1 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SECUNDERABAD
PRESENT: Sri.V. Sanketh Mithra, XXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Secunderabad.
Dated this the 28 th day of January, 2026
CALENDER CASE. NO. 1292 OF 2019
Between:
The State through the Sub Inspector of Police,
Lallaguda…..Complainant
AND
Smt Ashwini W/o Erelli Navin Kumar, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: House wife,
R/o H. No. 8-43/8/U/8, Balaji Hills, Boduppal.…...Accused
This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt Saritha Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri. Pandu Ranga, Learned Counsel
for Accused upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this
court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Lallaguda Police Station had filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.269/2018 for an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC.
2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 21.12.2018 at about 01:10 hours, the
Police Station, Lallaguda received a written complaint in Telugu from the complainant, Smt.
Chandrakala, W/o E. Ram Narsaiah, aged about 52 years, resident of Laxminagar, Lalapet. In her complaint, the complainant alleged that on 20.12.2018 at about 18:00 hours, her daughter-in- law, Smt. Ashwini, entered the bedroom of the house, opened the almirah, and removed cash of
Rs.40,000/- along with certain documents and the key of her husband’s motorcycle. It was further alleged that the accused assaulted the complainant’s husband with a copper water 2 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 tumbler and thereafter forcibly dragged the complainant by pulling her hair onto the road, assaulted her, and also assaulted her husband using a chappal and a stone, besides throwing mud on them. The complainant further stated that the accused abused them in filthy language and threatened the life of her elder son, thereby causing humiliation and loss of reputation in the locality. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 269/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, and investigation was taken up.
3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the complainant and recorded her detailed statement, which was found to be consistent with the contents of the
First Information Report. The Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, conducted a scene observation panchanama, and seized one copper water tumbler and one lady’s chappal in the presence of mediators. A rough sketch of the scene of offence was also prepared.
4. Further, the Investigating Officer examined witnesses LW-02 and LW-03, as well as other eyewitnesses, whose statements corroborated the version of the complainant in all material particulars. The investigation revealed that the accused, Smt. Ashwini, is the wife of LW-03 and the daughter-in-law of the complainant, and that there existed a family dispute between them, pursuant to which the accused was temporarily residing at her parental home.
5. It was further brought on record that on 08.01.2019 at about 11:10 hours, the accused voluntarily appeared before the police and surrendered. On enquiry, she admitted her involvement in the incident. Accordingly, notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued to her as per law. The injured persons, namely LW-01 to LW-03, were medically examined by the concerned medical officer, who opined that the injuries sustained by them were simple in nature.
6. From the oral and documentary evidence collected during investigation, it prima facie appears that on 20.12.2018 at about 18:00 hours, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and other injured persons by using dangerous means, namely a copper water tumbler and other objects. The acts attributed to the accused disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
7. Accordingly, upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been laid against the accused, Smt. Erelli Ashwini, for the offence under Section 324 IPC, seeking her trial and punishment in accordance with law.
8. The court took cognizance for the offence under section 324 IPC. On appearance of
Accused copies of documents supplied to her as required under Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
9.Accused examined Under section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Charges have been framed against him for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC and the same was read over and explained to her in her vernacular language, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10.The prosecution has cited as many as (10) witnesses, out of them, it could be examined (8) witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Learned predecessor inadvertently marked the
Exhibits twice. Therefore for convenience the exhibits have been marked in serial order. Viz.,
Ex.P1 :- Complaint, Ex.P2 :- Pen drive, Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 :- Medical Certificates of LW1 to
LW3, Ex.P6 :- FIR, Ex.P7 :- CDF along with rough sketch.
11. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the same was read over and explained to her in vernacular language, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
12. The Court has heard the oral submissions of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel appearing for the accused. The Court has also carefully perused the written arguments filed by both sides, along with the citations relied upon in support of their respective contentions.
13. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for an
offence punishable under Section 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
4 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
POINT:-
14.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the night of 21.12.2018 at about 01:10 hours, the Police Station, Lallaguda received a written complaint from Smt. Chandrakala, aged about 52 years, a resident of Laxminagar, Lalapet. It was alleged that on 20.12.2018 at about 18:00 hours, the accused, Smt. Ashwini, who is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, entered the bedroom of the house, removed cash of Rs.40,000/- along with certain documents and the key of a motorcycle from an almirah, and thereafter assaulted the complainant and her husband by using a copper water tumbler, a chappal and a stone. It was further alleged that the accused dragged the complainant by pulling her hair onto the road, threw mud on them, abused them in filthy language, and issued life threats to the complainant’s elder son, thereby causing humiliation in the locality.
