Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1453 (AP)

Janjirala Venkulu v. State Of A. P.

2002-12-12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2002
( 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 RI 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 3-9-1996, 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 lesson 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 2 others (A4 and A5) to the School. A1 has beaten PW3 and when P. Ws. 1 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. 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P1 to P3 were marked. No evidence was adduced for the defence. ( 4 ) P. WS. 1 to 3 were the victims, P. Ws. 4 to 6 are the eyewitnesses and working as teachers at the relevant point of time. P. Ws. 1 to 12 were students and P. W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. Ex. P1 is the report given by P. W. 1 and Exs. P1 to P6 are portions marked in statements recorded under Section 161 from various witnesses. Ex. P7 is the FIR in Cr. No. 38/96. P. Ws. 1 to 12 were students and P. W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. Ex. P1 is the report given by P. W. 1 and Exs. P1 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. 1, 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 servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPCis not assailed before the courts below or before this Court. 1, 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 servant within the meaning of Section 21 of IPCis 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 hostile, there was clinching and consistent evidence before the trial Court to the effect that the1st petitioner, who was the father of the said student, had held the Head Master - PW. 3 by collar and started beating him. When P. Ws. 1 and 2 have gone to the rescue of P. W. 3, petitioners 2 and 3 have given them thrashing. The eyewitnesses, particularly, P. Ws. 4 to 6 have deposed about the said facts. P. W. 7, who is a student, has spoken about the petitioners herein and two others coming to the School and creating galata in the classroom of 10th class, where PW. 3 was teaching. Nothing was elicited from these witnesses to shake the veracity of their evidence. ( 10 ) IT is rather sad that the only provocation for the entire incident was that the son of the 1st petitioner was punished by the Head Master of the School i. e. , P. W. 3. The 1st petitioner appears to have turned furious and led the mob to the school and has gone to the extent of indiscriminately beating the teachers. It is not known whether the petitioners are educated or they undergone any schooling. Whatever be their status, they have demonstrated that they do not have any semblance of civilization. The 1st petitioner has not only acted like a beast in a fist of fury, but has provoked others to extend their help to him. In the process, they have humiliated the very education system and have sowed the seeds of ignorance, arrogance and vindictiveness in the minds of young students like the son of the 1st petitioner. When his son was punished for being poor at studies, the 1st petitioner was expected to admonish his son to improve upon. In the process, they have humiliated the very education system and have sowed the seeds of ignorance, arrogance and vindictiveness in the minds of young students like the son of the 1st petitioner. When his son was punished for being poor at studies, the 1st petitioner was expected to admonish his son to improve upon. Even if it is assumed that the punishment that was given by PW. 3 was somewhat disproportionate, he could have recorded protest, but in a civilized and decent manner. The reason is that no teacher will derive pleasure in causing bodily harm to the student. It has come in evidence that PW. 3 has beaten the son of petitioner No. 1 and 3 other students. It was only the son of the 1st petitioner that has reported the incident to his father. He was very much aware of the tendency of his father and his guess proved to be correct. There does not exist any justification for the petitioners to indulge in such acts. This Court does not find any defect in the judgments rendered by the Courts below. The punishments imposed upon them should be the eye opener to those who think in terms of retaliating the teachers for punishing the children, in their effort to improve their standards. The conviction against the petitioners is, therefore, sustained. ( 11 ) COMING to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have released their mistake and have in fact paid for it in the form of undergoing imprisonment for certain period during the trial as well as subsequent to the disposal of the appeal. He pleads that subjecting them to imprisonment would add to further humiliation to them, apart from mental and physical hardship. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the petitioners is converted to the one of fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. The Crl. R. C. is partly allowed by converting the sentence of imprisonment to the one of fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. The same shall be paid by the petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the counsel for the petitioners. 3,000/- each. The Crl. R. C. is partly allowed by converting the sentence of imprisonment to the one of fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. The same shall be paid by the petitioners within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the counsel for the petitioners. In default, they shall be required to serve the sentence as imposed by the lower appellate Court, i. e. , the remaining of two months.