The High Court · 2025

The State of A.P., through SHO, Jagtial Rural Police Station. Karimnagar District, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondent (Complainant) Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. M. Veera Prasada Chary Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER 1l I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICI E.V. \/ }NUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.517 0F in r14 ORDER: This Criminal Appeal is frled seeking 1( set aside the judgment, conr.iction and sentence impos,: t against the appellants/ accused Nos. I and 3 in C.C.No. I of 2013 dated 17 .O4 .2O | 4 on the flle of the learned II Ad(L tional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, at Jagtial (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.M.Veera Prasada Chary, Iearnecl counsel for the petitioners and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant I> rblic prosecutor appezrring lor respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecutio: are that on the night of 31.12.2O1l, de facto cortplainant, his r ounger brother bt' name Gangadhar along with others namely ()1 Lilmula Shekar, Sunil, Vamshr, Nagaraju, Chiranjeevi and Thiru: rthi attended a partv hosted bl one Naluvala Rajam; that after tl e party, on [he request of one Thirupathi, the younger brotl-r:r of de facto complainant took him on the motorbike to drop ti n at his house; that alter dropping him and while he was retunt ng on the r.vay, he u-as stopped b1' A1, A3 and A5 and one Nalav _: a Narsaiah; all of them questioned him as to why he is supJr,,rting one Bali 2 \ Narsaiah in the land dispute, and by asking so, all of them' beat him with sticks and hands, thereby causing bleeding injuries; that with the said injuries, the younger brother of de facto complainant came to the house and narrated about the incident to de facto complainant and asked him to question them' Thereupon, the de facto complainant questioned them' Then' the accused beal de facto cornplatnant with sticks and pelted stones and caused bleeding injuries; that the said incident was witnessed by Evusam Thirupathi, Erra Chiranjeevi' Munjam Raj am and MYadam Sahadev.

4. Thereafter, the de facto colarrplainant lodged a complarnt with the police. Basing on tl.at complaint' the respondent police registered a crime against A1, the deceased father of A1' A3 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 148' 324 rlw' 149 ol I.P.C. and during the course of investigation' collecteci suffictent material and charge sheeted A1, A3 and A5'

5. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 17 'O+ 2Ol4 ln C.C.No. 1 of 2013 held as follows:- "In the result, A1, A3 to A5 are found guilty for the offences of ;.148 artd 324 r lw 149 of I'P'C' and they arc convicted U*i, Z+gd "f Cr.P.C. the Accused No l and A3 are scrrtenced to ;;;.;g.'dimple Imprisonment for a period o-[-one vear lor the oir".r.E of sec. t+a oi tpC, ,rra for the otfence of Section 3tl'1 ol IPC sentenced to undergo Sirnple Imprisonment for a period ;;;-;. l of two years. The sentences of imprisonments on b') sha-Il run concurrently U 1s.427 Cr.P.C. h the counts The ,A4 ald A5 against whom this court inclined to view in imposing the sentence on account of their t' ordered to pay a fline of Rs. 1,OO0/- each for the offe r of IPC and also to pay an arnount of Rs.3,OOO/ offence of Sec.324 of IPC. The total frne amount is each and in default of ltne, they have to s Imprisonment for a period of one month. ake a lenient nder age are :e of Sec.l48 each for the rf Rs.4,OO0/- rffer Simple The penod of Judrcial detention of A1 and A3 whi undergone from 7-11-2O13 to l2-ll-2013 shall be offU ls.42a Cr.P.C." :h they have reated as set Aggrieved by the same, the appellants prefen ( d the present AppeaJ.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submi: that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW3/1 le Doctor who treated PWs. 1 and 2, who clearly deposed th rt the noticed lacerated injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the offence alleged under Section 324 of IPC is not attracted in th -' case on hand' He states that the appellants were inflicted witt. injuries due to the attack made b-'"' PWs. I and 2 and acc i sed No'2 who sustained inj uries dred; that as counter blast tc Crime No' 1 of 2012 the present complaint is lodged basin 1 on false and frivolous allegations with an abnormal delay and t is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he seeks to allc w the Appeal'

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contell [s that the trial Court upon careful scrutinv of the material avai able on record, 4 rightly and appropriately passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court, at this stage, is not warranted Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Appeal.

