Chindam Narsimlu vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2116 Tel

            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