High Court · 2025

Rep by its Public Prosecutor High court of AP ' Hyderabad ...ResPondenUComPlainant Counsel for the Appellant: Ms' PADMALATHA YADAV Counsel for the ResPondent: SRI E GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ar**.rrih 7 THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL L No.5 39 0F. 2014 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment clale(i 21.04.2O14 insessions Case No.7 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge For Trial of Offences under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) A,:t-cum_VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad ifor short, ,,the trial Court,,) u,herern ancl u,hereby, the appellant / accused is found guiltl, for the olfence under Section 324 of I.p.C., convicted under Section 235/2) Cr.p.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one _vear

2. Heard Ms.padmalatha yadar,, Iearned Legal Aid counsel appearing on beharf of the appelrant and Mr.E.Ganesh, Iearned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent_State.

3. The brief fircts of the case are thar on O6.03.2012 while PW2 was cleanirLg the car parking at platform No. 10 side, the appeliallt/ accusecl threatened her r,r,ith a blade; that she informed the same to her husbald/pw1. On O7.03.2O12 at 11:30 P.M., PW1 found the accused near Saluja Nursing Home and questioned hipn,._lt is stated that the accused beat him u,ith a \ l 2 stone and' tried to kill him' due to which' PW1 .loineC in the Hospital and reported the matter to the police on the next day' Basing on the said facts' PW5 registered the case' took up the investigation, examined PWs l and 2' visited the scene of offence' prepared rough sketch' apprehended accused and interrogated him in the presence of PW3 and another' It is stated that accused has confessed about the cffence anrl shown MO 1 ' After the seizure of MO1' tre rvas sent for remand' On completion of investigation, char:ge sheet was filed 'l'he iearned X Additional Chief Nlctropolitan Magistrate' 4. Secunderatrad had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused' Having been satislied with the rnaterial' committed the case to the Ccurt of Sessions and made over to the trial Court Later' on examination oi the accused under Sectio n 228 oI Cr'P C ' he denied the commission ol the offence and clajmeci to be tried' Charge unrier Section 307 I'P'C' was lramed against ttre accused' read over and explained to him in Telug.r and he pieaded not guilty' 5. On behalf cf the prosecution' the trial Court. examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked' Exs:Pl to P6 and MOl' The trial Court' at para No.18 of the judgment held as follows:- I I I .) "The charg: framed against the accused is under section 307 of IPC. To e;tabtish thle case under section loz""J..ipc, ,rr" prosecuti.rr must establish thal thg ".."1.i-t Ja".r_,"i,n,i1r,,o,, ,o put an end to the tife of the v-rctim I" rhi" .;;, ;;;. ,"..i whisper ir-r he evkience of p W. I that the accused threatr:netJ him "rr,*,. with knrlir. So, it cannot be.. said thar M O. i ;;';;,i, ,., tt,. commrssi,n of the offence. The injurics , o." srmple i. nirture. of coursc stone ;"." ,".J1;th;.;;;1.;,;J:; ""Ii"i".i",J.if*. the oftence and it caused b l'll1tl o' rhe upp-r lin or P.w.i.:iu. rhe prosecurion ":l::o'i9 )utd establish its casc unde scctiorl 324 ot tpC.,, Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

6. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing lbr the appellant submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that there is no corroboration in the evidence of pWl/interestecl w,itness u.ith other evidence. She states that pW2 had pleaded ignorance in her cross-examination and the panch witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution. She further states that the police have not setzed the alleged stone used in the commission of the offence as well. .l.herefore, she seeks to allou. the Appeal. 7 . Opposing lhe same, learnecl Assistant public prosecutor contends that r-he trial Court upon caretul scrutiny of the material availaL,le on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court, is not warranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Appeal. B. For the se.ke of convenience, Section 324 of I.p.C. is extracted as here.rnder: _ 4 ns or means lt spe Code PC deals with voluntarily causulg Section 324 of the nd n cifles that if someone hurt using darr8erous weapo intentionallY causes hurt uslng weapons like firearms' knives. or other substances like instruments that are iikelY to c fire, Porson, or explosives, theY can be Punished with imprisonment for , i lLne, or bbth' of the imPugned judgment ause death or bY ustng up to three Years Para No.15 is extracted as 9 hereunder:- tli tt""Jt- "ipJ"trt""1*:: -D:'ti"*