8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs. I to I 1 and marked Exs.Pl to Pl0. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no document was marked. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PWs.l and 2 found that on the intervening night of 3l-12-2011 /l-l-2012 a free fight 'a'as ensued in between PWs.l and 2 and three others namely B.Yohan, B.Ramesh and B.Mahesh (A3 to A5 of S.C.No.72l ot 2013) on one side and the Al, the deceased father of Al namely Naluvala Narasaiah, A3 to A5 on the other side and in that free fight, PWs. 1 and 2 in this case sustained injuries and also the deceased father of A1 sustained injuries and the injurics sustained b1, him proved fatal and resulted into his death ' Therefore, it had opined that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the evidence of Doctor and the evidence of investigation officers is sufficient enough to record Al, A3 to A5 as guilty for the charges Ieveled against them. Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment. g. PW3/Doctor, in his chief-examination held as follows:- 5 "I have been working as working as Civil Assistar t Government Area hospital, Jagtia.l. .In this < : requisition of police Jagtial Rural, I have treatec persons namely Marampalli Narsiaah (pW.l) an<l Gangadhar (PW.2). On the Narsarah Ihave noticel injury on the scalp measuring 2" x l" and it was a s and might have been caused with a blunt object. I wound certificate pertaining to that Marampalli Na.r by me. On the person of Marampalli Gangadhar I ha lacerated injury on the scalp measuring l" x 1' simple in nature and might have caused with a blur P3 is wound certificate issued bv me in his name. Surgeon at se on the the injured Marampalli zr lacerated mple injury x P2 is the aiah issued ,e noticed a and it was t object. Ex Accordingly, PW3 had issued Exs pl and p2.

10. For better understanding Sections 148 and 3 24 of I.p.C. are extracted as hereunder:- gSection 148 of I.P.C. Rioting, armed with deadl , weapon:- Whoever is guilt)'of rioting, being armed with a dea lly weapon or with antthing which, usecl as a \{,eapon of offenc: is likely to cause death, shall be punished with rmprisonmt r t of either description for a term which mal. cxtend to three y,] rs, or with frne, or with both. Section 324 of I.P.C. Voluntarily causing hurt b,r weapoas or means:- Whoever, exccpt rn the case pr,) section 334, \,oluntaril), causes hurt bv means of an., for shootinE, slabblng i)r cu tng, i,r irnr lnslrumenl \ as a weapon o[ offence, is likell, [o causc death, or b fire or any heatcd substancc, or lrv means o[ any p r corrosive substance. or by means o[ trnv cxplosive s.r by means o[ anv substancc rvhich rt is deleterious to body to inhale, to su'allou,, or to rcccrve into the r means o[ anv animerl, shall be punished with imprr eittrer description [or a tcrm whictr mav c\tend to ah: with fine, or rvith l;oth" dangerous ided for by nstrument hich, used ,, means of son or zrny bstalce or he human ood, or by onment of e years, or I I . PW 1 , in his cross-examination deposed th r t he saw the accused very closeh, s,hile holding sticks in their l- ands. pW2, in his cross-exam ination also deposed that hc saw re sticks used 6 by the accused. Though, PWs.1 and 2, in one voice, deposed that they saw the accused holding sticks in their hands but no such sticks are purported to have been recovered from the scene of offence. L2. PWs.4, 5 and 6 deposed that they were unaware of the facts pertaining to the case. The evidence of PW3/Doctor and Exs.P2 and P3, reveal that the injuries sustained by PWs. 1 and 2 are simple-in-nature and that they might be caused due to blunt object. But in the cross-examination, PWs. I and 2, deposed that the accused used sticks to beat them. If it is so, respondent- police ought to have recovered the said sticks but 19xuch recovery can be seen and no material objects marked / t Therefore, in the absence of any clinching. evidence to prove that the accused had committed the alleged offences, this Court is not convinced to presume that the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 324 of I.P.C.

13. [n view ol the mitigating circumstances discussed above, this Court is inclined to acquit the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 3 by extending benefit of doubt. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. _ 7

14. ln the result, the Criminal Appeal is al owed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The convicticr and sentence imposed on the appellalts/accused Nos.l and 3, by the trial Court is hereby set aside and they are not found ,1 rilty of the said offences and therefore, acquitted of the charges. l'. Le fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be rt'r urned to them. The bail bonds of the appellants/accused shall str rd cancelled. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha I stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. \ .VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I To, ll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar af Ja(t al. (with records, if

2. The Additional Judicja-l First Ctass Magistrate, Jagtiat 3. The station House officer, Jii;; ri;;ftirll".st"tio,, Jastiat ' ItffffiJ:rtfiot'r!"" 3. ?,li 3B B"#J., Veera prasada chary, Advocate [op, c] p'i,'"J,il..,'Hig;'il; ro, t;., ;Li;;r reransana Kar/PSI- I I HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER CRLA.No.517 of 2014 Il, Ll,. \:i I : 1-PA'llt'.\. // ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL q