Telangana High Court
Mr. Polineni Thirupathi Rao, Balaji ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Pp., High ... on 30 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1314 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. According to the case of the injured/defacto complainant/PW.1 is that he was working as cooking master in the restaurant run by the appellant. On 20.03.2010, he attended for duty and he was asked to prepare some food item. He prepared it and the said food item was returned on the ground that it was not good. Thereafter, he prepared other items and went home. Around 2.30 p.m., the appellant called him to attend the hotel. Immediately, he went to the hotel, where he along with other persons were present and he was abused stating that "Madiga Lanja Kodaka, Neeku Baga Gudda Balisindira, Neeku Velaku Velu Jeetalu Kavali Gani, Sariga Vanta cheyadam Radura".
3. PW.1 was beaten up with M.O.1 by the accused. Thereafter, he went to the hospital for treatment. On 25.03.2010, five days thereafter, he lodged complaint with the Police. 2
4. The complaint was investigated and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989. Learned Sessions Judge having examined PW.1-victim and two other witnesses-PWs.2 and 3 and also other witnesses, found favour with the version of PW.1 regarding attack by the appellant. However, the Court found that no offence was made out against the appellant under Section 3(i)(x) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act. Further, no offence was made out under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. However, for causing injuries, the Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/-.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Doctor-PW.14, deposed that the injuries found on P.W.1 could not have been caused by M.O.1. In the said circumstances, when it is the evidence of the Doctor that the injuries would not be inflicted by M.O.1 and further there is a delay of 5 days in lodging complaint which remains unexplained, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant.
6. Having gone through the evidence, apart from the victim- PW.1, two other witnesses PWs.8 and 13, deposed regarding 3 beating PW.1 by the appellant in the restaurant. There is no reason as to why the independent witnesses PWs.8 and 13 would support PW.1. The ground that there were civil disputes in between PW.1 and the appellant as argued by the counsel for the appellant cannot form basis to refuse the convincing testimony of PW.1/injured, PWs.8 and 10- independent witnesses.
7. The other ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The said delay is explained by PW.1 in his evidence stating that he was embarrassed and took rest in his house and thereafter considered to lodge complaint.
8. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 30.07.2024 tk