Submissions on behalf of the Prosecution
15. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution has successfully established the occurrence of the incident dated 20.12.2018 at about 18:00 hours and the active participation of the accused therein, beyond all reasonable doubt, through cogent, consistent, and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence.
16.It is submitted that PW-1, the defacto complainant and an injured witness, has categorically and consistently deposed that the accused came to her house, created a galata, abused the family members in filthy language, and assaulted her by beating her with a chappal and pulling her hair. The presence of PW-1 at the scene of offence is natural and undisputed.
Being an injured witness, her testimony carries great evidentiary value. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence are stated to be trivial in nature, attributable to lapse of time, and do not go to the root of the prosecution case.
17. The prosecution further submits that the evidence of PW-1 stands corroborated by PW-2 and PW-7, who were present at the spot at the relevant time. Their testimonies lend assurance to the version of PW-1 and clearly establish that the accused indulged in aggressive behaviour and assaulted PW-1 during the quarrel.
5 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
18. Much emphasis is placed on the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, who are neighbours and independent eyewitnesses to the incident. Both witnesses have categorically deposed that they witnessed the accused beating PW-1 with a chappal and creating nuisance on the public road in front of her house. Their presence at the scene is natural, as the incident occurred in a public place and attracted the attention of neighbours. Their testimonies are consistent, mutually corroborative, and have remained intact despite cross-examination. The defence has failed to establish any motive for false implication on their part.
19. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the medical evidence of
PW-5 duly corroborates the ocular testimony. PW-5 has opined that PW-1 sustained simple injuries, which are consistent with an assault by a chappal. It is a settled principle of law that for proving an offence of simple hurt, credible ocular evidence supported by medical opinion regarding simple injuries is sufficient.
20. With respect to the defence contention that the witnesses are interested or that there existed prior enmity, it is argued that mere relationship or previous disputes cannot be a ground to discard reliable and otherwise trustworthy evidence. In the present case, the prosecution does not rest solely on interested witnesses, but is substantially supported by independent eyewitnesses, namely PW-3 and PW-4.
21. The prosecution further submits that even if this Hon’ble Court were to hold that the alleged weapon does not fall within the ambit of a dangerous weapon under Section 324 IPC, the evidence on record clearly and unequivocally proves that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC stands fully established.
22. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor asserts that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof as required under law and prays that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC and award appropriate punishment in accordance with law.
6 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
Defence Arguments:-
23. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to an order of acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt.
24. At the very outset, it is contended that the charge framed under Section 324 IPC is legally untenable. The prosecution alleges that the accused used a chappal and a copper bowl while assaulting PW-1. It is argued that both these articles are ordinary household objects and do not, by their very nature, constitute dangerous weapons. The learned defence counsel submits that it is a settled position of law that, to attract Section 324 IPC, the weapon must either be inherently dangerous or must have been used in such a manner as is likely to cause death.
Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrik Singh v. State of
Punjab, Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan, Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, Subramaniam v.
State of Tamil Nadu, and K. Ramachandra Reddy v. State of A.P. In the present case, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the alleged articles were either inherently dangerous or were used in a manner likely to cause death. Hence, the very substratum of the charge under
Section 324 IPC is stated to have collapsed.
25. The defence further submits that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. PW-5, the medical officer, has opined that the injuries found on PW-1 are simple abrasions and has further admitted in cross-examination that such injuries could also be caused by a fall on a hard surface. It is pointed out that the wound certificate does not mention the size, shape, age, or exact location of the injuries. The learned counsel places reliance on Thakore
Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat and Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where medical evidence does not corroborate ocular testimony on material particulars, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Similar principles, it is argued, have been reiterated in Bhimappa Chandappa Hosamani v. State of
Karnataka, State of M.P. v. Ramjan Khan, and Kannaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
26. It is also contended that the alleged recovery of material objects is wholly unreliable.
PW-8 has admitted that no signatures were taken on MO-1 and MO-2 and that the panchanama does not contain any description or identifying marks of the alleged objects. Such a defective 7 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 recovery, it is argued, has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Reliance is placed on Balaka
Singh v. State of Punjab, Digambar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, Raja Khan v. State of
Chhattisgarh, and Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P.
27. The learned defence counsel further submits that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and
PW-7 are riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and improvements. PW-6, the
Investigating Officer, has admitted that several facts deposed to by the witnesses before the
Court were not stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that material improvements made for the first time
before the Court seriously affect the credibility of witnesses. Reliance is placed on State of U.P.
v. Jaggo @ Jagdish, Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra, Kalinga @ Kushal v.
