DASARI RAM BABU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking Ss. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. this criminal revision case is filed by two convicts assailing the judgments of Courts below in convicting them and sentencing them for the offence under Sec. 326 I.P.C. Respondent herein is the State.

(2.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Police Station of Chittoor District investigated into Crime No.69 of 2003 and laid charge sheet for the offences under Ss. 307 and 326 I.P.C. before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Puttur. That was registered as P.R.C.No.2 of 2004. On securing the presence of the accused, copies of documents in terms of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. After hearing both sides, in terms of Sec. 209 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case and forwarded the accused to the Court of Sessions. When it was made over to learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Puttur in S.C.No.164 of 2004, the accused and prosecution were heard and based on the material charges under Ss. 307, 326 and 324 I.P.C. were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused denied the truth of the allegations and pleaded not guilty. During trial PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were exhibited. Accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. where the incriminating material available on record was confronted to them. They denied the truth of it. In defence, the accused did not choose to adduce any evidence. After considering the evidence on record and the arguments on both sides, learned trial Court recorded its findings stating that grievous injuries were caused to the victim/PW.2 by these two accused using billhooks/M.Os.5 and 6. It observed that from the evidence it did not find any intention on part of the accused to kill the victim. Therefore, it acquitted them of the charge under Sec. 307 I.P.C. It found that out of three injuries sustained by the victim/PW.2, two injuries were grievous as they resulted in fractures and therefore, it found both the accused guilty for the charge under Sec. 326 I.P.C. Since the charge under Sec. 326 I.P.C. established, it thought that the charge under Sec. 324 I.P.C. did not survive and therefore, acquitted them of the charge under Sec. 324 I.P.C. For the offence under Sec. 326 I.P.C., as it found the accused guilty, it convicted them and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, failing which they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The period of remand underwent by the accused were given set off in terms of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The convicts challenged that judgment in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2006. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati on hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the evidence on record, rendered its judgment on 22/6/2009 wherein it agreed with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed the guilt and conviction of the accused for the offence under Sec. 326 I.P.C. When it came to the sentence, it recorded at para No.17 of its judgment that during the course of arguments, the appellants/defence prayed the Court to reduce the sentence from five years to one year. The reasons for reduction were also recorded and then the learned Sessions Judge reduced the punishment from five years to one year and kept in-tact the component of fine along with its default sentence.

(3.) It is that judgment which is challenged in this revision by both the convicts stating that the Courts below went on to accept the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which remained not supported by any independent witness. Police did not record the statement of PW.2 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. The panch witnesses for scene of observation report, arrest mahazar of accused and report concerning recovery of crime weapons did not support the prosecution version. PW.1 is the very brother of PW.2 and is thus an interested witness. That there was an earlier enmity between parties because of another case in C.C.No.126 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur and therefore, absence of independent witnesses is a vital defect. The evidence on record is contradictory. That these revision petitioners are responsible ryots and have no earlier criminal record. For all these reasons, the learned counsel for revision petitioners submit that the judgments of the Courts below shall be set aside and these revision petitioners be acquitted.