Mohd. Younus, Tarnaka, ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep By Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5665 Tel

            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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1166 OF 2010

Dt. 07.11.2022

tk