Telangana High Court
Dr. P.Krishnamurthy, Hyderabad vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P.,High ... on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1640 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused is questioning the conviction recorded by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (For Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda, in C.C.No.131 of 2006 dated 07.02.2008 for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and confirmed in Crl.A.No.43/2008 by the Prl.Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda vide Judgment dated 09.01.2009.
2. Heard both sides.
3. PW1 is 'victim'. According to her she was working as sweeper in Primary Health Centre, Thipparthy. On 03.06.2005 at 2.30 P.M., she went to the hospital and asked about her salary. Meanwhile, the accused came and beat and kicked her, due to which she fell down on the steps and received injuries. At the time of incident, the daughter of PW1 was also present. PW1 was taken to the hospital and treated by PW6. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint.
4. The trial Court, having examined the evidence on record found that the petitioner was responsible for beating PW1 and he 2 was convicted. The said conviction was questioned in appeal and the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no necessity for the revision petitioner to beat the sweeper in the hospital. In fact, there was an allegation against the grandson of PW1 that he had committed theft. Only for the said reason, the Doctor is falsely implicated. PWs.2, 3 and 4 were not present when the incident had taken place. As there is no independent corroboration, the conviction has to be set aside.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the findings of the Courts below are on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7. Having gone through the record, PW1 stated that she was beaten by the revision petitioner, she fell down on the stairs and sustained injuries. She was treated by PW6-Doctor. According to PW6, PW1 sustained one simple injury i.e. contusion of right eye and two grievous injuries i.e. contusion of right wrist and contusion over the right hip joint.
8. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW6- doctor, would go to show that she received injuries. Except the 3 suggestion of false implication, nothing was brought on record by the revision petitioner to prove such false implication.
9. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Courts below.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.04.2024 tk