S VENKAT REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-2002 passed in Crl. A. No.124 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Anantapur, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the conviction of Appellants 1 to 5/A1 to A5 (A.I-S. Venkata Reddy, A2-S. Papi Reddy, A3-S. Romana Reddy, A4-S. Venkatanarayana Reddy and A5-S. Krishna Reddy) from Sections 307 to 326 IPC read with 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months while confirming their conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 148 IPC passed in S.C. No.220 of 1997 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is : The accused are residents of Alankarayunipeta Village in Singanamala Mandal. Al is father of A2 to A5. The de- facto complainant i.e., P.W.I Ramasiva Reddy also belongs to the same village and he is close relative of the accused. P.W.I, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are brothers, and P.W.2 and P.Ws.5 and 6 are their maternal uncle and parents respectively. Besides their relationship inter se, they are neighbours to each other. There was a dispute between P.W.I, P.Ws.3 to 6 on one side and the accused on the other side with regard to flow of drain water and there used to be quarrels on that score. On 31.5.1995 at about 6 p.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sticks and sickles with a common object of attacking P.W.I and his men. It is alleged that A5 beat P.W. 1 with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury to him. When P.W.2 came in rescue of P.W.1, Al and A5 beat him with sickles and caused injuries to him and thereby he too sustained injury. When P.W.3 intervened, A3 and A4 beat him. It is also alleged that A2 hacked P.W.4 with a sickle on his head and whereas A3 beat P.W.5 with a sickle on his shoulders and A2 beat P.W.6 with a sickle on the right hand. P.W.8 Mala Rushinagappa and one Mala Adinarayana witnessed the occurrence. On a report presented by P.W.I, a case in Cr.No.19 of 1995 under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 IPC has been registered by the Station House Officer, Singanamala Police Station. Ex.P.8 is the FIR sent by the Station House Officer to Court. The Station House Officer (P.W.9) inspected the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and prepared Ex.P.9 rough sketch of the scene of offence. P.W.7 Dr. B.V.N. Chowdary medically examined P.Ws.l to 6 and issued Exs.P.2 to P.7 wound certificates. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapur. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as P.R.C.No.49 of 1996 and committed the case to the Court of Session. Learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No.220 of 1997 and made over the case to Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur for disposal according to law. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 148 and 307 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the same to them. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, the prosecution examined P.Ws.l to 9 and marked Exs.P.l to P.9. On behalf of the accused, they marked contradictions in Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.l to 5 as Exs.Dl to D5. It is the defence of the accused that P.Ws.l to 5 attacked Al and A2 and caused injuries to them and thereupon Al presented a report which formed the basis for registering a case in Cr.No.20/95 in Singanamala Police Station against P.W.I and others. The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record, found Al to A5 guilty for the offences under Sections 148 and 307 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1998 on the file of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. On re- appreciation of the evidence the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur modified the conviction of the appellants from Section 307 IPC to 326 read with 149 IPC while confirming their conviction for the offence under Section 148 IPC. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused.

(3.) It is settled law that when a conviction is recorded by the Trial Judge and upheld by the first Appellate Court, re- appreciation of the evidence cannot be done unless there is miscarriage of justice. It is held in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, 1999 Crl.LJ 1443, that