RACHAMALIA SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioners who are A-3 and A-4 in the Sessions case (hereinafter referred to as A-3 and A-4) and two others who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 were charged under Sections 120-B, 395, 397 and 438 I.P.C. by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.267/89. The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur after examining P.Ws.1 to 18 including the driver P.W.10, held all the accused guilty for the offences under Sec.120-B I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; held that all the accused were found guilty for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. and sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year; held that all the accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 397 1PC and sentenced all the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and lastly held that all the accused guilty for the offence under Section 399 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each, The learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused for the offence under Section 438 I.P.C. He further directed that P.Ws.1 and 4 be paid each Rs.1,000/- out of the fine amount if received. Aggrieved by the said sentences and convictions, A-3 and A-4 (the present revision petitioners) filed Criminal Appeals 118 and 117 respectively, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Guntur. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur by his judgment dated November 19,1990 allowed both the appeals by a common judgment. The result portion of the said judgment is as follows:

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners filed the present revision stating that the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing further enquiry is not in accordance with law. As such, it has to be seen whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in directing further enquiry in accordance with law.

(3.) Before proceeding further, it has to be seen that P.W.10 the driver was not admittedly examined in the committal court and the same is fatal for the committal proceedings, as laid down in Vijayaraj Paul vs. State.