A conviction under Section 324 IPC requires proof of the use of a dangerous weapon or likelihood of causing death; where only simple injuries are proven without weapon recovery, the offence falls under Section 323 IPC. An incident at a polling booth constitutes 'public view' under the SC & ST Act.

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Sessions Judge cum Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, vide judgment dated 22.09.2011 in SC No.69 of 2009.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, who is a resident of Vangapalli Village, is a Ward Member of Bahupeta village and the accused is a resident of the Bahupeta village. It is alleged that on 16.04.2009 at about 12.00 noon, the de facto complainant and his wife Shoba Rani were going to polling station arranged in a primary school, Bahupeta, in order to cast their votes in the General Elections. When they reached near the compound wall of the said school, the accused restrained them not to cast their votes in Bhupeta village on a plea that they have no house in the village. Then, the de facto complainant has informed the accused that he has no vote at Vangapalli village and being a Ward Member he had to cast his vote in Bahupeta village and on saying so, he tried to get into the polling booth, but the accused, keeping previous political grudge in mind, picked up a quarrel with him, beat him with a stick indiscriminately and gave fist blows by abusing him in the name of caste, in the public view. He has also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences that he would see his end. As such, the de facto complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.91 of 2009 in Yadagirigutta Police Station, is registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(vii) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC & ST Act’). After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the said offences.

2.1. The Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs (POA) Act at Nalgonda, has heard the accused on charges and the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, he was tried for the said offences.

2.2. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 to substantiate its case. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence, but Ex.D1-porton of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 was marked.

2.3. On hearing both the counsel and on appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court has found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 3(1)(vii) of SC & ST Act, Sections 324 and 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act and accordingly, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 3(1)(vii) of the SC & ST Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act, and directed to run all the sentences concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

3. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant-accused on many occasions, Amicus