THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1698 of 2007 04-08-2014 BETWEEN:
Annapureddy Janakiramaiah And others …..Appellants/A1 to A4 AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1698 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.4 against the Judgment dated 05.12.2007 passed in S.C.No.215 of 2004, by the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants/A.1 to A.4 as follows:
(i) A.1 is convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC (for P.W.2) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month;
(ii) A.1 is convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (for P.W.3) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month;
(iii) A.1 is also convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC for causing injuries to the deceased and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month;
(iv) A.2 is convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC (for P.W.1) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month;
(v) A.1 to A.4 are convicted for the offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That A.2 is the son, A.3 is the brother and A.4 is the wife of A.1 and residents of Munipalle Village. A.1 is having rice mill towards eastern side of the house of P.W.1 and making pollution in surroundings. As such P.W.1 and one Ramesh (deceased) gave complaint to the Factory Inspector, P.W.11, on which, P.W.11 inspected the Rice Mill of A.1 and gave instructions to take necessary steps to stop the pollution. On this, all the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and the deceased and after the Factory Inspector left the place, on 27.09.2003 at about 10.30 am, A.1 to A.4 armed with deadly weapons with the common intention to do away with the life of complainant, P.W.1 and her wing, and voluntarily caused hurt to P.Ws.1 to 3 and also the deceased and that the accused also insulted the modesty of P.W.1. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered against A.1 to A.4 and charge sheet was filed after investigation.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.1 to A.4 guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/A.1 to A.4.
Heard and perused the entire material available on record.
After evaluating and examining the material available on record and considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there are no special or adequate reasons, warranting interference by this Court with the Judgment passed by the trial Court.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused confines his argument with regard to quantum of sentence. Insofar as the conviction against A.1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is concerned, he submits that the act of the A.1 would not attract an offence under Section 326 IPC as there is no voluntary causing of any grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, and as such the conviction may be modified to one under Section 324 IPC. He prays this Court to show leniency while imposing sentence of imprisonment as A.1 has to lookafter his wife and children and he is not having any criminal background.
This Court perused the evidence of P.W.12, the Doctor, who treated the injured. Though the Doctor has given an opinion that the injuries are grievous in nature, this Court, on perusing Section 320 IPC (Grievous Hurt), has come to a conclusion that the injuries caused in the present case would not come under any of the kinds of Grievous Hurt as laid down in Section 320 IPC.
In view of the above discussion and considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused and the nature of offence, and also in view of long lapse of time, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view.
This Court is of the view that the conviction imposed by the Court below against A.1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC may be modified to one under Section 324 IPC. However, this Court, taking a lenient view, modifies and reduces the sentence of imprisonment to the period, which A.1 has already undergone. The sentence of fine and default condition, imposed by the Court below, is not interfered with.
In the result, the conviction imposed by the Court below against A.1 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is modified to one under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to the period, which appellant/A.1 has already undergone. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and the conviction and sentence against A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 509 IPC are confirmed. The fine amounts and default conditions, as imposed by the Court below under different offences, are not interfered with.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 04.08.2014 pln