THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.174 of 2019

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

accused aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 18.01.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2018 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad, FAC: II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mancherial, (hereinafter referred as ‘the learned Appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment of Conviction dated 04.09.2018 in C.C.No.124 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Luxettipet (hereinafter referred as ‘the learned trial Court’), for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on

06.10.2012 at about 03:00 PM, the petitioner-accused visited the Fair Price Shop and demanded that the complainant, who was functioning as a Fair Price Shop dealer to issue ration commodities on the ration card standing in the name of one Koppula Yadagiri. Upon verification, the complainant informed the accused that no such name was found in the key register and, therefore, declined to issue the ration items. On such refusal, the petitioner-accused allegedly abused the complainant in filthy and offensive language, misbehaved with her by catching hold of her hand, slapped her on the cheeks, and further threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, a complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No.93 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 354, 290, 323, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’).

04. Upon completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 290, 323, and 506(2) of the IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner–accused filed a discharge petition vide Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2017 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (FTC), Luxettipet, and the said petition was partly allowed, discharging the petitioner– accused from the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC. Subsequently, the learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial, acquitted the petitioner-accused of the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC, but convicted him for the remaining offences. The petitioner-accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week, for the offence punishable under Section 290 of IPC. In addition, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner-accused preferred a Criminal Appeal before the learned appellate Court. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed was set aside, while the fine component imposed for both the offences was upheld.

05. Aggrieved by the said Judgment passed by the learned appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner-accused.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the prosecution did not produce any medical evidence to substantiate the alleged injuries, nor did it furnish the ration card of one Yadagiri, which was material to the case. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant and her relatives had, in fact, assaulted the petitioner-accused, for which a case was registered in S.T.C. No.128 of 2012, wherein the comp