HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1119 OF 2004 DATED 6th JULY, 2010. BETWEEN Chinnakannachary Kumar @ C.K.Kumar …..Petitioner/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1119 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.7.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2002 by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner/Accused for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 307, 332 and 355 IPC in the order dated 9.4.2002 in C.C.No. 164 of 1996 by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner/accused was in possession of 70 x 36 feet of land belonging to Endowment Department and he was paying monthly rent to the department for the occupation of the matam (Sri Lakshmi Narayanaswami Temple) land. In the year 1996, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department instructed the accused to remove the structures and handover the land to the Department. They also filed a suit in the Court at Tirupathi. In the month of October,1999, the Executive Oﬃcer informed the accused that the Court has passed judgment in fovour of the Endowment Department pertaining to the Matam land and also issued orders for removal of encroachments. When the accused tried to pay the rent of Rs.40,000/- and also monthly rents for the said matam land, the Executive Officer did not oblige and he had evicted the encroachments with the aid of police. Since then the accused bore grudge against the Executive Oﬃcer. While so on 11.8.2000, as per the orders of the Commissioner, Endowment Department, A.P., Hyderabad, dated 9.8.2000, the Executive Oﬃcer while discharging his duties as public servant evicting the encroachers from the said Matam land, the accused who was waiting for chance, armed with a knife attacked the Executive Oﬃcer, beat him with hands and kicked with legs. He also stabbed him with knife on right side of chest and on his left elbow and caused bleeding injuries with an intention to kill him. The S.I. of police, who was attending his duty there witnessed the same and rescued the Executive Oﬃcer from the hands of the Executive Oﬃcer and saved his life. The police registered the same and investigated into. Then and there the police apprehended the accused and after ﬁling the charge sheet, the trial Court took the cognisance of the case on ﬁle in PRC.No. 27 of 2000 for the oﬀences under Sections 307, 332 and 355 IPC against the accused. The trial Court on a full-ﬂedged trial and appreciation of the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 307, 332 and 355 of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I. for ﬁve years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.1000/-, in default to suﬀer S.I. for three months for the oﬀence under Section 307 IPC and also sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and six months for the offences under Sections 332 and 355 IPC. On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 91 of 2002 preferred by the petitioner/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal conﬁrming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the ﬁnding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. The present revision is ﬁled against the concurrent ﬁnding of the Courts below. This Court normally would not interfere with the concurrent ﬁndings recorded by the Courts below and re- appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that the entire evidence adduced by P.W.1 does not disclose any oﬀence punishable against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. This Court perused the entire evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein having bore grudge against P.W.1, caused severe bleeding injuries and committed grave oﬀence and hence an oﬀence under Section 307 IPC was registered against him. This Court perused the evidence adduced by P.W.1, which runs as follows: “ At about 7.00 PM on the same day, while I was about to prepare panchanama of eviction proceedings, the accused herein who is ﬁrst son of Rukkamma came with a knife and kicked me with his left leg on the kidneys spot. I am a diabetic patient and blood pleasure was increased due to act of the accused and I fell down. I raised alaram. S.I. of police, Venkatanarayana and C.I. of police Karunakaran came to my rescue and saved my life. They caught the accused red handedly at the scene. I was shifted to hospital by police and the other police oﬃcials took the accused to the Police Station. After my discharge from hospital, I lodged complaint before police at about 8.00 PM on the same day. Ex.P.1 is my complaint. The plan was hatched by the other encroachers by name Eswara Mudaliar, son of Munaswamy Mudaliar, K.C.Subbarayudu, S/o Venkatesh who involved in OA.No. 6/2000 and 10/2000. The said persons instigated the accused to kill me as I initiated drastic action against the encroachers since 30 years without paying any rent, to protect the interest of temple. So with an intention to kill me the aforesaid encroachers instigated the accused. Police examined me. MO.1 is the knife. P.W.1 recalled sowrn for cross examination for A-1to A.3. On the date of incident itself, I went to hospital for treatment arount 7.00 or 7.30 PM. Around 7.30 PM on the same day I lodged Ex.P.1 before police after taking treatment. I am the scribe of Ex.P.1. As per Ex.P.1 the alleged oﬀence had taken place at 7.00 PM. As per Ex.P.1, Kumar (A.1 herein) was apprehended by S.I. of police Venkataranayana of East Police at the scene itself. At the time of my implementation of eviction proceedings, the S.I. of Police was present at the scene. I went to evict one Sri Devanation. As per Ex.P.1 the alleged oﬀence had taken place after the eviction proceedings. As per Ex.P.1 Devanation resisted eviction proceedings. After going through Ex.P.1 the witness stated that A.1 though armed with knife did not use it. In Ex.P.1 I used the word ‘prediction’ and it is also stated that ‘to my predictions on 11.8.2000 he came with a sharp knife. Prediction means according to me an idea formed in the mind of culprit to kill me. In Ex.P.1 I have stated that A.1 kicked me with legs and not used any weapon.” To attract the oﬀence under Section 307 IPC, there must be an attempt to murder with an intention to kill a person. Even according to the case of prosecution and the prosecution witnesses and injured person, the petitioner/accused was in possession of the weapon, but perusal of their evidence discloses that he had not used the same against PW.1. The evidence of P.W.1 further reveals that the petitioner/accused caused injuries with hands and legs. The evidence of the aggrieved party i.e. P.W.1 clearly reveals that the petitioner herein was not having intention to cause death of the defacto complainant. If it was the intention of the petitioner, nothing prevented him from using the knife at the time of occurrence. In view of the same, the oﬀence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted, but it is only an oﬀence under Section 323 IPC having the petitioner/accused caused bleeding injuries to the defacto complainant. As per the medical evidence, i.e. Wound Certiﬁcate marked at Ex.P.5, it reveals that an abrasion on the right side of chest to the right side of nipple and abrasion over left elbow, tenderness over neck 3 cm region and the said injuries are simple in nature. Considering the same, this Court has no hesitation to hold that oﬀence under Section 307 IPC was not established against the petitioner/accused, however, the same is only an offence under Section 323 IPC. As far as the oﬀence under Section 332 IPC is concerned, P.W.1 being a Government Servant was prevented by the petitioner/accused from discharging his legitimate duties. As the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to deter the public servant (P.W.1) from his duty, the same is attracted an oﬀence under Section 332 IPC and as the petitioner used criminal force intending thereby to dishonour P.W.1, the same is attracted an oﬀence under Section 355 IPC. In that view of the matter, the oﬀence alleged against the petitioner/accused under Section 307 IPC is set aside and, as such, the imprisonment ordered by the trial Court and conﬁrmed by the lower appellate Court on the said count is also set aside. Inasmuch as the incident took place in the year 2000, that the same took place in a spur of moment, that the petitioner has already suﬀered a stigma of conviction in the society and that, after a decade of incident, if the petitioner is ordered to suﬀer imprisonment imposed by the Courts below for the remaining charges, the same may cause prejudice to him as he being the breadwinner of his family members. Considering the same, the sentence imposed by the Courts below on the petitioner/accused for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 332 and 355 IPC is set aide and in its place, the petitioner is directed to pay ﬁne of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 332, 355 and 323 IPC respectively. Subject to the above modiﬁcation in conviction and sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 6th July, 2010. Msnr.