IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Mattaparthi Venkatarao - Petitioner
Versus
Tatiparthi Suresh Pradhu & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 1028 of 2009
Decided On : 30-01-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 143 and 307 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 235(1) and 313 - Offence of Unlawful assembly - Attempt to murder - Charged - All accused are residents and belonging to Schedule Community - There is a water tank called as "Rajakula Cheruvu" in Arundatiyapeta, Narsapur and water is being utilized by both and people for washing clothes since long time - About one year back, some differences arose in between both communities in respect to the right over said tank. people claimed right as tank is known as "Rajakula Cheruvu" and people claimed tank, as said tank is located in their vicinity - Municipal Authorities intervened and ordered that both communities have no claim of right over said tank, as it is classified as Municipal Tank - Rajaka people are rearing fish in said tank - Whether the judgment in S.C.No.286 of 2006, on file of Assistant Sessions Judge , dated suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order? - Held, It is to be noticed that as prosecution did not examine the investigating officer, accused were deprived of an opportunity to establish that the overt acts attributed by P.W.2 against A.3 and A.8 are omissions - Further accused could not elicit from mouth of investing officer about Exs.D.1 to D.6. So, it is very clear that P.W.1 did not adhere to case of prosecution by speaking about contents of Ex.P.1 - He deposed in cross examination a different scene of offence at Station Road and spoken about 15 people are with him and all of them came to Station Road - It is elicited form mouth of prosecution witnesses that P.W.1 is an accused in SC & ST case filed by accused party and it was pending for trial as on date of trial in this case - Though, P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured, but on account of previous disputes their evidence has to be scrutinized with care and caution - Prosecution witnesses miserably failed to depose the facts according to prosecution case - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, who is the Prosecution Witness No.1/defacto-complainant in Sessions Case No.286 of 2006, on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, challenging the judgment, dated 12.05.2008, whereunder the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram, found the accused not guilty of the charges framed against them and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short)
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.286 of 2006 arose out of P.R.C.No.22 of 2006, on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapuram, which was committed to the Court of Sessions on 18.08.2006 and thereupon it was numbered as Sessions Case and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapuram.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet in Crime No.69 of 2005 of Narsapuram Town Police Station, is as follows :
(ii) About one year back, some differences arose in between both the communities in respect to the right over the said tank. Rajaka people claimed right as the tank is known as “Rajakula Cheruvu” and the Arundhati people claimed the tank, as the said tank is located in their vicinity. The Municipal Authorities intervened and ordered that both communities have no claim of right over the said tank, as it is classified as Municipal Tank. The Rajaka people are rearing fish in the said tank.
(iii) On 01.05.2005 at 8-00 P.M., the Arundhati people removed the outlet of the said tank. Having known about the same, Mittaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) and others went there and replaced the outlet and scolded the persons, who removed the same. The accused Nos.1 to 10 formed as an unlawful assembly, armed with iron rods and sticks with intent to kill Mattaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1), Reketi Srinivas (L.W.2), Achanta Satyanarayana (L.W.3), rushed to the tank and attacked them. A.1 beat Mattaparti Venkata Rao (L.W.1) with stick on his head, right side chest, left hand and A.8 beat with stick on his right forehand, rest of the accused A.2 to A.7, A.9 and A.10 beat on his back causing bleeding injuries. A.1 and A.8 beat Reketi Srinivas (L.W.2) with sticks on his mouth, head and left forearm. The teeth dislocated from upper and lower jaws causing injuries to the person. All the accused beat Achanta Satyanarayana (L.W.3) with sticks and rods and caused bleeding injuries on his forearm, elbow, left leg, right shoulder and right foot. Antharvedipalem Nageswara Rao (L.W.4), Bhimadole Adinarayana Rao (L.W.5), Mattaparthi Srinivasa Rao (L.W.6), Sankaraguptam Satyanarayana (L.W.7), Rella Nagamani (L.W.8), Bhimadole Savitri (L.W.9), Antharvedipalem Durga (L.W.10), Bhimadole Padma (L.W.11), Rella Malleswari (L.W.12) witnessed the incident and Mattaparthi Srinivasa Rao (L.W.6) and Sankaraguptam Satyanarayana (L.W.7) shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Narsapur, for medical treatment.
(iv) On intimation from the hospital, S.N. Issack, ASI of Police (L.W.16) recorded the statement of Mattaparthi Venkata Rao (L.W.1) on 01.05.2005 at 11-00 P.M. and registered the same information in Crime No.69 of 2005 under Sections 143 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and T. Tata Rao, Sub Inspector of Police (L.W.17), took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined as many as 12 witnesses, recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the presence of mediators, Tenneti Chandrahas (L.W.14) and Mutyala Venkateswara Rao (L.W.15) and got drafted the observation report, s
In criminal revision against acquittal, courts must show clear evidence of error or injustice for appeal. Acquittals are upheld unless substantial proof against accused emerges.
The importance of explaining injuries on the accused and the impact of unexplained injuries on the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimony, medical evidence, and lack of glaring inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence to determine ....
The court affirmed that appellate courts must uphold acquittals unless clear evidence of trial court error or gross injustice is shown.
The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.
The trial court's acquittal based on technicalities disregarded substantial eyewitness and medical evidence, necessitating a retrial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including witness testimony and medical evidence, to establish guilt under the relevant sections of the Ind....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.