THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 of 2007 23-01-2014 BETWEEN:
S.Suresh Reddy …..Appellant AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 26.02.2007 passed in S.C.No.65 of 2003 by the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
On 15.07.2003, at about 5.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was attending calls of nature at the hayrick yard of the accused, A.1 came there and chastised P.W.1 as to why he was sitting in his hayrick yard and abused him by referring to his caste. When P.W.1 left the place, A.1 hacked P.W.1 with an axe on his head indiscriminately and caused injuries on his head and again A.1 abused him in filthy language touching upon his caste. In the mean while, A.2 came there and beat P.W.1 with a bana stick on his body indiscriminately and caused injuries. When P.W.1 raised hue and cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 came there and on seeing them, A.1 and A.2 fed away from the scene of offence. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered against A.1 and A.2., and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against A.1 and A.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A.2 not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The trial Court also found A.1 not guilty for the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. However, the trial Court found the appellant/A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the entire material available on record. After evaluating the evidence and examining the material available on record, this Court of the view that there are no valid reasons to interfere with the Judgment of the trial Court in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. The Judgment of the trial Court is in accordance with law and this Court is of the view that the same need not be interfered with.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused confines his argument with respect to quantum of sentence and submits that the appellant/accused has wife and children, and he is the only bread winner in his family, and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the time elapsed, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC imposed by the trial Court to that of the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. However, this Court is of the view that additional fine of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) may be imposed.
In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC is hereby confirmed. But the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Judge under that above head is reduced to that of the period, which the appellant/accused has already undergone. However, the appellant/accused is directed to pay additional fine of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) on or before 30th March, 2014, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
It is made clear that if the additional fine amount is paid after the stipulated period and while undergoing default sentence, the appellant shall be released.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23.01.2014 pln