BUDAGALA NAGESWARARAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused is the revision Petitioner. He was convicted by the learned v. Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple hurt to P.W.1. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with appropriate default sentence. The learned trial Judge directed that Rs. 500/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to P.W.1 towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the sole accused preferred appeal. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, allowed the appeal in part. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur confirmed the conviction of the sole accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. He also confirmed the fine and compensation awarded by the learned trial Judge. The appellate court, however, set aside the imprisonment recorded against the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction, the sole accused preferred the present revision.

(2.) Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the sole accused/ revision Petitioner contended that the offence has not been made out and that the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Admittedly, there are disputes between the accused and P.W.1, victim in this case since a considerable time.

(3.) It is the case of the learned Counsel for the accused that P.W.1 sold her house to One Bhulakshmi and that the accused purchased the house of P.W.1 from Bhulakshmi. The accused thus became the owner of the property. It is also the case of the accused that while P.W.1 paid rents to the accused for sometime, P.W.1 subsequently stopped paying rents, so much so, the accused laid a suit for recovery of the arrears of rents and also for the eviction of P.W.1. Thus, there are civil disputes between the accused on the one side and P.W.1 on the other side.