Back
2010 Supreme(AP) 613
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR
Angadi Srinivasa Rao & Others
Versus
The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor
Criminal Revision Case No.1772 of 2004
Decided on : 15-07-2010
For the Petitioners:K. Suresh Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 307 and 401 – Arms Act – Section 25 (1B) (a) - Explosive Substances Act – Section 5 – Rowdy-sheeter – Criminal activities – Convicted – Appeal against conviction – Power to direct tender of pardon - Commitment of case but before judgment is passed - Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view is Secretary– He was a rowdy-sheeter indulged in various criminal activities – Prosecution case is that on credible information that some persons were hiding in the house of A-1 with deadly weapons and explosive substances, P.W.1 raided house of A-1 bearing along - Circle Inspector of Police Sub-Inspector of Police and other police staff on intervening night was found to be in possession of a Service Revolver with six rounds of cartridges was found to be in possession of a country made revolver and five rounds of bullets were found to be in possession of Knives in leather cover white plastic tin containing a bomb in cotton and blue colour plastic tin containing a bomb respectively. They had no licences to carry the material objects at the time of raid. M.O.7 – Country made Revolver leather zip bag were also found in the house slip was also found containing the description of A-1 on the side of the said VIP leather zip bag - All the incriminating material were seized under cover of police proceedings - There were no mediators at the time of conducting police proceedings and seizure of incriminating material. P.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case basing on the said police proceedings in Crime under Sections and Section of the Arms Act and Section of the Explosive Substances Act and issued FIR. – Held, independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them - Prosecution that the search was conducted in forest area where no other person could be available. Search is conducted in residential locality - Admittedly the house of A-1 was surrounded by several residential houses - Prosecution witness that the accused remained in the house of with the arms in their possession in spite of observing the arrival of police and did not try to flee away from the house - Court should examine whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses is probable natural and whether the events deposed by them occur in natural course of events - Where it appears that the version is unnatural, improbable and against normal human conduct, the Courts have to reject the same - What is to be seen is whether the prosecution is inspiring confidence or no - Evidence appears to be unnatural and it is not safe to convict the accused on the interested testimonies - Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and their findings which are perverse are liable to be set aside - Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 307 and 401 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 11.10.2004 passed in Crl.A.No.611 of 2001 by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dated 26.11.2001 passed in S.C.No.796 of 1998 by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur. The first petitioner herein (A-2) was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months along with A-1. Similarly, the other petitioners i.e. A-3, A-5, A-7 and A-8 respectively were also found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 25 (1B)
(a) R/w. Section 35 of the Arms Act and were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said judgment, this revision has been filed.
2. Originally, there were eight accused persons in total before the trail Court and since A-1, A-4 and A-6 are no more, remaining accused i.e. A-2, A-3, A-5, A-7 and A-8 filed this revision challenging the said judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
A-1 is Secretary of CPI (ML) Praja Panda Party. He was a rowdy-sheeter indulged in various criminal activities. A-2 is son of A-1 who is also a rowdy-sheeter in Nagarapalem Law and Order Police Station. A-6 to A-8 are also rowdy-sheeters. A-2 and A-8 are followers of A-1. There was a rivalry between CPI(ML) Praja Panda Party led by A-1 and CPI group led by one Kummari Koteswara Rao. The prosecution case is that on credible information that some persons were hiding in the house of A-1 with deadly weapons and explosive substances, P.W.1 – A.Ravichandra, the then SDPO, Guntur, raided the house of A-1 bearing door No.26-31-144/A of A.T.Agraharam, 5th Lane, Guntur, along with P.W.2 – Y.Brahmaiah, Circle Inspector of Police, P.W.3 – K.Ramesh Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, and other police staff on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd June, 1995 at about 01:30 A.M. A-1 was found to be in possession of a Service Revolver with six rounds of cartridges (M.O.1), A-2 was found to be in possession of a country made revolver and five rounds of bullets (M.O.2) and A-3 to A-6 and A-8 were found to be in possession of Thalwar Knives in leather cover (M.O.3), button knife (M.O.4), G.I.Pipe (M.O.5), white plastic tin containing a bomb in cotton (M.O.6) and blue colour plastic tin containing a bomb respectively. They had no licences to carry the material objects at the time of raid. M.O.7 – Country made Revolver, M.O.8 – VIP leather zip bag were also found in the house of A-1. A slip was also found containing the description of A-1 on the side of the said VIP leather zip bag. All the incriminating material were seized under cover of police proceedings. There were no mediators at the time of conducting police proceedings and seizure of incriminating material. P.W.3 – K.Ramesh Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case basing on the said police proceedings in Crime No.84 of 1995 under Sections 25 (c) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and issued FIR.
P.W.2 took up investigation and made the country made bombs defused and sent the seized revolvers and cartridges to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and after receiving of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 reports from Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, and after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against all the accused.
4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur, and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges and the case was made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, (for short, ‘trial Court’). The trial Court framed necessary charges for the o
