K HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. K NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is preferred against the judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda in C.C. No. 36 of 1977 on his file acquitting the accused therein, respondents 1 to 3 herein, of the offence punishable under S. 323 of the I.P.C. on the ground that the prosecution of the accused is barred by time as enacted under S. 468, Criminal P.C. When the appeal came up for hearing before one of us, Smt. Susheela Devi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the complaint instituted by the appellant under S. 324, I.P.C. should not have entertained and upheld the plea of limitation put forward by the accused notwithstanding the conclusion reached by him that the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under S. 323, I.P.C. As the question raised is of general importance, an authoritative pronouncement on the question by a Division Bench of this Court was considered necessary and a reference was accordingly made for posting the appeal before a Division Bench. The appeal was thus listed before us for answering the reference.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the above appeal may be briefly stated : On 24-3-1977 the appellant instituted a complaint against the three accused before the learned Magistrate alleging that on 19-1-1976 at about 8 a.m. while he was returning from Machilipatnam to his house situate at Salempalem in the company of two others, at a distance of hundred yards away from the flood bank of Krishna River, the three accused attacked him suddenly, that A-1 and A-2 armed with stout sticks and A-3 armed with a spear inflicted multiple injuries on his body and ran away, that the accused thereby committed the offence punishable under S. 324, I.P.C. that he was immediately taken to the Police Station, Koduru with which he lodged the information of commission of the cognizable offence by the accused, that the information was reduced into writing, that he was also referred to the Government Hospital, Avanigadda by the Police, that no action was taken by the police till 23-3-1977, that he was therefore, constrained to institute the complaint and that in the interest of justice the delay in filing the complaint might be condoned.

(3.) After recording the sworn statement of the appellant on 24-3-1977 itself, it was taken on file by the learned Magistrate against the accused under S. 324, I.P.C. and summonses were issued to the accused following the procedure prescribed for trial of cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. The learned Magistrate examined the appellant as P.W. 1 and another witness produced by him as P.W. 2 and a charge was framed against the accused under S. 324, I.P.C. The accused having pleaded not guilty to the charge, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were recalled at their instance and cross-examined. Later, four more witnesses including the S.H.O., Koduru Police Station, who reduced into writing the first information lodged by the appellant on the date of commission of the offence and the Woman Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital Avanigadda who examined the appellant and treated him for the injuries sustained by him, were examined by the learned Magistrate.