THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.539 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 21.04.2014 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge For Trial of Offences under S.Cs. & S.Ts. (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad (for short, “the trial Court”) wherein and whereby, the appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence 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 year.

2. Heard Ms.Padmalatha Yadav, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.03.2012 while PW2 was cleaning the car parking at Platform No.10 side, the appellant/accused threatened her with a blade; that she informed the same to her husband/PW1. On 07.03.2012 at 11:30 P.M., PW1 found the accused near Saluja Nursing Home and questioned him. It is stated that the accused beat him with a stone and tried to kill him, due to which, PW1 joined 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.1 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 offence and shown MO1. After the seizure of MO1, he was sent for remand. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. The learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. against the accused. Having been satisfied with the material, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and made over to the trial Court. Later, on examination of the accused under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., he denied the commission of the offence and claimed to be tried. Charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO1. The trial Court, at para No.18 of the judgment held as follows:-

“The charge framed against the accused is under section 307 of IPC. To establish the case under section 307 of IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused had an intention to put an end to the life of the victim. In this case, there is no single whisper in the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused threatened him with knife. So, it cannot be said that M.O.1 was used in the commission of the offence. The injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. Of course stone was used in the commission of the offence and it caused bleeding injury on the upper lip of P.W.1. So, the prosecution could establish its case under section

324 of IPC.”

Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its judgment.

6. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW1/interested witness with 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 seized the alleged stone used in the commission of the offence as well. Therefore, she seeks to allow the Appeal.

7. Opposing the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the trial Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, rightly passed the impugned judgment and interference of this Court, is not warranted.

Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Appeal.

8. For the sake of convenience, Section 324 of I.P.C. is extracted as hereunder:-

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voluntarily causing hurt using dang