HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 267 of 2007 Dated: 22.01.2014 Between:
Lotti Appa Rao @ Appanna … Appellant/accused And The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 267 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-A-1 against the judgment, dated 14.02.2007 in Sessions Case No.5 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, wherein and whereby the learned Sessions Judge, found accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 IPC, and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and further convicted and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 is an ex- serviceman and a scheduled caste person. He was assigned Ac.3.15 cents at Gopalapuram village by Government. There is a dispute between A-1 to A-3 and others of Kapu Gopalapuram with regard to the land assigned in Sy.No.56 to an extent of Ac.1.25 cents. PW-1 filed a suit in O.S.No.50 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, which was dismissed. An appeal in A.S.No.20 of 2000 was preferred by PW-1 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam, and the appellate Court reversed the judgment in the suit. Thereafter, the matter was preferred to this Court. On 29.06.2001, this Court ordered status quo, after hearing both sides. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the disputed land was handed over to PW-1 by PW-8 - Mandal Revenue Officer through PW-5 by beat of tom tom. On 21.06.2003 at about 3.15 p.m., PW-1, his wife – PW-2 and his daughter-PW-3 were in the process of ploughing the fields with the help of some people, A-1 to A-3 came to the said disputed land and A-1 caused grievous and simple injuries to PW-1 with a knife and A-2 and A-3 assaulted and caused simple injuries to PW-2 after driving away the persons engaged for ploughing the fields. On a report given by PW-1, PW-7 registered a case in Cr.No.40 of 2003 was registered against A-1 to A- 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 IPC and under Section 3(1)(vi) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’)
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against A-1 to A-3, upon which, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathapatnam, took cognizance of the case under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act and under Sections 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 IPC and committed the same to the Special Court, for disposal.
4. The trial Judge framed charges under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act against A-1 to A-3, under Section 326 and 324 IPC against A-1 and under Section 323, 326 and 324 read with 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 apart from M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
5. After carefully perusing the said oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge convicted the accused as stated above. Hence, the appellant-A-1 filed the present appeal.
6. It is pertinent to note that under the judgment challenged in this appeal, A-2 and A-3 were also convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. Since the present appeal is filed by A-1 alone, this Court proceeds to deal with the case in respect of A-1 alone.
7. This Court heard arguments and also perused the entire material on record.
8. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant-A-1 confined his arguments only in connection with the quantum of punishment. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence committed by the appellant-A-1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. However, taking into consideration the pendency of the case since 9 years, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in respect of the quantum of sentence.
9. In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant-A-1 for the offence under section 325 IPC is hereby confirmed. But however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court under this head is set aside, while maintaining the sentence of fine and while sentencing the appellant-A-1 to pay additional fine amount of Rs.3,000/- on or before 30th March, 2014, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
10. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 323 IPC is hereby confirmed.
11. With above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. It is made clear that if the additional fine amount is paid after the stipulated period and while undergoing default sentence, the appellant-A-1 shall be released.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this appeal, shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO, J 22nd January 2014. mar