THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1166 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/A1, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dt.30.09.2010, in S.C.No.206 of 2009, convicting the accused/A1 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code; and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.5,000/.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2007, the appellant and others trespassed into the house of PW1 and assaulted the inmates of the house. The reason for assaulting was that a complaint was given by PW1 against her husband and others, for which reason they were arrested and sent to remand. Specifically, the allegation against this appellant is that he has removed his waist belt and started pressing the neck of PW1 with his waist belt.
4. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the entire case of the prosecution regarding unlawful trespass of the appellant and others with intent to commit murder. All the accused including the appellant were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147 r/w.149, 450, 307, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge 2 convicted this appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
5. Having disbelieved the entire prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge appears to have committed an error in convicting the appellant only on the basis of evidence of PW1 who stated that the appellant removed his waist belt and pressed PW1's neck. The doctor who examined PW1 issued Ex.P2-certificate saying that PW1 complained of injuries around her neck and accordingly she was given out-patient treatment. It is not specified in the certificate as to what were the injuries received by PW1. The doctor-PW7 though mentioned during the course of chief-examination that he has found abrasions around the neck of PW1, there are no such details given in Ex.P2- medical certificate. Further, during the course of cross-examination PW7 stated that PW1 had superficial abrasions on the neck.
6. As seen from the events that transpired, PW1 filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws for which reason, the relatives of the husband had gone there and there was an altercation which ensued between the family members of PW1 and the family members of her husband.
7. In view of the evidence of the doctor-PW7, the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be maintained for the 3 reason of there being no injuries to come to a conclusion that PW1 was hurt. However, on the basis of statement of PW1, it can be a case for conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal code.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code is setaside. However, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to the period already undergone.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed convicting the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and reducing the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant to the period already undergone.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:07.11.2022 tk 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1166 OF 2010 Dt. 07.11.2022 tk