State of Karnataka, and Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana.
28. It is further contended that the present case is nothing but a counterblast to Crime
No.268/2018 registered under Section 498-A IPC against PW-1, PW-2, and PW-7 on the very same day. All the principal witnesses are closely related and admittedly inimical to the accused, arising out of a bitter matrimonial dispute. The defence submits that evidence emanating from such interested and inimical witnesses must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Reliance is placed on Krishnegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, and Samsul Haque v. State of Assam.
29. The defence also points out that the prosecution has deliberately withheld the best available evidence, namely CCTV footage. PW-1 claimed the existence of CCTV cameras, and
PW-6 admitted that such footage was neither collected nor produced before the Court. It is submitted that, as held in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P. and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal
Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, non-production of the best electronic evidence attracts an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.
30. Finally, it is urged that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Where two views are reasonably possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Reliance is placed on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, State of M.P. v. Nande @ Nandkishore Singh, and Babu v. State of Kerala.
8 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
Appreciation of evidence:-
31. PW-1, the defacto complainant and injured witness, is the mother-in-law of the accused and wife of PW-2. Her testimony forms the foundation of the prosecution case as the FIR originated from her complaint. She deposed that the marriage between her son (PW-7) and the accused took place in December 2012 and that the accused stayed in the matrimonial home only for a short period thereafter, mostly residing at her parental house. She stated that her son was working in Germany and was in India during December 2018. According to her, on 20.12.2018 at about 6:00 PM, the accused came to their house, abused her and family members in filthy language, threw mud and stones, beat her with a chappal, pulled her hair causing bleeding injury to her nose, and also assaulted her husband with a brass/copper bowl. She further stated that the accused created nuisance on the public road, humiliated them before neighbours, threatened them, and that CCTV footage of the incident was available and handed over to police. She lodged the complaint marked as Ex.P-1.
32. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that she studied only up to second standard, that the complaint was scribed by her son, that a civil injunction suit was filed against the accused, and that a criminal case in Crime No.268/2018 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against her, her husband, and her son on the same day.
These admissions establish the existence of serious matrimonial and criminal litigation between the parties. She denied that the accused was harassed for dowry, that she was beaten and driven out of the house, or that the present case was a counterblast to the 498-A case, and also denied that the CCTV footage was fabricated. From the evidence of PW-6, it is evident that certain details narrated by PW-1 before the Court were not stated in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, amounting to improvements. However, the core allegation that the accused beat her with a chappal remained consistent. Being an interested and inimical witness, her evidence requires cautious scrutiny, but it cannot be discarded in toto, particularly when it finds corroboration from independent witnesses regarding the assault with a chappal.
33.PW-2, the husband of PW-1 and father-in-law of the accused, was examined as an injured and corroborative witness. He deposed that on 20.12.2018 at about 6:00 PM, the accused trespassed into his house, entered the bedroom, opened the almirah, removed court papers and 9 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 cash of 40,000/-, and when questioned, threw a copper bowl at him, poured mud on him and₹ his wife, took away his motorcycle keys, abused them, and assaulted PW-1 by pulling her hair and beating her with a chappal and stones. He stated that the incident continued for nearly four hours and that police came to the spot after a Dial-100 call, and that due to continuous quarrels they were forced to shift their residence.
34. In cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he drafted the complaint, that his son was working in Germany, that a civil injunction suit was filed against the accused, and that a 498-A case was registered against him, his wife, and his son on the same day. He also admitted that he did not mention the denomination of the alleged missing cash or the details of the documents allegedly removed. These admissions materially affect the credibility of allegations relating to theft and trespass. From the evidence of PW-6, it is clear that several facts narrated by PW-2
before the Court were not stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. There are inconsistencies
between the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the sequence of assault, objects used, and extent of injuries, indicating exaggeration. His evidence does not receive corroboration for use of a copper bowl or prolonged assault. However, to the limited extent that he supports the fact that PW-1 was beaten with a chappal, his testimony is corroborated by independent witnesses.
35. PW-3, a neighbour residing three houses away, deposed that on 20.12.2018 at about 6:00
PM she noticed a galata in front of PW-1’s house and witnessed the accused abusing PW-1 and her family, pouring mud, throwing utensils, and beating PW-1 with a chappal. She stated that the accused cried loudly on the main road, creating nuisance, and that several people gathered at the spot. In cross-examination, she admitted being a neighbour with good relations with PW-1 but denied false implication. No material contradictions or omissions were elicited. Her testimony is consistent, natural, and confined to what she personally witnessed, without exaggeration. Her presence at the spot appears natural and her evidence substantially corroborates the core allegation of assault with a chappal.
