AMBATI VYKUNTA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused filed appeal against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and found guilty of the offence under Sec.3(l) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as follows: The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Srikakulam laid charge-sheet against the accused before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam alleging that the de facto complainant Banna Simhadri, belong to Mala community and that on 21-2-1997 at about 8 a.m. when the victim Simhadri was watering his fields through the bore-pump, the accused obstructed the course of water and diverted the same to his field and when he asked the accused, the accused beat him, caught hold of his right hand and caused fracture and on his complaint the case in Crime No. 24 of 1997 was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was laid.

(3.) The prosecution in all examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-6. B. Simhadri, who is the de facto complainant, is examined as P.W. 1. B. Ramesh, brother of P.W. J is examined as P.W. 2. B. Karunakara Rao, father of P.Ws. 1 and 2, is examined as P.W. 3. P.Ws. 2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and spoke about the incident. P.W. 4 is Dr. Uma and P.W. 5 is Dr. A.S. Murty. P.W. 6-N.H.V. Anand, the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case and took up investigation. P.W. 7 Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by P.W. 6 and after completing investigation laid charge-sheet. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge after appreciating the entire evidence, relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the offence under Section 325 IPC and under Section 3(1) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted the accused accordingly.