Conviction under Section 332 IPC for causing hurt to a public servant is valid without a charge under Section 323 IPC; the offence is distinct and does not require additional allegations.

ORDER :

V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.

Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 39 of BNSS (Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure), the convict preferred this revision with a prayer as mentioned below:

“It is therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set-aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.383 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge Court at Kakinada confirming the judgment dated 24.10.2019 in C.C.No.125 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in the interest of Justice.”

2. Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant.

3. Sri Y.Chakradhara Raj, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri A.Sai Rohit, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri T.Ramakoteswara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted their arguments.

4. Facts leading to the present revision have to be seen. A woman by name Smt. Kottala Rajya Lakshmi was taking treatment in Government General Hospital, Kakinada as an in- patient. Her husband is Sri Seelu Agneya Raju @ Kottala Agneya Raju/A.2. He was an Assistant Professor in a law college. Dr. Kottala Sudhakar Babu/A.1 is the brother of the patient. The alleged crime incident occurred in Government General Hospital at Kakinada near RICU-I. The victim-cum-de facto complainant was aged 60 years and was Assistant Professor in Anesthesia Department working in the same hospital and discharging her duties as a doctor also. The crime incident allegedly occurred on 26.05.2016 in the Government Hospital. Crime No.94 of 2016 was registered by I Town Law and Order Police Station, Kakinada. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid as against A.1 and A.2. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 354, 427 and 509 read with 34 of I.P.C. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. Broken spectacles of the victim was exhibited as MO.1. The defence did not adduce any evidence. After due trial and after hearing arguments on both sides, the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada by judgment dated 24.10.2019 found A.1 and A.2 guilty only for the charge under Section 332 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The learned trial Court acquitted both the accused of the rest of the charges.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.383 of 2019. Accused No.2 preferred Crl.A.No.428 of 2019. Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment of the trial Court, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada heard them together and disposed of them by a common judgment dated 25.06.2024. The learned appellate judge found fault with the judgment of the trial Court in convicting accused No.2 and after recording reasons, it acquitted accused No.2 by allowing Crl.A.No.428 of 2019. However, it agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed Crl.A.No.383 of 2019 and thus, it confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No.1 for the charge under Section 332 I.P.C.

6. Aggrieved of it, accused No.1 preferred the present revision.

7. It has been mentioned in the grounds of the revision and the learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that:

- A conviction under Section 332 I.P.C. is invalid as long as offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is not alleged.

- It is further argued that evidence on record did not disclose PW.1/victim/de facto complainant was discharging her duties as a public servant at the material point of time.

- It is further argued that the authorities of Government General Hospital, Kakinada with a view to take vengeance against this revision petitioner got foisted this false case since the revision petitioner obtained favourable orders dated 23.12.2014 from Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad