JEEDIPALLI BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of the report given by N. Chakravarthula Ramaseshacharyulu, a case in Crime No.39 of 1996 was registered against Nagendla China Chennaiah of Seethanagulavaram village and three others for the alleged offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that there are eight accused persons and hence, A1 to A7 were arrested on 17.9.1996 and the said China Chennaiah, who is arrayed as 8th accused, was arrested on 24.9.1996. After completion of the investigation in Crime No.39 of 1996, the Sub-Inspector of Police, T.V.Palli Police Station filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 386 and 386 read with 120-B of IPC. As the 6th accused by name K. Danial was absconding, the case was split up and the petitioners herein were tried in the said case. During the course of trial, the complainant was examined as P.W.1, his brother was examined as P.W.2 and eight more witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Similarly, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The trial Court i.e., the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili, having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that A1 to A4 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 386 IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.250 /- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Similarly, the remaining accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 386 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The said judgment of the trial Court dated 20th September, 2001 was questioned by all the accused including the petitioners herein by filing Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2001 and the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, ONgole by judgment dated 15th day of October, 2004, while holding that accused Nos.2, 5, 7 and 8 are not guilty of any of the offences for which they were tried, acquitted them. But however, insofar as the petitioners herein i.e., A1, A3 and A4 are concerned, the appellate Court confirmed the said sentence of three years for the offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC and thus, the appellate Court dismissed the said appeal insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. The said judgment dated 15.10.2004 passed by the appellate Court is questioned in this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: Accused Nos.1 to 7 are close associates of accused No.8. All the accused hatched up a plan to extort money from the people by using the name of naxalites. On 19.7.1996 during night time, A1 to A7 went to Seethanagulavaram village and then, A1, A3 and A4 went to the house of P.W.1 and woke him up and demanded him a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing AK 47 Gun. But P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. A1, A3 and A4 searched the house of P.W.1 and found nothing. At last, P.W.1 due to fear agreed to give an amount of Rs.30,000/-. THEn, A8 was fetched to the house of P.W.1 and A8 was warned in the presence of P.W.1 as per their plan and asked P.W.1 to send money through A8 on the next day and also threatened him not to inform the same to anyone. On 20.7.1996 P.W.1, in the presence of P.W.2 gave Rs.10,000/- to A8 and made a request to inform the accused that he can provide that much only and cannot arrange rest of the amount. On 22.7.1996 while P.W.1 was coming to his village from Markapur, the same accused stopped P.W.1 near Poolasubbaiah colony and questioned about the rest of the amount. THEn, the accused directed P.W.1 to arrange money by 26.7.1996 and they would come to his house and take that amount. P.W.1 was also threatened not to reveal the incident to anybody. On 26.7.1996 at about 1.00 p.m., A1 to A4 went to the house of P.W.1 and by that time P.Ws.2 and 3 were also present there. P.W.1 gave Rs.10,000/- to A1 to A4. Subsequently, on 27.8.1996 P.W.1 received a letter in the name of Tiger Dalam directing P.W.1 to hand over remaining Rs.10,000/- to A8 and not to do any harm to A8 and if so, P.W.1 and his family would be killed. Subsequently, P.W.1 came to know the involvement of A8 in the incident and later having confirmed that the accused are not naxalites, on 15.9.1996 he gave a report to the police and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.39 of 1996 under Sections 384 IPC and subsequently, the same was altered to Section 386 IPC. During the course of investigation, A1, A3, A4 and A5 and another person were caught by the police and A1 produced a jip bag containing Rs.20,000/- and the same was seized in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed the charge sheet.

(3.) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, this Court looked into the evidence. It is true that the alleged incident took place on 19.7.1996 and the report was given after about two months i.e., on 15.9.1996. Definitely it can be said that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The delay alone cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution provided there is some sort of explanation. P.W.1 while giving the report as well as during the course of evidence has in unequivocal terms stated that he was under the impression that the persons who visited his house on 19.7.1996 are nexalites and in those circumstances, he could not report the matter to the police at the earliest point of time. It is common knowledge that in villages, the people have threats from nexalites. IN those circumstances, it cannot be expected that the aggrieved person shall immediately rush to the police station and report the matter. Here, the prosecution has come forward with further explanation stating that P.W.1 after coming to know that the said persons are not nexalites and it is only falsity, then only he gave the said report on 15.9.1996. IN my considered view this explanation can definitely be accepted.