THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1352 of 2004 Date: 01.7.2010 Between: Kolusu Venkaiah, Guntur and another …petitioners/accused And 1. The State of A.P rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ………Respondent/complainant THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1352 of 2004 JUDGEMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 16.7.2004 passed in Crl.A.No.412 of 2003 on the file of XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of A1-Kolusu Venkaiah and A2-Kolusu Venkateswararao for the offence under Section 307 IPC passed in S.C.No.17 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:- P.W.1-Dokku Venkamma and P.W.3 Dokku Krishna are wife and husband. They have three daughters. A1- Kolusu Venkaiah and A2- Kolusu Venkateswararao are brothers of P.W.1-Dokku Venkamma. The eldest daughter of P.W.1 & P.W.3 was given in marriage to A2. The marital life of the daughter of P.Ws.1 & 3 with A2 was not well. According to the prosecution, A2 was not looking after his wife properly. The mother of A1 & A2 was also harassing the daughter of P.Ws.1 & 3. On 22.6.2002 P.W.3, and her husband were returning from railway station to the house in an auto rickshaw, P.W.3 questioned the mother of the accused namely Subbamma about the harassment of his daughter. A quarrel ensued between P.W.3 and Subbamma and they abused each other. On 23.6.2002, at about 8.00 A.M., while P.W.3 was at ankamma chettu center near a hospital, A2 came there with a knife and tried to hack him. To ward off the blow, he raised his hand and the knife fell on his left hand and thereby he sustained injury beneath his left thumb. A2 hacked him further on his right arm, right shoulder and on his right side of the chest. In the meanwhile, A1 also came there from eastern direction armed with a knife and hacked on his head four times. He fell unconscious because of the injuries received by him in the hands of A1 & A2. According to P.W.3, A1 & A2 hacked him with an intention to do away his life. P.W.2, who is the brother of P.W.3, witnessed the incident and shifted P.W.3 to hospital for treatment. P.W.4- Dr.T.Sowbhagya Vani examined P.W.3 on 23.6.2002 at about 9.15 A.M., and found the following injuries on his face. “1. An incised injury extending from base of left thumb to first web face measuring 3 x 1 cm bleeding present. 2. A laceration of size 5 x 1 cm on the left parietal prominence of the head. Bleeding present. 3. Swelling of the size 2 x 2 cm on the back of the head red in colour. 4. Laceration of the size 2 x ½ x ½ cm on right parietal region of the head, bleeding present. 5. a laceration on right upper arm and fore arm size 1 x ¼ x ¼ cm and 3 x ½ x ¼ cm. 6. Laceration of the size 2 x ½ x ¼ cm in left axiller.” She issued wound certificate, which has been exhibited as Ex.P3. Ex.P4 is the hospital intimation sent by her to the police. According to her, injury No.1 is grievous in nature. P.W.6-K.Venkateswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station, received Ex.P4 Hospital Intimation from Repalle Government Hospital. He rushed to Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, who is the wife of injured-P.W.3. Ex.P7 is the statement of P.W.1. Based on Ex.P7 statement, he registered a case in Crime No.97 of 2002 under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and issued Ex.P8-First Information Report. He went to the scene along with the mediators and observed the scene of offence. He drafted the scene of offence panchanama, which has been exhibited as Ex.P5. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements in 161 Cr.P.C. He arrested the accused on 28.6.2002 and sent them for remand. In pursuance of the disclosed statement of A1, he recovered M.O.1 knife under the recovery of Ex.P6 panchanama. While observing the scene of offence, he lifted one pair of chappals, blood stained earth and control earth, which have been exhibited as M.O.2 to 4. After completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet in the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Repalle. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C.No.50 of 2002 and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Guntur, as the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session by an order dated 31.12.2002. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, took the case on file as S.C.No.17 of 2003 and made over the same to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on appearance of the accused and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed a charge under Section 307 IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and proved 10 documents and exhibited four material objects. The plea of the accused was that P.W.3 received injuries in the hands of some of his enemies and foisted the case against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused and on considering the evidence brought on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution proved the charge leveled against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months each, by a judgment dated 22.10.2003. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.17 of 2003, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.412 of 2004. The learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur on re-appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC does not warrant interference and thereby dismissed the appeal by a judgment dated 16.7.2004. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- accused and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 5. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused submits that the evidence of P.W.3 is not trustworthy and more so his evidence is not supported by his wife, who has been examined as P.W.1, and in which case the conviction and sentence of the petitioners- accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that P.W.3 has sustained injuries in the hands of some of his enemies and foisted the case against the petitioners. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment impugned in the revision. 7. P.W.3 is the injured. The incident occurred on 23.2.2000 at about 8.00 A.M. P.W.4-Doctor Sowbagyamma, Civil Assistant Surgeon of Community Health Center, Repalle examined P.W.3 at 9.15 A.M and found six injuries on his person and of the six injuries, one injury is stated to be grievous in nature. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. PW.2 is the brother of P.W.3. He testifies that he witnessed the incident and shifted P.W.3 from the scene to the Government Hospital, Repalle. The fact that P.W.3 sustained injuries in the incident is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W.3 being injured is the best witness to speak of the circumstances in which he sustained injuries. P.W.3 testifies that on 23.6.2002, at about 8.00 A.M., while he was at ankamma chettu center hotel, A2 came there with a knife and hacked him and thereafter, A1 also came and hacked him and thereby received injuries in their hands. P.W.2 who is the brother of P.W.3 who corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 in all material particulars. The testimony of P.W.3 is supported by the medical evidence as well as ocular testimony of P.W.2. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and found the petitioners–accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisionment for six months. The appellate Court on re-appreciaton of the evidence did not find any flaw in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.17 of 2003. Since the evidence of P.W.3 is fully corroborated by medical evidence as well as the ocular testimony of P.W.3, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the petitioners-accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled. The petitioners-accused are directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving of the balance sentence of imprisonment. _____________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:01.7.2010 mrb