BASHEER MOAZAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant aggrieved by the Judgment of the Special judge for Trial of cases under Essential Commodities Act cum III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1996 dated 23-10-1998 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 333 I PC and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for further three months, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 28-07-1995 at about 0920 hours P.W. 1 while conducting the bus bearing No. Ap-9- Z-81 Route No. 9Y from Afzalgunj to Yousufguda, and when the bus reached near Nampally bus station, a passenger boarded the bus from front side exit in a rude manner and when P.W. 1 requested him to come from rear-side exit, since the ladies are getting down, the said person instead of getting down, got wild, picked up a quarrel with him, caught hold of his collar, pulled him, gave fist blows on his mouth and other parts of the body, resulting the upper side tooth broken and there was bleeding, and on seeing this, Duty Controller, nearby Home Guards and driver came to his rescue, caught hold of the said person and handed over to the police. On the strength of the said report, a case in Crime No. 411 of 1995 was registered under Section 333 IPC was registered.

(3.) Sri Srinivas Sukla, learned counsel representing appellant-accused would submit that except the evidence of P.W. 1, there is no other evidence available on record. Though, it is the version of the prosecution that the other passengers were also present, but none were examined and hence, on the strength of the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 1, the conviction and sentence imposed cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further contended that the accused was a young boy, at the relevant point of time, a student. The counsel also would further contend that the evidence on record would disclose that because of the fist on the mouth of P.W. 1 by the accused, he had lost one tooth and hence, this would fall under grievous hurt. The learned counsel would contend that this view is not the correct view and placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division bench of Calcutta High Court in V.R. Murthy v. State. The learned counsel ultimately would contend that even otherwise taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it is a fit case where a lenient view may have to be taken.