JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. These two appeals are filed one by the State questioning the acquittal recorded under section 307 IPC, and another by the accused questioning the conviction and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).
2. Inasmuch as, the appeal by the accused is against imposition of fine in Crl. A. No. 121 of 1996 filed on the file of Court of Sessions, East Godavari, and inasmuch as, the State preferred an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 14-6-1996 relating to Section 307 I.P.C. as against the same judgment the said appeal was also transferred and numbered as Crl. A. No. 1614 of 2000 on the file of this Court.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence available on record is clear and categorical to attract the ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. and hence the acquittal recorded in this regard cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence available on record and would submit that the nature of injuries would be irrelevant and the intention to do away with the life and the attempt in this regard would be sufficient to attract Section 307 I.P.C.
4. Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, the counsel representing appellant in Transfer Crl. A. No. 1614 of 2000 and respondents in Crl. A. No. 1498 of 1997 preferred by the State would contend that findings in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge and ultimately exercised the discretion of imposing fine under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Counsel also would contend that on the material available on record, especially taking into consideration the nature of evidence of PW-1 and other evidence available on record, the version of the prosecution itself cannot be believed. The Counsel also with all vehemence would contend that the motive, which had resulted in this controversy, is relating to an encroachment on a public site and survey made by Gram Panchayat, removal of encroachment made by the accused. This aspect was not established at all. Hence, even imposition of fine in default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months would be totally unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
5. Heard both the counsel and perused the material available on record.
6. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram filed charge sheet under Sections 307, 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. in Crime No. 12 of 1994 of Dowlaiswaram Police Station. A-1 and A-2 are wife and husband and A-3 and A-4 are their sons and all of them are resident of Rama Temple Street, Kothapeta, Dowlaiswaram. A-5 is resident of Sunnambatti Street, Dowlaiswaram and associate of A-3 and A-4. One Pulagurthi Dosala Raju, injured is also a resident of Rama Temple Street, Kothapeta, Dowlaiswaram, who was examined as PW-1. One Morampudi Srinivasa Rao, also an injured, is the maternal uncle of PW.1, examined as PW.2.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1 encroached public place near well at Rama Temple in Kothapeta, Dowlaiswaram, in front of his house and the site belongs to the temple and A-1 erected a structure. On the representation by PWs. 1 and 2 and others, Gram Panchayat surveyed the boundaries and encroachment raised by A-1 and the same was removed and hence accused bore grudge on PW-1 and others and the accused were waiting for an opportunity to pick up quarrel with PW-1 and others and to cause severe harm. On 5-3-1994 at about 5-45 p.m. while PW-1 was going on the road in Rama temple street, the accused abused and criticised PW-1 and rounded him up and declared that they would see his end. In so declaring A-1 picked up a cricket bat from A-4 and gave blow on the head of PW-1 and caused bleeding injury. A-3 beat with iron rod on the right shoulder and dragged him and caused abrasions. When PW-2 came to the rescue of PW-1 and interfered, A-1 beat PW-2 with cricket bat and caused injury and later the accused absconded. On 5-3-1994 at about 6-30 p.m. PW-1 gave report to police and the same was registered as Crime No. 12 of 1994 under Sections 307, 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and PWs. 1 and 2 were sent to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry, for treatment to the injuries and wound certificates were issued and the doctor opined that the injuries are of simple nature. Hence, the charge.
8. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, had registered a case as P.R.C. No. 16 of 1994 and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, East Godavari Division and the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. After recording the evidence of PWs. 1 to 7 and marking Exs. P-1 to P-6, the learned Judge after recording the findings held that the guilt against accused under Section 307 I.P.C. was not proved and recorded acquittal, but however, convicted the accused under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
9. PW.1, no doubt had deposed well supporting the version of the prosecution. PW-2 also had corroborated his version. The motive for the alleged incident appears to be the encroachment on a public site and the removal thereof, but there is no acceptable evidence forth coming in this regard and the learned Judge also recorded a finding that it is no doubt true that the prosecution failed to produce any record to show that accused had encroached into the public site and Gram Panchayat after a survey decided and removed the encroachment made by the accused. PW.1 also deposed that he had given report to police marked as Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 reads as hereunder:
“I belong to Dawaleswaram. I am residing in 2nd ward, Kothapeta. I am working as Advocate’s clerk. On 5-3-1994 Saturday at 5-45 p.m. while I was going to take bath in the river of Godavari, the following persons who are residing in our street, named Ehatakala Prakasarao and his wife Premakumari their sons Prasanna Kumar, Prashanta Kumar and Srenu who is working in sand boat and with another person formed as a mob, Chatakala Prakasa Rao and his wife who were in that mob, abusing as “Donga Na Kodukulu” and stated as that all together complained as that they have encroached the place near the well. They stated like that by seeing me. Not only that they stated sarcastically as that “He is said to be the president and he would survey the site.” By saying they stated as that “they would see his end” upon that, I asked to them as that who are the persons stated that you encroached the site? Upon that they all surrounded me, and when caught hold me, then Chatakala Prakasha Rao abusing me in filthy language as Langa Kodaka, what are you chattering? By saying he took the cricket bat from his son and beat me on my head strongly and in fired. Blood came out. His elder son Prasanna Kumar beat on the left shoulder with iron rod. Chatakala Prasantha Kumar, Prema Kumar, Sreenu who is working in sand boat, combined with another person, throw me down on the floor and when dragged me, I sustained abrasions on my two knees. There upon my maternal uncle Moram Pudi Srinivas Rao came and when separating us, Prakasharao beat him also on the back with cricket bat with the cause of old disputes, the above individuals all collude and beat. I can recognize the individual, who is called as another person, when I saw him.”
10. It is pertinent to note that the injuries are simple injuries. PW.5 deposed in his evidence that while he was working as Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, on 5-3-1994 at 8-00 p.m. he examined PW.1 and found injuries noted in the wound certificate Ex. P.2. PW.6 deposed that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, on 5-3-1994 at about 6-30 p.m. while he was present in police station, PWs. 1 and 2 came there and PW.1 gave report-Ex. P-1 and a crime was registered. PWs. 3 and 4 are independent eye-witnesses. PWs. 5 and 7 are the medical officers who had examined the injured and issued wound certificates in the names of PWs. 1 and 2.
11. It is pertinent to note that at the earliest point of time in Ex. P-1, PW.1-the advocate’s clerk nowhere had stated any utterance by any of the accused either uttering to do away with the life or making an attempt to do away with the life or instigating the other accused, to make an attempt on the life of PW.1. Clearly it is an improvement. While deposing before the Court several improvements were made and the learned Counsel has recorded reasons why the said version cannot be believed and hence disbelieved this version of the prosecution story and had recorded an acquittal. As far as the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, this Court had well scrutinized the findings recorded by the learned Judge with care and caution and this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no compelling reasons to express a different opinion especially in the light of the well considered findings recorded by the learned Judge and hence the said findings are hereby confirmed.
12. The next question, that has to be considered is the imposition of fine simplicitor in alternative the simple imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Section 324 dealing with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons reads as follows:
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire, or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.”
13. It is specified that such an offence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. The learned Judge while exercising the discretion taking into consideration the nature of incident and the nature of injuries, had arrived at a conclusion that it would be just and proper to impose only fine instead of awarding imprisonment. When discretion had been exercised in a particular way especially in view of the language employed under Section 324 I.P.C., this Court at the appellate stage need not substitute its view and hence this Court is not inclined to disturb the said finding also.
14. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned Judge is a well considered judgment and hence both the appeals are bound to fail and accordingly they shall stand dismissed.