MEDAM RAMI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution laid a case against two accused for the offences under Sections 447, 324 and 506 (2) I.P.C. Both the accused faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili. Through Judgment, dated 01.07.2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, acquitted A.2 of the offences leveled against her. He found A.1 guilty for the offence under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with appropriate default sentence. A.1 was also convicted for the offence under section 447 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- together with appropriate default sentence.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, A.1 preferred Criminal appeal No.117 of 2000 before the V Additional Sessions Judge Ongole. Through the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2004, the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirmed the conviction for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted A.1 for the offence under section 447 I.P.C. and thus, allowed the criminal appeal No.117 of 2000 partly.

(3.) MEDICAL evidence supports the case of the prosecution story. A.1 allegedly attacked P.W.1 with an Axe. However, he caused only two simple bleeding injuries i.e. one injury to the little finger of the left palm and an injury to the left elbow of P.W.1. In view of the simple injuries caused with an axe, which is established by the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, as corroborated by P.W.4 medical officer, the guilt of A.1 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt. To the extent of the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the accused, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not correct. The conviction against the accused deserves to be upheld. The finding of the trial Court and the finding of the appellate Court that A.1 is guilty of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated by other witnesses. The conviction, therefore, deserves to be confirmed.