D CHINNAGURAPPA Vs. K GOPAL REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision case is filed by the defacto-complainant against the Judgment dated 3-1-2000 in SC & ST Sessions Case No.137 of 1998 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, wherein accused No.1 i.e. respondent No.1 herein was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. A1 is running a stone polishing factory at Ramapuram village. The defacto-complainant (P.W.1) belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prior to10-4-1998, P.W.1 and his wife (P.W.2) worked in the factory of A1 for some time. Thereafter, they left for Hyderabad.After six months, they returned back to their village Giddalur. On 10-4-1998, A1 took P.W.1 to his factory, where A1 to A4 wrongfully confined P.W.1 in a room, abused him by naming his caste and beat him with belts and iron pipes. On 11-4-1998 A1 to A4 obtained promissory note from P.W.1 for Rs.17,500/- in favour of A1. On 12-4-1998 A4 brought P.W.2 and her daughter to the factory and confined them in a room. On 14-4-1998, the accused released P.Ws.1 and 2 and their daughter.On 16-4-1998, P.W.1 was admitted in the Government Hospital. On receipt of Ex.P3 intimation, P.W.5 - Head Constable, III Town Police Station, Kurnool, visited the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1 and sent the same to Owk Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On 24-4-1998, P.W.6 received Exs.P1 and P3 by post and registered a case in Crime No.111/98 under Sections 384, 365, 342, and 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sent Ex.P4 FIR to all the concerned. Thereafter, P.W.7 took up investigation and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 and others. On 15-5-1998 he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

(3.) The plea of the accused was one of total denial. The trial Court framed charges under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 323 and 342 IPC against A1 to A4 and under Section 384 IPC against A2 to A4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the accused. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Court below acquitted A2 to A4 of all the charges framed against them, but convicted and sentenced A1 as stated supra. However, A1 was acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the defacto-complainant to enhance the punishment awarded against A1 and to convict him for the offences under Sections 327 and 347 IPC. The only legal point raised by Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though as per the evidence available on record, the accused were liable to be punished under Sections 327 and 347 IPC, the trial Court convicted A1 for the offences under Sections 323 and 342 IPC erroneously. May be, the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 323 and 342 IPC, but considering the evidence on record, it could have altered the charges to one under Sections 327 and 347 IPC and convicted the accused of the said charges. Sections 327 and 347 IPC contemplate the sentence of imprisonment and fine, whereas Sections 323 and 342 contemplate the sentence of either description.Therefore, the Court below erred in taking a lenient view and letting off A1 with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the charges under Sections 323 and 342 IPC. The Judgment of the Court below is, thus, bad in law and the matter requires to be remanded for retrial.