36.PW-4, another neighbour, deposed that on the same day and time she heard a loud galata and saw the accused pouring mud on PW-1 and the house, pulling PW-1 by her hair, beating her, and abusing her. In cross-examination, she admitted closeness with PW-1’s family but denied false implication. No material contradictions were brought out. Her evidence is 10 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 consistent with PW-3 regarding time, place, and manner of assault. When two neighbourhood witnesses consistently depose about the same overt act, their testimony inspires confidence. PW- 4’s evidence, therefore, lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case regarding simple assault with a chappal.
37.PW-5, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, deposed that on 21.12.2018 he examined PW-1 and found minor abrasions which were simple in nature, examined PW-2 and found no external injuries, and examined PW-7 and found minor abrasions on the right hand. He issued wound certificates marked as Exs.P-2 to P-4. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries could be caused by a fall on a hard surface and that the certificates lacked detailed description of injuries. The medical evidence establishes only simple injuries and does not support use of a dangerous weapon. However, the simple abrasions on PW-1 are consistent with an assault by a chappal and do not contradict the ocular testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. The medical evidence, therefore, supports simple hurt under Section 323 IPC and not an offence under Section 324
IPC.
38. PW-6, the Investigating Officer, deposed about registration of Crime No.269/2018, visit to the scene, seizure of MO-1 and MO-2, recording of statements, and filing of the charge sheet.
In cross-examination, he admitted that a prior case under Section 498-A IPC was registered on the same day against PW-1, PW-2, and PW-7, that CCTV footage allegedly handed over was not collected or produced, that several facts stated by witnesses before Court were not stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the same panch witnesses were used in both cases, and that the seizure panchanama lacked detailed description. The non-collection of CCTV footage is a serious lapse and weakens the prosecution case regarding gravity of the offence. Nevertheless, lapses in investigation do not automatically result in acquittal when there is reliable ocular evidence on record.
39.PW-7, the husband of the accused and son of PW-1 and PW-2, deposed supporting the prosecution version, alleging removal of cash and documents, assault with chappal, use of copper jug, and prolonged nuisance, and claimed existence of CCTV footage. In cross- examination, he admitted residing in Germany and visiting the police station several times, and denied defence suggestions. His evidence suffers from significant improvements and 11 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 embellishments when compared with the FIR and Section 161 statements. However, the prosecution got Ex.P2 to show the incident copied on to a pendrive marked through PW1 without any certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which cannot be considered.
Given the admitted matrimonial disputes, his testimony is that of a highly interested witness. His evidence is not reliable regarding theft, dangerous weapons, or prolonged assault, but to the limited extent that it supports simple assault with a chappal, it finds corroboration from PW-3 and PW-4.
40. PW-8, examined as a panch witness, deposed about the scene observation panchanama and seizure of a copper bowl and a ladies chappal. In cross-examination, he admitted that signatures were not taken on the material objects and that identifying features were not mentioned in the panchanama, and that he resides adjacent to PW-1’s house.
Reasoning and Findings:-
41.This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, and has carefully scrutinized the entire oral and documentary evidence brought on record.
42. The prosecution case rests primarily on the testimony of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant and an injured witness. Being an injured witness, her presence at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. However, it is also an admitted position that PW-1 is the mother- in-law of the accused and that there exists serious matrimonial discord between the parties. The admissions elicited in cross-examination regarding the registration of Crime No.268/2018 under
Section 498-A IPC on the very same day against PW-1, PW-2, and PW-7, coupled with the pendency of civil litigation, clearly establish a background of hostility. Therefore, while the testimony of PW-1 cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship or enmity, it certainly requires cautious and careful scrutiny.
43.On such scrutiny, it is evident that certain facts deposed by PW-1 before the Court were not stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as admitted by PW-6, the Investigating
Officer. These omissions amount to improvements. Nevertheless, the core allegation that the 12 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 accused assaulted PW-1 by beating her with a chappal has remained consistent from the inception and has not been shaken in cross-examination.
44. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-7, who are husband and son of PW-1 respectively and are also parties to the matrimonial dispute, suffers from material exaggerations and inconsistencies. Their allegations regarding trespass, theft of cash and documents, prolonged assault, and use of a copper bowl are not supported by either contemporaneous records or reliable corroboration. Their testimonies also contain several improvements over their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. In view of their admitted inimical background and embellishments, their evidence cannot be safely relied upon to establish the graver allegations or the use of a dangerous weapon.
