Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Gedala Ganeswara Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of AP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2018 and Transfer Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2022
Subject
Criminal Law - Assault
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.307, S.353, S.34, S.447, S.506, S.323
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307, 34, 353, 447, 506, 323 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 313 – Offence punishable - Attempt to murder- Punishment for criminal trespass - Punishment for criminal intimidation - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Several persons in furtherance of common intention - Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty -Whether prosecution is able to bring home guilt of appellants/A.1 to A.3 for offences alleged them beyond reasonable doubt –Held, Court, on perusing evidence on record, found that there is absolutely no untoward incident said to have taken place - On first instance, P.W.1 states that they narrowly escaped from pet dogs and got down from house of A.1. Thereafter, once again, police personnel went to house of A.1, and on instigation of A.2, dogs attacked and one of dogs had bitten P.W.1 and caught hold of blue colour jeans pant and tore it away - There is absolutely no recovery made to come to conclusion whether pant was torn or not - P.W.1 was not referred to Doctor and no Doctor has been examined by prosecution to prove case that incident is said to have been taken place on said date - On a perusal of evidence of P.W.1 would also go to show that P.W.1 had written mobile number of A.3 on his palm and he was reading out number by looking at palm while giving evidence - Same was pointed out by even trial Court - On a reading of entire evidence would make it clear that incident did not happen as put forth by prosecution - Present complaint seems to have filed been filed as a counter blast to case which has been filed by A.2 against P.W.1 –Ordered Accordingly.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ch Venkat Raman
JUDGMENT :
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2018 is A.1, and the appellants in Transfer Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021 are A.2 and A.3, in Sessions Case No.77 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) against A.1; for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against A.2, and for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 353 read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3.
2. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 19.02.2018, found A.1 and A.2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accordingly acquitted them of the said charge, and found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353 read with 34 IPC and accordingly convicted them of the said offences. As A.1 was absent on the date of pronouncement of the Judgment on 19.02.2018, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrant against him for his production, for hearing him with regard to quantum of sentence. After hearing A.2 and A.3 with regard to quantum of sentence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months each, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, and further sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months each, for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with 34 IPC.
3. On 04.06.2018, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge heard A.1 with regard to quantum of sentence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, and further sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months, for the offence punishable under Section 353 read with 34 IPC.
4. Challenging the convictions and sentences recorded against him, A.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2018 before this Court. A.2 and A.3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2018 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, challenging the convictions and sentences recorded against them. The said appeal was withdrawn from the file of the learned Sessions Judge and transferred to the file of this Court for hearing along with Criminal Appeal No.1622 of 2018, as per order dated 24.09.2019 in Transfer Criminal petition No.33 of 2019, and renumbered as Transfer Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2021.
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli and the Inspector of Police, Anakapalli town, on 23.04.2010, P.W.1-Sub Inspector of Police along with P.W.2 and others, went to arrest A.1, who was absconding, in connection with crime No.8 of 2010 of Sabbavaram police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 and 323 IPC. They went to house of A.1 at Vizianagaram at about 1.00 PM on that day and found A.1 in the house. A.1 identified P.W.1 and others as police personnel and instigated his pet dogs i.e. Rotwillers, which are two in number, against them with a view to kill them and assaulted through the said dogs from discharging their duties. P.W.1, who was leading the team, was attacked by the dogs. But, P.W.1 narrowly escaped and got down from the steps of first floor of house of A.1. P.W.1 noticed the Inspector of ACB by name Satyanarayana at the ground floor of house of A.1. On enquiry, the Inspector of ACB informed that he came there for valuation of assets of A.1 in connection with ACB case against A.1. The Inspector of ACB requested P.W.1 to stop their investigatio
