Lalith Kumar S/o v. Surender Richi, Aged about

Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High court, ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER a) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1413 0F 2014 ORDER: This criminal revision case is hled by the petitioners under Sections3gTand40lofCr'P.C.aggrievedbythejudgmentdated O7.O7 .2014 in Criminal Appeal No'37 of 2Ol4 on the hle of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein and where under the judgment dated 19'12'2013 in CC No'602 of 2011 finding the petitioners/ accused guiity for the offence punishable under Section 325 read witJl section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs'5,00O/- each for the said offence while acquitting them for the offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are conhrmed'

2. Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E'Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent/ State'

3. CC No.6O2 of 2011 on the hle of the trial Court is a case registered basing on the report submitted by PW1 dated 02.05.2011 alleging that on 01'05'2011 he was beaten by the-* - accused threatening him to step down as Church Steward of Wesley Church, Ramikoti. To substantiate such allegations, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of complainant/ PW 1, PWs.2, 3 and 4/eye witnesses and - PW5/assistant professor in ENT hospital. The prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.Pl to P3 which are complaint, statement of PW4/Priest and medical certificate. On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence is adduced however, Ex.D1 statement of PWl recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is marked. The petitioners/accused denied the said allegations contending that they were falsely impiicated in the present case. The trial Court, basing upon the evidence adduced, has found the petitioners guilty, as stated supra, holding that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 to 5 have clinchingly proved that the accused have voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 in furtherance of common intention to step-down him from the stewardship.

4. Aggrieved by t1-e said lindings of the trial Court, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeai No.37 of 2074 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which was dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the findings of the trial Court. i'1 Page 3 of7

5. Aggrieved by the flrndings of the appellate Court the petitioners preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the frnd'ings of the appellate Court are based on the highly interested testimony of PW1 and also the contradictory evidence of prosecution, there are no ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC' abnormal delay in lodging the complaint is ignored' PW 1 is a '' drunkard person' used to attend the church duties in such a condition and that the appellate Court failed to consider the failure of the prosecution to examine the investigating officer'

6. The iearned assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the findings of both the trial Court and appellate Court are well considered findings and they were made on screening the evidence and record in a meticulous manner and hence' the same cannot be interfered with. 7 . This Court perused the impugned judgments of both the Courts and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. PW1 is the complainant and he stated that on the fate full date of incident he was beaten by the accused with an intention to step-down him from the post of steward. In that process he I Page 4 of7 sustained injuries over his face, left ear, nose and mouth. To substantiate the factum of his sustaining injuries, he relied upon the evidence of PW.S/ENT doctor and Ex.p3 and to substantiate the factum of the misdeed of the accused beating pW1 relied upon the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and Exs.p1 and p2. The investigating oflicer was not examined by the prosecution. pWs.2 and 3, who are stated to be the eye witnesses to the incident have clearly deposed that the accused beat pWl with hands on his face and other bodily parts. They also deposed that their pastor/pW4 and others intervened to separate the parties. Though pW4 turned hostile, his evidence shows that the accused came to the church on the date of incident and argued with pW1 and that after getting them out of the church, he heard a big commotion. This itself supports the evidence of pWs. I to S that heated argument occurred between the parties and in that process, pW1 was beat by the accused. The evidence of pWS and Ex.p3 medical certi{icate proved the injuries sustained by pW1.

8. When the above factual matrix are considered, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused are falsely implicated in the present case calnot be accepted. Further, there is clear evidence to establish their guilt. \ Page 5 of7 So far as the delay in todging FIR is concerned, the evidence of PWl shows that immediately after the incident, he went to the police station and informed the police orally about the incident and subsequentty, he was shifted to the hospital, where he was given treatment as an outpatient and later he was referred to ENT hospital. In such process, delay occurred. In that view of the matter, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/accused cannot be countenanced. Non-examination of investigating ofhcer, when the other evidence is clinchingly proving the misdeeds of the accused, cannot be a hurdle for prosecution to prove its case.

9. When the above facts and circumstances are evaluated, this Court finds no apparent error or irregularity on the part of the trial Court and appellate Court in their judgments warranting interference of this Court and that the grounds urged through the present criminal revision case do not hold water. However, taking into consideration the fact that since the occurrence of incident i.e. from the year 2O 11 the petitioners have bedg roaming around the Courts to defend themselves from the prosecution case by facing mental agony, trauma arrd physical incarceration, basing on the proposition of law laid drtwn by the : Page 6 of1 r' Hon'ble Apex Court in VK Verma Vs.Central Bureau of Investigationr , Raj Kurnar Alias Raju Yadav Alias Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar2 and Ravinder Vs. State of MP3 this Court feels it appropriate to take a lenient view in favour of the petitioners by reducing period of imprisonment awarded against them. Accordingly, the period of simple imprisonment imposed against the petitioners i.e. one year is reduced to that of the period which they have already undergone. So far as the frne amount is concerned, the same is increased from Rs.5,OO0/- each to Rs.25,000/- each directing the petitioners/accused to pay the remaining balance fine amount of Rs.20,000/- each within two months from today and in default of payment of such amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. So far as the acquittal recorded by the trail Court and conhrmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 5O6 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed, the same holds good. Except the above medication, this criminal revision case is dismissed. >t--e] t12014;3 Supreme Cout Cases 485 'z 12006; 9 Supreme Court Cases 589 ' 12006; 9 Supreme Court Cases 590 I l I Page 7 of7

10. The criminal revision case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. T KRISHNA DEPUTY REG MAR TRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad 2. The Il Additional Chief Metropolitan l/agistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies V}'/DL N- HIGH COURT DATED: 2810112025 , ORDER CRLRC.No.1413 of 2014 ( t o o I..rsetl1 02 I'IAY 2025 c * .S P ,17 t DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. o { \1. rL