Sankabuddi Venkatesham vs State Of Telangana

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bhuvanagiri, in Crl.A.No.01 of 2021, dated 04.01.2024 confirming the Judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed in S.C.No.121 of 2013 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhongiri.

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that there are long pending disputes in between the family of the complainant and accused persons. There was also a civil suit which was filed vide OS.No.62 of 2010. In the interim applications filed by the said Rachakonda Dharmaiah for demarcation of land, on 31.08.2012, the complainant along with two policemen and Mandal Surveyor went to the subject land for demarcation. At about 11.00 A.M. the accused persons due to previous enmity have formed into unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and stones, attacked the complainant and his family members and assaulted them with stones indiscriminately, resulting in injuries to PWs.1 to 5.

On the basis of the complaint filed by PW1-Dharmaiah, the Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Assistant Sessions Judge having examined PWs.1 to 15 and marking Exs.P1 to P30 found that these petitioners were not guilty of the offence of attempt to commit murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However, found the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were acquitted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 353 r/w.149 of IPC.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the learned Sessions Judge had committed grave error in confirming the conviction of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge since omnibus allegations of attack was made. There are no specific overt acts attributed to any of the petitioners. In fact, there are pending civil disputes for which reason, false complaint was filed implicating the petitioners. Further, the counsel submits that alternatively the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that injuries were received by the witnesses. All the accused have formed into an unlawful assembly and caused injuries. Further, the public servants were stopped from discharging their official duties.

Having gone through the record, the allegation made against the petitioners that all of the petitioners have gone to the place at Lothukunta village where PWs.1 to 5 were present and attacked them while survey was going on in the presence of the surveyor and two Police Constables. The alleged incident was also photographed by the policemen who were present at the scene, according to PW4. PWs.1 to 5 have all received injuries in the said incident.

The learned Sessions Judge found that though no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, however, since the witnesses PWs.1 to 5 were injured in the altercation, there was no necessity to identify and specifically state regarding the role played by each of the accused.

No doubt with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for forming into an unlawful assembly, the conviction can be recorded. However, in the absence of any evidence of criminal conspiracy or common object being established the accused would be liable for their individual acts only. Moreover, mere presence does not make a person member of unlawful assembly, unless he actively participate in rioting or does some over act with necessary criminal intention or shares common object of unlawful assembly as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Pandurang Thakre v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 4 SCC 377.

The petitioners were acquitted for the offence of unlawful assembly and rioting. They were also acquitted for the Charge under Section 353 of IPC. However, they were convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations of deterring a public servant from discharing public duty was also disbelieved.

Under Section 34, it is not necessary that previous plan has to be proved. The requirement under Section 34 of IPC is conscious meeting of minds of persons who participated in criminal action to bring about a particular result. Whether there was any criminal intention or not depends upon the facts of each case. The said observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sudip Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal (2016) 3 SCC 26.

There were civil disputes amongst the parties. It appears that in respect of disputes amongst the parties led to an altercation resulting in injuries to the witnesses. According to the Doctor-PW12, the injuries received by PWs.1 to 5 were simple in nature. The Injury Certificates were marked as Ex.P6, P7, P8, P9 and P10.

In view of the long pending civil disputes and also the injuries being simple in nature, this Court is inclined to set off the imprisonment of the petitioners, however, imposing fine. Further the incident had taken place about 12 years ago.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners is hereby set aside. A fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on each of the accused. Failure to pay the fine amount, the petitioners shall be sentenced to default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. The petitioners shall be set at liberty on payment of fine amount, if not required in any other case.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.