HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2654 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant - A-2 aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2004 in S.C. No.201 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada, whereby he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 IPC, contending inter alia that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective and thereby came to a wrong conclusion in convicting and sentencing the appellant - A-2 while acquitting A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 354 IPC (including appellant - A-2) and A-1, A-3 to A-6 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and that the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant - A-2 though there was no evidence sufficient to warrant his conviction, basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, in spite of there being major discrepancies in their evidence, and disbelieving their evidence so far as other accused are concerned. The trial Court ought to have seen that PWs 1 to 5 are interested witnesses and that the original complaint was not marked as an exhibit. The alleged weapon was not produced and no motive was attributed to the appellant - A-2. 2. The facts, in brief, are that PW.1 is daughter of PW.2 and PW.3 is her junior paternal uncle. That on 11.12.1999 at about 8.30 p.m. while PW.1 was attending her work in Milk Society at Kondapavuluru village of Gannavaram Mandal, A-1, taking advantage of power cut, with an intention to satisfy his lust, entered the society building caught hold of her hand, dragged her and abused her while A-2 and A-3 with an intention to outrage her modesty caught hold of her tuft, dragged and beat her; that on hearing her cries, PW.2 - father of PW.1 and PW.3- her junior paternal uncle came there; that at the instigation of A-4 to A- 6, A-2 beat PW.2 with a stick on his left leg and head; that the other accused beat PWs 2 and 3 with hands ; that they fell down due to injuries suffered at the hands of the accused, meanwhile all the accused ran away from there; that PWs 4 and 5 happened to be the eye witnesses to the incident and that on the complaint of the injured, Gannavaram P.S. registered a case in Crime No.309 of 1999 against A-1 to A-6 under Sections 354 and 324 read with 34 IPC. 3. That on the charge sheet being laid, the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada took it on file in P.R.C. No. 8 of 2000 and after hearing both sides and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and that on receipt of the case, the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada numbered it as S.C.No.201 of 2002 and made it over to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada for trial according to law. 4. That on the accused pleading not guilty, charges were framed against A-1 to A-3 under Section 354 IPC, and against A-1 to A6 under Section 324 IPC. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, on its behalf, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 6. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record, found A-1 to A-3 not guilty for the offence under Section 354 IPC and also found A-1 and A-3 to A-6 not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. However, the trial Court found A-2 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to PW.2 with a stick and accordingly convicted, and sentenced as stated in Paragraph No.1, supra. Out of the fine amount of Rs,2000/-, a sum of Rs.1500/- was ordered to be paid to the Injured - PW-2 under Section 357 Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant - A-2 raised self same grounds as he has raised in the Memorandum of Criminal Appeal. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant - A-2 as passed by the trial Court stating that the trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material, has taken a correct view and found A-2 guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 9. A perusal of evidence of PW.2 reveals that on the fateful day and at the relevant point of time on hearing the cries of his daughter emanating from the Milk Society building, he went there; that there was a power cut at that time; that he saw A-1 to A-3 assaulting his daughter, that when he raised hue and cry, A-2 beat him on his leg, that A-1 beat him on his back; that A-2 again beat him with a stick on his head and that after receiving the head injuries, he collapsed. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 reveals that when she was attacked by the accused, she raised hue and cry; that on hearing her cries, her father - PW.2 and junior paternal uncle - PW3 came there; that the accused abused her father - PW.2 in filthy language; that A2 beat him with a stick on his head and leg and that her father suffered injuries. A perusal of the evidence of PW.6 - medical witness reveals that PW.2 had suffered 3 injuries and that the third injury is a lacerated injury of 2” x 1/4” x 1/4” of right side of head 3” above the right ear, wound sutured. A perusal of Ex.P.5 - wound certificate also reveals the same. The evidence of PWs 1, 3 as well as the evidence of PW.6 - medical witness coupled with Ex.P.5 - wound certificate corroborates the evidence of PW-2 that he suffered lacerated injury on his head at the hands of appellant - A-2 as he beat him on his head with a stick. 10. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed any error or irregularity while appreciating and/or evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and/or other material on record and, as such, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and/or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 20.12.2004 in S.C. No.201 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:________________ Stp