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.
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
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
