HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.109 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and further convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 504 r/w 34 of IPC vide judgment in Special Sessions Case No.47 of 2017, dated 26.02.2021 passed by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.03.2016, compliant was lodged alleging that these appellants went to premises on 08.03.2016 and picked up quarrel with P.Ws.1 to 3. They entered into altercation and threatened to kill them. They insulted them in the name of caste and also beat them on the head causing injuries. All the three P.Ws.1 to 3 were beaten, who have received injuries.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1))(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
4. Learned Sessions Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. M.Os.1 and 2 stones wre also seized during investigation. Learned Sessions Judge recorded acquittal under Section 3(1))(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and convicted these appellants as stated supra.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that false case was filed against these appellants for the reason of there being differences between them. Though it is alleged that they have received injuries, the prosecution produced Exs.P4 to P6 which are injury certificates. The said certificates did not reflect the date of examination, nature and details of injuries that were received by them. When the injuries themselves are doubtful, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellants.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the injuries certificates Exs.P4 to P6 it was mentioned that the injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt object.
7. As seen from the medical certificates Exs.P4 to P6, requisition was made by the Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer of the area for examination. In the said report of the Medical Officer it is mentioned that PWs.1 to 3 were examined on 08.03.2016. However, the signature at the bottom is dated 16.03.2016. The said discrepancy is not explained. However, keeping in view that there were disputes among the parties and the injuries received are simple in nature, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.09.2023 kvs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.109 of 2021 Date: 08.09.2023.
kvs