THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2010 Date:24th February, 2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant and 1.Lavunipalli Chandrasekhar 2.Lavunipalli Lakshmi …Respondents/A1 & A2 *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2010 JUDGMENT State has filed this appeal dis-satisfied with the quantum of sentence imposed on the respondents 1 & 2/A & A2 for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IPC passed in Sessions Case No.90 of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 are A1 and A2 in Sessions Case No.90 of 2004. They were put on trial for the offences under Sections 354 and 323 r/w.34 IPC. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is:- The accused are the tenants in the house owned by PW.1 Guruvelli Vamakshi. The accused did not pay the house rent and that they frequently abused PW.1 Guruvelli Vamakshi and her daughter, who has been examined as PW.2. PW.2 Gunta Dhana Lakshmi gave a report against the accused and it is the subject matter in Crime No.143 of 2003 of Tekkali Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 509, 324 r/w.34 IPC. On 31.12.2003 at about 8.00 A.M., while PW.1 Guruvelli Vamakshi was cleaning the fish in front of her house, both the accused abused her in filthy language. It is further alleged that A2 caught hold of her tuft and dragged her and put his hand on her chest and tore her blouse and thereby outraged her modesty. They also caused simple injuries to her. PW.1 Guruvelli Vamakshi presented a report before the Station House Officer, Tekkali P.S. Ex.P1 is the report presented by PW.1. Basing on Ex.P1 Report, a case in Crime No.147 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 354, 323 r/w.34 IPC came to be registered. After due investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tekkali. 4. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on filed as P.R.C.No.6 of 2004 and committed the case to the Sessions Division, Srikakulam, as the offence under Section 354 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as Sessions Case No.90 of 2004 and made over the same to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta, for disposal according to law. 5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charges under Sections 354 and 323 r/w.34 IPC against the accused, read over and explained the charges to the accused, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and proved 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The accused pleaded that the case has been foisted against them at the instance of one Singuru Srinivasa Rao. 7. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and acquitted them accordingly. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IPC and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months, by judgment dated 05.04.2006. Dis-satisfied with the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IPC, State has filed this Criminal Appeal. 8. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State submits that PW.1 received three injuries as per Ex.P7 wound certificate and therefore, the sentence imposed on the accused is inadequate and the same is required to be enhanced proportionately. 10. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate of PW.1. The Doctor, who issued the wound certificate, is not examined. The wound certificate came to be marked through the Investigating Officer. The trial Court, having taken note of the fact that Ex.P7 wound certificate is not properly proved, considered the evidence of PW.1 and convicted the respondents/accused for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for imposing a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IP. I do not see any valid ground to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondents/accused for the offence under Sections 323 r/w.34 IPC. 11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th February, 2010. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.257 of 2010 Date:24th February, 2010