THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1350 of 2004 Dated:17.06.2010 Between: Parisepogu Peraiah @ Yesaiah and others .. Petitioners And The State, Station House Officer, Kanigiri Police Station, Prakasam District, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .. Respondent ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, Prakasam District, whereby and whereunder, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal partly modifying the conviction of petitioner Nos.2 to 4/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC to 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for causing grievous hurt to PW.1 while confirming the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 324 and 324 read with 34 IPC for causing simple injury to PW.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: PW.1 – Gandam Samson is the father of PW.3 – Gandam Prasad and husband of PW.4 - Gandam Dayamma. PW.2 - Parisapogu Danamma is nephew of PW.1. A-1 Parisepogu Devaiah is the father of A-2 to A-4, namely, Parisipogu Peeraiah, Parisepogu Prabhudas and Parisepogu Prasad. A-5 Parisepogu Shantamma is the wife of A- 1. All of them are residents of Ballipalli Harijanapalem Village. On 02.07.1994, while PW.3 was going to school, A-4 beat him with hands and legs. PW.3 informed the same to PW.1. Thereafter, A-1 to A-5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and stones and went to the house of PW.1 at 5.00 p.m. They abused PW.1 and his family members in filthy language. When PW.1 came out of the house, A-3 tried to beat him with a stick. But he managed to escape from the blow. Thereupon, A-1 beat him on nose with a stick causing bleeding injury and A-2 beat him with a stick on his mouth causing bleeding injury. When PW.2 tried to rescue PW.1, A-4 pelted stones on PW.2 and caused injury on her left foot. It is further alleged that when PW.4 came out of the house, A-3 and A-5 beat her with hands and legs and caused injuries. In the meanwhile, PWs.5 and 6, who are the neighbours, reached the scene and witnessed the incident. PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report before the Station House Officer, Kanigiri Police Station. PW.8 - K.Parandhamaiah, Head Constable made an entry in the General Diary and sent PW.1 to hospital for treatment. PW.7 - Dr.T.Audilakhmamma examined PW.1 on 02.07.1994 at 10.45 p.m., and found the following injuries. 1. Irregular abrasion on the upper part of the nose below the two eyebrows size 2 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. 2. Small irregular abrasion on the tip of the nose size 0.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. 3. Irregular abrasion above the upper lip on the right side size 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate issued by her. PW.8 received Ex.P4 - wound certificate on 15.07.1994 at 5.00 p.m. He registered a case in Crime No.52 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC and issued Ex.P6 - First Information Report. He inspected the scene of offence, which is situated in front of the house of PW.1, and prepared Ex.P7 - rough sketch. He examined PWs.1 to 6 and recorded the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He sent PW.2 to hospital for treatment on 03.07.1994. PW.7 - Dr. T.Audilakshmamma examined PW.2 and found swelling on the left foot with tenderness. She issued Ex.P5 - wound certificate opining that the injuries found on PW.2 are simple in nature. PW.9 - V.Srinivasa Rao took up investigation on 16.07.1994. PW.8 arrested A-5 on 23.07.1994 at 9.00 a.m. at Ballipalli Harijanapalem and sent him to judicial custody. After completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.102 of 1998. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Magistrate framed the charges for the offences under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with 149 IPC, read over and explained the same to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited seven documents. The plea of the accused is one of the total denial of the case. The further plea of the accused is that PW.1 is habituated to take liquor and while he was in inebriated mood, he fell down and thereby he sustained injuries. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found A-1 to A-4 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC for causing injury to PW.1 and further found them guilty for the offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC for causing simple injury to PW.2. However, the learned Magistrate found them not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 326 read with 149, 324 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 IPC, and accordingly acquitted them. The accused challenged their conviction and sentences for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC and 324 read with 34 IPC by filing Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole. Pending the appeal, appellant/A-1 died. Hence, the appeal against A-1 came to be dismissed as abated. The learned Sessions Judge, on reappraisal of the evidence and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the appeal in part and modified the conviction of the appellants/A-2 to A-4 from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC by judgment dated 04.08.2004. Hence, this Revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and therefore no credence can be given to their testimony. A further submission has been made that the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 are trivial in nature and therefore imprisonment of fine would meet the ends of justice. PW.1 and 2 are the injured. PWs.3 and 4 are the witnesses to the incident. As PWs.5 and 6 did not support the prosecution, the prosecution declared them as hostile. PW.7 is the doctor, who examined PWs.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P4 and P5 - wound certificates respectively. PW.8 is the Head Constable, who made an entry in the General diary and sent PW.1 to hospital and thereafter received wound certificate, which has been exhibited as Ex.P4, and registered a case in Crime No.52 of 1994 and issued Ex.P6 - First Information Report. PW.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who laid the charge sheet after completing the investigation. PWs.1 and 2 stated that A-1 to A-4 came up on them, beat them and thereby they received injuries. The same is corroborated by the medical evidence. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to reject the testimony of PWs.1 and 2. Of course, with regard to the injury sustained by PW.1, it seems to be simple in nature. With regard to the injury received by PW.2, it appears to be trivial. Considering the nature of injuries received by PWs.1 and 2 and so also the fact of death of A-1 to whom specific overt acts are attributed with regard to causing injuries to PW.1, pending the appeal, I am of the view that the sentence already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice while retaining the fine. It appears that the petitioners have already served sentence of about ten days. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners for the offence under Sections 324 and 324 read with 34 IPC to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine imposed by the appellate Court. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 17.06.2010 KH