HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.507 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed in S.C.No.286 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy, by which, the accused/appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. PW-1 has made a report to the Station House Officer, Kothakota Police Station alleging that he was having land in the outskirts of the village and that on 31.12.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused high-handedly ploughed the said land. After coming to know of it, PW-1 went to the land along with his junior paternal 2 GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017 uncle by name Madhusudhan Reddy and questioned the high- handedness of the accused. But the accused/appellant, with an intention to kill them, took a stick and beat them on their heads, which caused bleeding injuries. The complaint/Ex.P-1 further disclose that one Chukka Naganna and Boggu Chandraiah witnessed the incident.
4. Basing on the report of PW-1, the Station House Officer of Kothakota Police Station registered a case in Crime No.180 of 2015 against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet.
5. On appearance of accused, the charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy has committed the case to the Court of Session. Later, the appellant was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C. and a single charge was framed against him, for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, for which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3
GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1. Ex.D-1 was marked during the course of cross-examination of PW-
5. On completion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence, which was denied by the accused.
7. The trial Court, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not at all attracted and therefore, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Challenging the said judgment of the trial Court, the present appeal is filed.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the trial Court ought to have acquitted him, as no motive was established and the prosecution has miserably failed to being home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The learned counsel for appellant has further urged that even the ingredients of Section 323 of IPC are not 4 GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017 attracted in the present case, and therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, as the appellant/caused bleeding injuries to PWs.1 and 2, therefore, he prayed to confirm the judgment of the trial Court.
10. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that PW-1 gave report/Ex.P-1 to the Police contending that the accused has high-handedly ploughed the field and when confronted, PWs.1 and 2 were attacked by the appellant/accused. PW-3 is one Chukka Naganna and PW-5 is one Boggu Chandraiah, who were said to be the eye witnesses to the incident and their evidence disclose that on the date of incident at 11.30 a.m., when they are working in their fields, they could observe some altercation between the accused and PWs.1 and 2. On that, they went to the fields of PW-1 and separated accused and PWs.1 and 2 and that they observed bleeding injuries on the heads of PWs.1 and 2. It is the specific 5 GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017 evidence of PW-5 that he tied a cloth on the head of PW-1 in order to prevent further oozing of blood. The evidence of PW-4 disclose that a panchayat took place between the accused on one hand and PWs.1 and 2 on the other hand in the presence of village elders, wherein, it was decided that accused and PWs.1 and 2 shall cultivate the land in alternative years.
11. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.4 and 6, it is evident that there is dispute between accused and PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the land and the elders of the panchayath have passed a resolution that the cultivation shall be made by the accused on one hand and PWs.1 and 2 on the other hand in alternative years.
12. The other witnesses in this case are PWs.7 and 8, who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and also for recovery of M.O.1/stick from the possession of accused in his house. PW.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothakota Police Station, who has registered the case basing on the report of PW-1 i.e. Ex.P-1 and further investigated the case.
6
GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017
13. It is pertinent to mention that PW-10 is the Doctor, who examined PWs.1 and 2 and testified that PW-1 sustained laceration measuring 7 X 2 X 1 Cms. on the occipital region and PW-2 sustained deep laceration at left frontal region and also a contusion on the right shoulder region. It is further testified by PW-10 that the injuries sustained by both PWs.1 and 2 are simple in nature, caused by a blunt object.
14. Admittedly, for proving an offence under Section 307 of IPC, the ingredients to be established are intention or knowledge on the part of accused that his act would cause the death of the victim. In the present case, except the motive, the intention to cause the death of PWs.1 and 2 is lacking and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not at all attracted. Furthermore, as PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries in the hands of the accused, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
7
GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017
15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident took place in the year 2015 and the appellant has no motive or intention to attack PWs.1 and 2 and the incident had occurred in a spur of moment, and therefore, prayed to take a lenient view by imposing fine instead of sentencing him to imprisonment.
16. Section 323 of IPC reads as under :
"323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt :- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
17. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2015 and it was not caused by the appellant with either motive or intention to cause the death of PWs.1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellant can be modified by imposing fine, which shall be payable to the injured persons i.e. PWs.1 and 2.
18. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed confirming the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, 8 GAC, J Crl.A.No.507 of 2017 however, the sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for Six months, is modified by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/-. The accused/appellant shall pay the said fine amount before the trial Court within two weeks from today. Thereafter, the said amount shall be paid to PWs.1 and 2 @ Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the trial Court shall remain the same.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 15.03.2023 ajr