45.The prosecution case, however, does not rest solely on these interested witnesses. PW-3 and PW-4, who are neighbours, have consistently deposed that they witnessed a galata in front of PW-1’s house and saw the accused abusing PW-1 and beating her with a chappal. Their presence at the spot appears natural, as the incident admittedly occurred on a public road in front of the house and attracted neighbours. Nothing material has been elicited in their cross- examination to discredit their testimony. Merely because they are neighbours known to PW-1, their evidence cannot be rejected, particularly when it is consistent, cogent, and confined to what they personally witnessed. Their testimonies mutually corroborate each other on the material aspect of simple assault with a chappal.
46.The medical evidence adduced through PW-5 assumes significance at this stage. PW-5 found only simple abrasions on PW-1 and has categorically admitted that such injuries could even be caused by a fall on a hard surface. The wound certificates do not contain detailed particulars of the injuries. The medical evidence, therefore, does not support the prosecution version insofar as use of a dangerous weapon or means is concerned. At the same time, the existence of simple injuries on PW-1 lends support to the version of PW-3 and PW-4 that PW-1 was subjected to a minor physical assault.
47. With regard to the alleged use of a copper bowl and the charge under Section 324 IPC, the evidence on record is wholly insufficient. A chappal and a copper bowl are ordinary 13 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019 household articles. There is no evidence to show that they were used in a manner likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. The medical evidence does not disclose any injury suggestive of such use. The seizure evidence relating to MO-1 and MO-2 is also weak, as PW-8 admitted that the material objects were not properly identified and bore no signatures or distinguishing marks.
In addition, the non-collection and non-production of the alleged CCTV footage, despite PW-1 and PW-7 asserting its existence and PW-6 admitting the lapse, is a serious infirmity which further weakens the prosecution case regarding the gravity of the offence.
48. The defence contention that the case is a counterblast to the 498-A case cannot be brushed aside lightly. The timing of both cases on the same day and the admitted matrimonial dispute lend some credence to the defence plea. However, the existence of animosity by itself does not justify discarding reliable evidence in toto. The Court must separate exaggeration from truth.
49. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used any dangerous weapon or means so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The evidence on record is insufficient and unreliable on that aspect.
50. On a cumulative appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the testimonies of
PW-3 and PW-4, who are independent neighbours and eyewitnesses to the occurrence, are natural, consistent, and inspire confidence. Their version regarding the accused assaulting PW-1 by beating her with a chappal remains unshaken in cross-examination. This ocular evidence finds due corroboration from the medical testimony of PW-5, which establishes the presence of simple injuries on PW-1. Taken together, this evidence clearly proves that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1.
51. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish that any dangerous weapon or means was used in the commission of the offence. The evidence on record, including the medical opinion, does not support the ingredients necessary to attract Section 324 IPC.
Consequently, the charge under Section 324 IPC is not proved.
14 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 324
IPC. However, the evidence on record is sufficient to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to PW-1.
53. Consequently, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the accused is hereby found guilty and convicted for the said offence under
Section 323 IPC, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 248(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
//Sd/-//
XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
54.When the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, the accused pleaded mercy of the Court stating that after marriage she has been living with her mother while doing some job following strained matrimonial relations with her husband.
55.Having regard to the nature of offence committed by the accused, and the above submission of the accused, it would be just and proper to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against them instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence proved.
56.In the result, the accused is convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code, under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one week. The MO-1 & MO-2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
57.The convicted is informed that their right to prefer appeal against this judgment. Office is directed to supply the free copy to prefer appeal of the Judgment to the convicted forthwith.
(Typed, corrected, and pronounced by me in open court on this 28 th day of January, 2026) //Sd/-//
XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
15 of 15 CC.No. 1292 of 2019
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1 :- Smt. Chandrakala (Complainant/Victim)- NIL -
PW2 :- E. Ram Narsaiah (Victim)
PW3 :- Smt Y. Sumangali (Eye witness)
PW4 :- E. Padma (Eye witness)
PW5 :- Kiran (Medical Officer)
PW6 :- Y. Prasad (Investigation Officer)
PW7 :- E. Naveen Kumar ( Victim)
PW8 :- S. Pavan Kumar ( panch witness)
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P1 :- Complaint. - NIL -
Ex.P2 :- Pen drive.
Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 :- Medical Certificates of LW1 to LW3
Ex.P6 :- FIR
Ex.P7 :- CDF along with rough sketch
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
MO.1:- One Copper Bowl
MO.2:- Ladies Chappal- NIL - //Sd/-//
XXII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SECUNDERABAD.
//True Copy//
XXII ACJM, Secunderabad