested witnesses, but on that score this Court is not inclined to reject the evidence. The daughter of the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.3, stated that her father-petitioner used to beat her mother-P.W.2 in drunken state and her grand father-P.W.1 used to take P.W.2 and her to the village. She further deposed that there was a panchayat before the elders in the village on account of which they all stayed together. She further stated that one day at about 6.00 p.m. petitioner beat her mother with a crow bar and on seeing the same she immediately went in and informed about the said incident to her grand father- P.W.1. P.W.3 is aged 9 years. 8. Before examining P.W.3, the Court below put several questions and after being satisfied that she is in a position to answer the said questions, recorded the said evidence. In my considered view, no daughter would come forward and speak falsehood against her father, unless there is truth. The said evidence is totally corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. Hence, it cannot be said that all these witnesses are interested and they have falsely spoken against the petitioner and their evidence should have been rejected. Further, according to the victim-P.W.2, her husband-petitioner used to beat her asking to sell the house allotted to her by the Government. There was a mediation and as per the advice of the elders, P.W.2 stayed with the petitioner along with her daughter in a rented house. Thereafter, petitioner again started insisting her to sell away the house at Hyderabad for which she refused. On that day, the petitioner, who was in a drunken state, came to her with a crow bar and beat her with the said crow bar on the right side of the head, near forehead, on account of which she fell unconscious and gained consciousness only after eight days. The said evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 has to be accepted for the reason that the wound certificate clearly establishes that P.W.2 received grievous injuries. The Causality Medical Officer, MGM hospital, Warangal was examined as P.W.9. The Deputy Civil Surgeon to whom P.W.2 was referred to was examined as P.W.10. 9. According to P.W.9 he examined P.W.2 on 12-01-1999 and he noted the following injuries: 1. Deep laceration 6 X2 bone depth found on right frontal region. 2. Incised wound 2 X ½ deep not known over right cheek. 3. Swelling right side of the cheek. 4. Swelling right side of the neck. 5. Deep laceration 4 X2 bone depth found on left lower 1/3rd of length. 6. Deep laceration 3 X 2X2 cm over left arm. Further, according to him he referred the patient to the Duty Surgical Officer (Ortho) and also Duty Dental Surgeon for further treatment. He also referred the patient for taking X-rays of (1) skull, (2) mandible (lower jaw), (3) X-ray left arm, (4) X-ray lower 1/3rd of left leg with ankle joint. 10. Based on the reports and X-rays given by Dr.Ramnarsimha Reddy, he issued a certificate stating that the patient-Rajamma sustained fracture over right side of body and angle of mandible (lower jaw). He has identified the signature of Dr.Ramnarsimha Reddy. Further, as seen from the certificate given by Dr.Ekanadham, dated 06-12-1999, he found a depressed fracture over right frontal bone and also fractures of mandible. He opined that the said injuries are grievous in nature. He has identified the signature of Dr.Ekanadham. He further deposed the opinion expressed by Dr.Ram Narsimha Reddy that after taking X-rays it was found that the patient sustained grievous injury i.e. fracture of mandible. On the requisition of police, this witness issued a certificate with his opinion which was marked as Ex.P5 and the certificate issued by the Neuro Surgeon Dr.Ekanadham was marked as Ex.P6. Further, P.W.9 opined that the injury No.2 could be caused by a sharp weapon. Having seen the opinion given by the Neuro Surgeon and on the basis of X-ray report, he gave his opinion that injury Nos.1 and 3 mentioned in his report under Ex.P5 are grievous in nature. 11. P.W.10 (Dr.Ram Narsimha Reddy) deposed that he is working as Dy.Civil Surgeon, MGM hospital, Warangal. He examined a patient by name Rajamma on 12-11-1999. When she was referred by another Dr.Ashok Anand, X-rays at four parts of the victim are taken. They are: 1. Skull X-ray there he found no fracture. 2. Mandible (lower jaw portion) there he found fracture right side of body and fracture right ankle of mandible i.e. on the same bone. 3. Left arm- He found no fracture. 4. Left leg and ankle- He found no fracture at that place. The certificate with the above observations was marked as Ex.P7. 12. Having regard to the said evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, coupled with the evidence of the doctors who were examined as P.Ws.9 and 10 and the wound certificates marked as Exs.P.5 to P7, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the petitioner herein beyond reasonable doubt. It is only on the basis of the said evidence, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 498-A IPC and the said well- considered judgments, in my considered opinion, need no interference. 13. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 06th April, 2010. Tsy