Telangana High Court
G. Mallaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 3 March, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.274 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment
and decree dated 12.12.2008, passed by the learned
IV-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District
in Crl.A.No.92 of 2008 confirming the Judgment and decree
dated 02.08.2006, in C.C.No.39 of 2001 passed by the learned
IV- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ibrahimpatnam.
2. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts,
the petitioner/accused preferred the present Criminal Revision
Case. He mainly contended that the Axe with handle with which
caused injury over the body of the P.W.1 was not recovered as
Material Object, but it was not considered by both the Courts.
P.W.2 in his evidence admitted that previously accused initiated
criminal proceedings against him and he was convicted by
Criminal Court and paid fine amount, as such his wife P.W.1
filed false complaint against accused as a counter case, but it
was not considered by both the Courts. The prosecution has not
examined the Investigation Officer who was figured as L.W.5 in
the Charge Sheet and thus the Conviction and Sentence
imposed by both the Courts is liable to be set aside.
3. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1 gave complaint against
the petitioner/accused stating that on 04.01.2001 at about
11:00 a.m., the petitioner/accused grazing his sheeps in the
field of P.W.1, when she questioned the same, accused beat her
with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries to
the P.W.1. Immediately, she went to her husband P.W.2 who
was attending agricultural work at a distance of 2 kms and
informed him about the incident. Both of them went to police
station and gave complaint which is marked under Ex.P1. She
was also referred to the medical examination. P.W.3 is the
doctor who examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate.
The petitioner/accused was arrested and after completion of
investigation Charge Sheet was filed.
4. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1
to P4 and there is no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of
the petitioner/accused. Considering the entire evidence on
record, the trial Court convicted the accused for an offence
under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default he shall suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of 6 months. Aggrieved by the said Judgment,
accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.274 of 2009 and the
appellate Court confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court. Both
the Courts held that the evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated
with the medical evidence of P.W.3 that the injuries were caused
by blunt weapon and the injuries are simple and fresh i.e.,
within six hours from the time of examination and thus the age
of the injuries mentioned in Ex.P2 is corroborated to the time of
incident mentioned in the Ex.P1. It was suggested to P.W.3 that
whether the said injuries are caused by falling from the heights
and he deposed that the said injuries are possible in that
circumstances.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused also
argued that the non-seizure of stick is fatal to the case of the
prosecution. They further contended that P.W.2 is not the
eye-witness and P.W.4 who was shown as eye-witness turned
hostile. Except the sole testimony of P.W.1, there is no other
evidence on record. Prosecution failed to examine the constable
who registered the FIR. Moreover, admittedly accused is the
brother-in-law of P.W.1 i.e., elder brother P.W.2 and there was
family disputes between both the parties regarding construction
of a compound wall about one year back. At that time, P.W.2
beat accused and accused gave complaint against P.W.2 and
P.W.2 was convicted with a fine of 100/-, as such P.W.1 filed
false complaint against petitioner/accused, but the motive for
the offence is not considered by both the Courts.
6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the
relationship between P.W.1 and the accused and also civil
disputes between the parties, but the said incident of
construction of a compound wall was much prior to the incident
in this case. When P.W.1 questioned the accused that why he
was allowing his sheep to graze in their field, he attacked her
with the stick portion of the axe and caused simple injuries as
shown in Ex.P2 in detail. It cannot be said that he caused
injuries in a sudden provocation or in a fit of anger. Admittedly,
injuries were caused to P.W.1 by the accused. Immediately after
the incident, she informed the same to her husband and both of
them gave complaint on the same day. As the whereabouts of
the constable who registered the FIR is not available it was
vested with the Investigation Officer who conducted
investigation and filed Charge Sheet. Both the Courts
concurrently gave conviction for causing injuries voluntarily
with a dangerous weapon under Section 324 of I.P.C. This Court
finds no reason to interfere with the conviction imposed by both
the Courts. However, considering the nature of the injuries
sustained by P.W.1, this Court finds that it is just and
reasonable to modify the sentence into Simple Imprisonment for
one month with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to pay, he
shall suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed modifying
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court into
simple imprisonment for a period of one month and fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15
days.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATED: 03.03.2023
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 274 of 2009
DATED: 03.03.2023
TRI
