L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners and two others were tried for the offences under sections 143 and 353 of IPC in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nalgonda. The Trial Court found them guilty of the offence under Section 353 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. They preferred Crl. A. No. 24/99 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, nalgonda. The lower appellate Court acquitted A4 and A5 and sustained the conviction against the petitioners herein. The sentence was, however, reduced from four months to two months. Hence, the present Crl. R. C.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the son of the 1st petitioner by name janjirla Saidulu was studying in the zilla Parishad High School, Pajjur, where p. Ws. 1, 2, 4 to 6 were working as Teachers and PW. 3 was working as Head Master. It is alleged that on 13-9-1996, PW. 3 has beaten P. Ws. 8, 10 and 11 and Mr. Saidulu, who are students, on the ground that they were not able to read the lessons properly. Saidulu is said to have gone to his house and informed the 1st petitioner (A1) about the incident. The 1st petitioner came along with petitioners 2, 3 and two others (A4 and A5) to the school. Al has beaten pw3 and when P. Ws. l and 2 have gone to rescue PW. 3, they were beaten by A3 and A2 respectively. It was further alleged that having entered the school premises, a1 to A5 have closed the gates of the school preventing the victims from going outside.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution, P. Ws. l to 13 were examined and Exs. Pl to p3 were marked. No evidence was adduced for the defence.

( 4 ) P. WS. L to 3 were the victims, P. Ws. 4 to 6 are the eye-witnesses and working as Teachers at the relevant point of time. P. Ws. 7 to 12 were students and P. W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. Ex. P1 is the report given by P. W. I and Exs. Pl to P6 are portions marked in statements recorded under Section 161 from various witnesses. Ex. P7 is the FIR in Cr. No. 38/96.

( 5 ) ON an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court recorded the finding that the prosecution has proved the case under Section 353 of IPC against the petitioners and the same was upheld by the lower appellate Court, though with a different sentence.

( 6 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that there were contradictions in the versions given in the FIR, on one hand, and those in the evidence. It is his further case that though it was stated in the complaint that nearly 20 to 30 people from the village have participated in the incident, the petitioners and two others were picked up and false cases were foisted against them. It is further argued that the complaint submitted by PW. 1 was motivated inasmuch there was some enmity between him and the petitioners herein.

( 7 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st petitioner had beaten PW. 3 on the ground that PW. 3 has punished the son of the 1st petitioner on account of improper reading in the class room. He further stated that it was established beyond doubt that the petitioners 2 and 3 have beaten p. Ws. 1 and 2.

( 8 ) AS observed earlier, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Sections 143 and 341 of IPC and acquitted the petitioners of the same. What remained was the one under Section 353 IPC. It was not at all disputed that p. Ws. l, 2 and 3 were working as teachers and Head Master respectively in the Zilla parishad High School, which is established, run and managed by the local body. The finding that they are public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of IPC is not assailed before the Courts below or before this Court.

( 9 ) THE fact that the son of the 1st petitioner was punished by P. W. 3 for his poor studies on the day of incident is not disputed. Though P. Ws. 7 to 12 who are the students, appear to have turned host

Click Here to Read the rest of this document