ROKKALA SAIMANRAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is directed against the order of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, in P.R.C.S.R.No.6610/1996, dated 28-2-1997 rejecting the complaint on two grounds viz., (1) mat it is filed after 4 years of the occurrence and hence belated and 2 that the police filed a charge-sheet and the same has been committed to the Court of Sessions and it is pending before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem as S.C.No.303/1994.

(2.) The revision petitioner has been residing in the house of Respondent No.3 Cheruvuri Venkata Satyaprasad as a tenant and that he was being pressed to vacate the premises. There were disputes in that connection between the revision petitioner and Respondent No.3 and Rent Control Proceedings were initiated. While so, Respondents Nos.2 to 6 are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and came in an Ambassador car on 24-9-1992 between 7.30 and 7.45 p.m. and waylaid the revision petitioner who was on his way to his house on a motor cycle and when he reached Satyavathi Nagar centre which is at a distance of 10 yards from his house, the incident occurred. Respondent No.2 caught hold of the left hand of the revision petitioner with bis right hand and Respondent No.3 pushed him from behind; that Respondents 4 to 6 dragged him towards the car; that Respondent No.6 opened the rear door of the car and entered the car and dragged the revision petitioner by pulling his hands and Respondent No.5 pushed him into the car and sat along with him in the rear seat and Respondent No.3 also sat by his side. Respondent No.2 was at the wheel and Respondent No.4 sat in the front seat. The window panes of the car were closed and they abducted him towards Itikelagunta via Masidupeta and Kunchanapalli Cheruvu road. They abused the revision petitioner stating that he failed to vacate the house in spite of a direction by the Circle Inspector of Police and that he reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police and that Superintendent of Police himself instructed them to kill him. They also threatened that if he fails to vacate the house by next afternoon, they would commit rape upon his daughters and kill his sons. He was tripped of his clothes and Respondent No.2 took out his purse containing Rs.565/- from his pant pocket and gave it to Respondent No.6 and he also took his wrist watch of HMT make worth Rs. 1,800/ and then they demanded him to sign three blank white papers and three papers containing revenue stamps and on his refusal, Respondent No.2 beat him with a stick on his right chest, Respondent No.6 on the front side of the head with an iron rod, Respondent No.5 on the eye lids with an iron spoke and Respondent No.3 also beat on the left side of chest with an iron rod. Thus, Respondents 2 to 6 terrorised the revision petitioner and coerced him to put his signatures on 3 blank white papers and three stamp blank papers and did not permit him to move even thereafter. Then they once again abused him and stopped the car near Itikelagunta where Respondent No.2 dealt a blow with an iron rod on the centre of the head causing grievous injury, Respondent No.4 dealt a blow with the blunt side of knife on the left upper arm and Respondent No.3 caused an injury with a blunt edged knife on the left side of the chest while Respondent No.4 dealt a blow with an iron rod on the upper lip and Respondent No.5 attempted to stab him with a knife on his neck, but the revision petitioner stretched his hands with a view to ward off the same and in doing so, he sustained injuries on his middle finger, ring finger and little finger of the right hand. Thus, the narration went on till the revision petitioner fell unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he found himself near the coconut garden of Itikelegunta.

(3.) This incident has been narrated by him in the complaint filed before the lower Court.