LAM JAYA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner challenges his conviction u/S. 333 of the Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year as confirmed by the appellant Court.

(2.) The facts of the case as deposed to by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 (the injured and eye-witnesses) in brief are : The accused was working as a watch-man in the office of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Tadepalligudem in West Godavari. P.W. 1 was working as an Assistant Manager in the said office and was public servant within the meaning of S. 21, IPC while so on 1-5-86 at 9.00 a.m. one Lanka Suryanarayana and another Tota Ram Rao (P.W. 5) (Staff of the said office) were coming to the office with coding reports for being presented before P.W. 1. The accused standing near the entrance gate, obstructed them from going into the office and also abused them in filthy language. Both of them therefore, having managed to go inside reported the misbehaviour of the accused to P.W. 1. On 2-5-1986 at about 9-00 a.m. P.W. 6 and another Gopalakrishnamurthy were coming to the Office with sample packets. The accused obstructed them and also abused them in filthy language. They also made a report to P.W. 1 regarding the high-handed behaviour of the accused. P.W. 1 in his turn informed to the complaints made to him on 1-5-1986 and 2-5-86 to P.W. 7 the incharge District Manager. P.W. 7 thereupon issued orders of suspension of the accused and got them served through P.W. 1. They were served on the accused at about 1-00 p.m. on 2-5-86. Having received the suspension orders, the accused left the office. Again at about 2-45 p.m., the accused went into the office room of P.W. 1, abused P.W. 1 in filthy language for having secured the suspension orders and serve the same upon him, and beat him with a bamboo stick on both the hands and right side head of P.W. 1. This trespass and attack was also witnessed by P.Ws. 2 and 1. Later P.W. 1 was examined by the Doctor P.W. 9. The Doctor (P.W. 9) noticed one grievous injury being a fracture and two simple injuries on the body of P.W. 1. The wound certificate is Ex. P. 6 while the X-ray film and reports are Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 respectively. When examined u/S. 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied commission of the offence. Both the Courts below on a consideration of the entire material on record and for cogent and convincing reasons assigned found the accused guilty u/S. 333, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Pattabhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, submitted that at the most offence may fall u/S. 332, IPC and not u/S. 333 of the Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that both the Courts below have, on an appraisal of the entire material on record, recorded, a finding of guilt u/S. 333, IPC against the petitioner and that there are no grounds for interference in this revision.