N. Yugandhar Babu v. The State of A.P.

Order

This is a peculiar case. There were two sets of charges against various accused including the revision petitioner, who is A.23. A.23 was Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station, Kurnool District at the relevant time. As far as A.23 is concerned, on 22.01.1998, he was charged for the offences under Sections 347, 424 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). However, on 02.02.2000, fresh charges were framed. As against A.23 charges under Sections 342, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were framed at that time. Subsequently, trial was conducted. Seven witnesses were examined. The learned trial Judge recorded conviction against various accused for various offences. Inasmuch as the judgment relates to A.23, he was convicted by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 347, 424 and 384 IPC. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, one year and one year for the offences under Sections 347, 384 and 424 IPC respectively. He was also sentenced to fine of ` 3,000/- and ` 2,000/- for the offences under Sections 347 and 384 IPC respectively with appropriate default sentences. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred appeal

before the Sessions Court, Kurnool. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court. She, however, modified the sentence by invoking Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. A.23 is a Government Servant. As such to clear his image, he preferred the present revision.

2. Another curious factor is that the case against the remaining accused stood compounded. As many as 23 accused were charge sheeted. However, A.22 died before the commencement of the trial. The case against A.22 stood abated. A.1 and A.16 are at large. The case against A.1 and A.16 was split up. Barring for A.1, A.16 and A.22, rest of the accused faced trial. The trial Judge convicted all the accused. A.11 and A.12 are police constables. In their appeal, they were acquitted. Rest of the convicted accused barring for A.23 compounded their case with PWs.1 and 2. Thus, A.23 is a stand-alone accused, who remained convicted in this case.

3. The circumstances in which the case arose may briefly be stated at this stage. a) There was a civil dispute between A.1 on the one side and PWs.1 and 2 on the other side. A.1 obtained a temporary injunction order. On 07.01.1995 A.1 approached Atmakur police and sought for police aid. b) Basing upon the request of A.1, A.23, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police of Atmakur Police Station at that time, sent word and procured the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the police station. He made PW.1 sit at the police station. He sent some police personnel along with PW.2 to the site. At the site, in respect of which civil law controversy arose, a kitchen room belonging to PWs.1 and 2 would appear to have been demolished. Subsequently, PW.1 lodged a police complaint. Most of the accused are police officials. A.23 was one among them.

4. As already pointed out, the first set of charges was framed on 22.01.1998. In the first set of charges, A.23 was charged for the offences under Sections 347, 424 and 384 IPC. The second set of charges was framed on 02.02.2000. In the second set of charges, A.23 was charged for the offences under Sections 342 and 506 r/w Sec.34 IPC. At the time of framing of the second set of charges, there was no endorsement that the second set of charges on 02.02.2000 was framed in supersession of first set of charges. The trial Judge, therefore, was correct in considering that the second set of charges was in addition to and not in supersession of first set of charges dated 22.01.1998. In any event, A.23 was convicted.

5. It is the case of the learned counsel for the accused, however, that the second set of charges was framed in supersession of the first set of charges. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon two petitions laid by PW.1. On 27.11.2003 PW.1 Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2003 in C.C.No.8 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur u/s. 216 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C., for short) that charges under Sections 347, 384 and 201 r/w Sec.347 IPC should be framed against A.23. Out of these three charges, the first set of charges includes Sections 347 and 384 IPC as Charge Nos.1 and 4 against A.23. Indeed, on 15.12.2003 Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2003 was dismissed as not pressed. The point, however, is that PW.1 could not have filed a petition to frame charges under Sections 347 and 384 IPC against A.23, if A.23 had already been charged under Sections 347 and 384 IPC.

6. Added to it, on 15.12.2003 on which date PW.2 withdrew Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2003, she filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No.1510 of 2003 u/s.216 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking for framing of charges under Sections 452 and 427 r/w Sec.201 IPC. These charges were not framed against A.23 either through the first set of charges or second set of charges. However, on 11.02.2004, Crl.M.P.No.1510 of 2003 seeking for framing of additional charges against A.23 for the offences under Sections 452 and 427 r/w Sec.201 IPC was dismissed on merits. Strictures were passed against PW.1 for her vicious conduct, vide para 7 of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1510 of

2003. Be that as it may, I consider from the docket of the case and from the mode and manner of the framing of charges that the second set of charges was in addition to and not in supercession of first set of charges.

7. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A.23 contended that A.23 did not commit any offence assuming that the claim of PWs.1 and 2 is primarily accepted. Where A.23 was trying to honour the order of the civil Court granting temporary injunction in favour of A.1, I am afraid that A.23 could not be said to have acted in excess of his powers.

8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel the accused, there was no proof of wrongful confinement or wrongful loss of property on account of the conduct of A.23. It is the case of the prosecution that A.23 called PWs.1 and 2 and made PWs.1 and 2 stay in the police station. There is no sufficient proof that A.23, however, wrongfully confined PW.1 at the police station to constitute the offence of wrongful confinement. Similarly, there is no proof that the loss of property, if any, caused to PWs.1 and 2 was on account of deliberate conduct on the part of A.23. A.23 did not participate in the alleged demolition of the kitchen in the house of PW.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was loss of property on account of the wilful conduct of A.23.

9. It may be recalled that the case of the prosecution is that PW.4 videographed the demolition of the structures and that A.23 seized the video film from PW.4 at about 1.30 p.m. on 07.01.2005 itself. There is no evidence to establish this allegation of the prosecution that barring for the evidence of PW.4, I am afraid that the solitary testimony of PW.4 is not sufficient to accept that A.23 snatched away the video film.

10. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the night of 07.01.1995 A.23 participated with A.1 in forcing PW.2 to sign on blank papers. First, such blank papers have not seen the light of the day. Such blank papers were not seized from the possession of A.1. The evidence of PW.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness, so much so, the evidence of PW.2 would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of A.23 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of forcibly obtaining signatures on blank papers from PW.2. Another facet of this allegation is that PWs.1 and 2 had already compounded the offence with A.1. It may be noticed that what is compounded is the offence(s) u/s.320 Cr.P.C. Consequently, once the offence of Section 384 IPC was compounded, the question of A.23 specially being found guilty of the same does not arise. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A.23 beyond reasonable doubt.

11. As already pointed out, it is curious why the police officer has been singled out for special treatment of punishment. The trial Court fact showed under indulgence towards A.23 after finding him guilty. After A.23 is found guilty of misdeeds on account of his office, he deserves severe punishment. He does not deserve any lenient view. At the same time where the offences are not proved, much less beyond reasonable doubt, A.23 is liable to be acquitted of the charges under which he is convicted.

12. The Criminal Revision Case is, accordingly, allowed. The finding of the appellate Court is set aside. The accused is found not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and is acquitted of the same. His bail bonds stand discharged. The fine amount, if already paid by A.23, shall be refunded to him. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 21.10.2011 Isn