SETRUCHARLA CHANDRASEKHARA RAJU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision case is directed against the Judgment dated 9-3-1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against all the petitioners by the trial Court by its Judgment dated 3-12-1998 in C.C.No. 141 of 1994 on the file of the Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvatipuram. Each of the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 341,353 and 225 Part-1 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 225 Part-1 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in addition to the sentence of imprisonment for the said offences and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code with the default sentence to suffer simple imprisonment for one week, while directing the substantial sentences to run concurrently inflicted against each of the accused.

(2.) In view of the questions of law raised by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners it is expedient to give the factual matrix germane for better appreciation of the points involved, thus: P.W.I was the Head Constable attached to Kurupam Police Station at the relevant point of time and P.Ws. 2 and 3 were the Police Constables working in the same Police Station along with P.W.1 It is said that the offence took place on 3-11-1993 at 10 p.m. at Chinamerangi village. On that day, according to the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 3 went to the said village for the purpose of apprehending P.W.5 in this case who was alleged to have been concerned in Crime No. 60 of 1993 registered against him under Section 429 of the Indian Penal code. After arresting P.W.5 at his house while they were coming back on their way to the Police Station, at the center in the village, it was further said that A-2 stopped them and informed them that P.W.5 was not accused and alleged to have threatened them also. When A-2 started shouting, number of people gathered there and at that time A-1 was going on a Jeep on that way. A-1 got down the jeep and was making enquiries about the incident with P.W.1. P.W.1 alleged to have told A-1, upon which it is said that A-1 informed P.W.I that as it was night time they could come on the next day and arrest P.W.5. P.W.1 stated to have replied that, as P.W.5 was wanted in a cognizable offence he was arrested and being taken. Thereupon, A-1 said to have exhorted that P.W.I should be taken to task and pushed P.W.I by holding flap of his shirt and in sequel thereto the button of the shirt came out. It is the further case of the prosecution that A-1 asked A-4 Village Administrative Officer who came there as to whether he was informed about the arrest of P.W.5 by P.W.1 Thereupon, all the accused alleged to have taken away P.W.5 from the lawful custody of P.W.I. At that time, it was further stated that the brother of A-1 by name Vijayarama Raju, Member of Parliament came there, subsided the matter and asked them to go away. On a report in Ex.P-1 lodged by P.W.1, on their return to the Police Station, a crime was registered against the accused and investigated into. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against all the accused.

(3.) At the time of the trial, 11 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, out of them P.Ws. 4 to 11 have shown their volte face and had not supported the case of the prosecution. There remains the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3. On an appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that "the offences alleged against the accused had been proved and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. On the appeal filed by the convicted accused having been aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against them, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, discussed elaborately about the various discrepancies and infirmities pointed out at the time of hearing and ultimately had come to the conclusion that they would weigh with the Court and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 was credible and could be safely relied upon without any hesitation. Having observed so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against all the accused. As against the said Judgment as aforesaid, the petitioners filed the present revision assailing both the conviction and sentences passed against them.