15. lt is the case of the prosecution is that accused con.fesl;d the olfence 'J;:il".;;;'.'-''Y:,."J,'#",ft"L:11:"Jl:[""T;."::"il;;i[! :i":::"i;Ti$ H;:::'i::";:; rli't'" "'"p '"a shown M o I knire a,d course of -tt'-tn the same was seized '-tttatt ai police station and police have cross. he stated that f"f O t *rr" given to the case o[ not taken him anywhere. f""t,"i-;;;';as nrosecution bv the evidence It ii'l'*it"""" At onle place' he has stated coming to 'Lnat as if M.O.1 has t"i'"d o"' ti-t It is the-.evidence of P'w'S the cross, he has deviated ;;"t';";;;"' made confession and M'o' 1 that in the Ptesence "f P.ri.; ";;;"ed was seized. But intlepenae"i rntitt"t has not corroborated the IJia.t"" J rat''s on tlls Eraterlal polnt PW1 is the interested witness PW2 turned hostiie and has not corroborated with the evidence of PWS' PW3 is independent 't""i"t"i"rr :1 "t:-t-".,:d' 10 witness. 1 1 . PW4 / Doctor, basing on the X-ray report of PW i ' opined that the injury sustained by PWl is simple in nature and issued Ex P4/wound certificate ' PW4' in his cross examination' stated that the injuries mentioned ln the wound certificate are possible by fall. In Ex P4, the nature of injury was "laceration over uPPer liP"' 12. Upon careful scrutiny of the material availabie on recorci' this Court is of the view that ttre evidence of PW3 with regard to mentioned AS 5 the recovery ol MOl has not corroborated with the evidence of PW5. As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, any confessional statement made to police Officer/pW5 is inadmissible in evidence. So far as the injuries inflicted upon PW1 are conc(lrnecl, as per the evidence of pW4/Doctor, the injuries are simple in nature.

13. If at all the tn1ury sustained by pW1 rs simple in nature, an-\r man of orCinary prudence can understand that a simple 1nJ ur,v cannot tre caused b-v using MO l/Knife. In the case on hand, the evidence of pWS has not corroborated u,ith the evidence of pW3 with regard to MOl. Therefore, in the absence of any clinching evidence to prove that the accused hacl committed the offence unrler Secti on 324 of I.p.C., this Court is r-rot convinced to presume that he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3lL4 of Lp.C. Since, the in;ury inflicted upon pW1 is simple in nature, as can be seen from Ex p4, this Court cleems it appropriate to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 of I.F,.C rnstead of Section 324 of l.p.C I4 For better understanding Section 323 of I.p.C rs extracted as under: - '- -voruntaril,r' Section 323 of rhe Indian plnal Code (IpC) deals with the pur.ishment for rrL rhe cases , 1r*r-t G"tFtir",-rin".".i,*, "i""'ept "".,"i,,g 6 Drovided for by Section 334' voluntarilv causes hurt shall be punished t-tp to one vear' or with a fine of up to one *:;;' ffi;".il.',i-rot thousand rupees, or with both

15. This Court vide order dated 29.05.201,4, suspended the sentence of imprisonment imposed on thc petitioner/ accused' pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal ald released the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for Rs' 10'00O/ - with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the X Aciditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Secunderabad' Later' the matter underwent severai adjournments' 16. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel ald upon considering the fact that tile petittoner underwent mental agony by roaming around the trial Court and as eleven long years have elapsed from the date of filing of this Appeal, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence to the Period of imPri sonment imposed against the Petitroner already undergone bY him' 17. The appellant is directed to pay fine of Rs'S'OOO/- to the credrt of Sessions Case No'7 of 2013 on the file of the leai:ned Special Judge For Trial of Offences under S'Cs' & S'Ts' (PoA) Act- cum-VlAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge,Secunderabad, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy L 7 of the judgment failing which, he imprisonment for a period of one month. shali suffer simple 1 8. Except t re above modification, in ail other Criminal Appeal stands dismissed aspects, the Miscellan,:ous petitions, pending if any, //TRUE COPY// shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S,PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR I ,i SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad 2 l!9 soeciat Judge for Trair of offences-under sc. a str (poA) Act-cum-Vr ^ Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad 3. The Superintendent, Central prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad 4. The Station House Officer, Gopalapuram pol,; Station, Secunderabad 5. Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to Sri tf,admalatha yadav, Advocate [OpUC] 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [Or.lT] ABK/PSL V'" HIGH COURT DATED: OSIOB1ZOIS ..\. ..' \ z 0 sEP 206 !t! .;-,)! .-'+ .-';.' JUDGMENT CRLA.No.S39 ot 2014 lf ,'. ,r DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \e ,pdna \p\-<{f