Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1105 (AP)

Maragoni Narsimha v. State Of A. P.

2004-09-29

P.S.NARAYANA

body2004
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) A-1 in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, nalgonda, preferred the present appeal. A-1 was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian penal Code (for brevity ipc ) and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that there are disputes between the families of the deceased and accused. Having acquitted the accused under sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 of ipc, the learned Judge erred in convicting him under Section 323 IPC. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that this is a case where a lenient view was taken by the learned judge and in the light of the findings, recorded on appreciation of evidence, the same need not be disturbed. ( 4 ) HEARD the counsel. ( 5 ) THE deceased Maragoni Anjaneyulu was the son of the elder brother of A-1 and their agricultural lands are situated side by side. It is also the version of the prosecution that the deceased Anjaneyulu has taken agricultural implement i. e. , Gorru from p. W. 4 and was ploughing his land newly on 12-06-1995 at about 9. 00 hours as usually the deceased was ploughing the lands with the said Gorru, A-2 who is the farm servant of a-1 went to the deceased demanded to hand over the Gorru of P. W. 4 and on that the deceased asked him to take it after some time. In that connection A-2 picked up quarrel with the deceased and beat him with hands and on seeing the same, P. W. 4 intervened and separated them. Later the deceased went to his house and after having food returned to the fields at about 11. 00 hours and stayed there At about 13. In that connection A-2 picked up quarrel with the deceased and beat him with hands and on seeing the same, P. W. 4 intervened and separated them. Later the deceased went to his house and after having food returned to the fields at about 11. 00 hours and stayed there At about 13. 10 hours while the deceased was returning to his house on the way near the agricultural field of A-1, both the accused persons, A-1 and A-2 stopped the deceased detaining him wrongfully and a-1 questioned him as to why he quarreled with A-2 when he asked to hand over Gorru and so saying A-1 beat the deceased with hands while A-2 beat with a stick on the head, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding head injury. ( 6 ) P,w. 1 gave the complaint and the case was registered under Section 324 IPC in crime No. 41 of 1995 by P. W. 7. The injured was sent to the Government Community hospital, Ramannapet and who was referred to Osmania General Hospital for expert treatment. And on 19-06-1995, the said anjaneyulu died at Osmania General hospital, Hyderabad while under going treatment. In view of the same, the section of law was altered from Section 324 IPC to section 302 IPC. The case was taken on file as P. R. C. No. 33 of 1995 by the learned judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet and the same was committed to the Court of sessions, which was made over to the ii Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, who had recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 11 and Exs. P-1 to P-10 were marked and m. 0. 1 was also marked. ( 7 ) FINDINGS in detail had been recorded commencing from paras 8 to 24 of the judgment. The learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that the evidence available on record would disclose that the death was not the direct result of the beating given by A-1 with hands on the head of the deceased and hence, he was found not guiltyforthe offences under Sections 341, 302 and read with 34 of ipc. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased. No doubt, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the father of the deceased. No doubt, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. P. W. 2 also deposed that he came to know about the incident at 3 p. m. that the deceased was beaten by A-1 and A-2 and as such he shifted the deceased to Ramannapet hospital and again he was shifted to Osmania General hospital, Hyderabad and after six or seven days, the deceased died in the hospital. ( 9 ) P. W. 3 who was the farm servant of p. W. 1 at the time of incident. He deposed that when he was attending to mending the bund, in the meanwhile A-2 came and asked the Gorru belonging to A-1. Upon which he replied to A-2 within few minutes the work of gorru will be over and the same shall be handed over to A-2. But he insisted for return of the same and in the mean while the deceased came and there was quarrel between the deceased and A-2, upon which he intervened and separated them and A-2 left the place. Later he came to know the a-1 beat the deceased and he was shifted to hospital. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 is the farm servant of one yadamma who had deposed in detail and this witness also specifically deposed that at about 12 noon after attending his agricultural work, he was at his fields, then A-1 returned back from his village and on the way, he found deceased then A-1 asked the deceased as to what made him to beat A-2. By saying so, A-1 beat him with hands on the head of the deceased. In the mean while, A-2 beat the deceased on his head with stick then the deceased went to his father P. W. 1. ( 11 ) P. W. 5 was examined in relation to the inquest panchanama marked as Ex. P-2. P. W. 6 was examined in relation to Ex. P-3 and also the seizure of the stick M. O. 1. P. W. 7 is the Head Constable who registered a case and this witness also deposed about the seizure of M. O. 1 under the cover of mahajar. P. W. 8 is the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police. P. W. 9 is Circle Inspector. ( 12 ) ON appreciation of evidence, findings in detail had been recorded. P. W. 7 is the Head Constable who registered a case and this witness also deposed about the seizure of M. O. 1 under the cover of mahajar. P. W. 8 is the Assistant Sub- inspector of Police. P. W. 9 is Circle Inspector. ( 12 ) ON appreciation of evidence, findings in detail had been recorded. But, however, taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to convict the appellant under section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a find of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 13 ) FROM the nature of evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this court the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, imposed by the learned Judge under Section 323 IPC, is excessive and hence, the same is modified to the effect that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) i. e. , in addition to Rs. 1,000/- already paid, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The rest of the fine amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. Except the said modification, in all other particulars, the findings recorded by the learned Judge are hereby confirmed. ( 14 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the aforesaid modification.