A.Moses

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY

Present: Sri A. MOSES. VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 20th day of February, 2020.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.117 of 2018

From which Court the appeal is :Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty. preferred

Number of the case in that Court:Sessions Case No.529/2012

Number of the Appeal-:Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2018

Name and description of the :(1)Masala Bheemireddy, S/o Late appellantBheemalinga, aged 45 years, (2)Negara Yellappa, S/o Naganna, aged 45 years, (A.2). (3)Masala Ramesh, S/o Masala Bheemireddy, aged 22 years (A.3). (4)Masala Madhu, S/o Masala Bheemireddy, aged 20 years, (A.4). (5)Kuruba Kullayi, S/o Sunkanna, aged 22 years (A.5). All are residents of Narasapuram village, Guntakal mandala.

Name and description of the :The State (S.H.O., Kasapuram P.S.) respondent

Section of law under which the :A.1 to A.5 are found guilty for the lower Court imposedoffences u/sec. 148, 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC.

Whether confirmed, modified or :Reversed. reversed and if modified, the modification.

Date of Presentation :14.11.2018

Filed on:14.11.2018

Notice issued by the Court:16.11.2018

Appellant ordered to appear:03.12.2018

Hearing:13.12.2019

Judgment:20.02.2020

This appeal coming on 13.12.2019 before me in the presence of the appellant and Sri P. Guru Prasad and Sri M.Krishnappa, Advocates for the 2

Appellants/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Gooty for the Prosecution, on perusing the appeal grounds, the record of the evidence, after duly considering the same, after hearing the appellants and the prosecution, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment dated 12.11.2018 passed in S.C.529/2012 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty wherein and thereby the

Appellants/Accused 1 to 5 were found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, further they shall undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; and for the offence under Section 307 read with 149

IPC that A.1 to A.5 are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and A.2 to A.5 are directed to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and A.1, as he is the main person who is responsible for the entire incident, is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to PW.1 towards compensation for the for the pain and sufferings and towards medical expenses under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If

A.1 fails to pay the compensation amount, imposed for the offence u/sec.

307 read with 149 IPC, the same could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. (Total fine is Rs.40,000/- and compensation amount is Rs.2,00,000/-). The compensation amount if deposited, be paid to PW.1 N. Lakshminarayana after appeal time is over.

The substantial sentence of imprisonment imposed shall run concurrently.

3

2.The Appellants/Accused A.1 to A.5 and the Respondent hereinafter referred as Accused and Complainant as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3.The case of the Prosecution is that PW.1 Nakka Lakshminarayana owns agricultural land situate at about 2 KM, from his Narasapuram village, that

A.1 also owns land at some distance. A.1 has to pass through the land of

PW.1 Nakka Lakshminarayana to reach his land, that there are small disputes regarding rastha and two days prior to the date of incident, A.1 quarreled with PW.1 Nakka Lakshminarayana and also threatened him, that he would kill him for which PW.1 left the place due to fear, that A.1 and his sons A.3 and A.4 and other family members also abused PW.1 in filthy language at his house also that they bore grudge against him and planned to kill him when he alone went to his fields.

While so, on 06.2.2012 morning at about 8.00 AM, PW.1 alone gone to his fields to fetch water to the ground nut crop planted in his filed, that A.1 to

A.7 were already in his field and among that A.1 uttered at PW.1 that “you have escaped yesterday but how can you escape today”. So saying, A.1 stabbed PW.1 below his left jaw with a knife and instigated others to kill him.

Then, A.2 to A.7 beat PW.1 with iron pipes and sticks on his head and caused bleeding injuries. Then PW.1 fell down that PW.4 Nakka Archana who is wife of PW.1 came to the spot, she also requested A.1 top A.7 not to kill him, but they did not hear her words, and continued to beat PW.1. Meanwhile PW.2

Nakka Pavan Kumar, PW.3 Parvathamma who are brother and mother of

PW.1 came there and on seeing them all accused ran away from that place.

Then PW.1 was shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Guntakal in 108 Ambulance. On 06.2.2012 at 10.14 AM, on receipt of MLC intimation

PW.8 G. Narendra Kuma, Head Constable 1312 Kasapuramu Police station rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered 4 the same as a case in Crime No.5/2012 under sections 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 IPC and investigated into.

4.In order to prove the guilt of Appellants/Accused A.1 to A.5 and A.6 and

A.7, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and

MOs.1 to 8. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

5.Assailing the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by

Trial Judge, the Appellants/Accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal on the following grounds :

(1)The judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(2)The trial court failed to consider the motive attributed to the appellants. In fact there is no motive to attack PW.1 by the appellants.

(3)The trial Court failed to consider the character of PW.1 before and after the offence and this aspect the lower court gave explanation is imaginary and PW.1 is a notorious and having criminal back ground.

This fact is also admitted by PW.1 in cross-examination.

(4)The trial Court failed to consider property the easement right of the appellants passing through the rastha and the said rastha is meant for all the land owners which are situated beyond the land of PW.1, this aspect the lower count failed to consider.

(5)The trial court failed to consider where the exact scene of offence and how the scene of offence is fixed by the Investigation Officer and why PW.1 reached the land of Venkataswamy which is away from the land of PW.1. This aspect the lower court failed to consider.

(6)The trial court failed to consider to decide who is aggressor properly.

According to evidence of prosecution, the appellants pass away the land of PW.1 and on seeing the appellants PW.1 went across them 5 and started attack on the appellants and in C.C. No.1/2014 clearly stated by the first appellant who is complainant in that case and hence PW.1 alone is the aggressor for the offence. This aspect the lower court failed to consider.

(7)The trial court failed to consider the attack by how many appellants and PW.1 not specifically mentioned specific overt acts in the statement given by him and he made improvement at the time of giving evidence and the 1st appellant categorically admitted in 313

Cr.P.C. that he alone beat PW.1 with sprinkler pipe due to self defense and the attack period is more exaggeration for a tenure of 25 minutes and also he deposed that each appellant might have caused 10 blows each.

(8)The trial court failed to consider the truthful evidence of PW.1 while he was giving evidence in the court. First he stated first appellant stabbed with knife under a jaw, but there is no stab injury as deposed by Doctor and also not mentioned stab injury in the wound certificate.

Further the lower court discussed about using of sickle by the appellants and in no where PW.1 mentioned and stated about attack with sickle. Hence this aspect the lower court failed to consider.

(9)The trial court failed to consider the variation between medical evidence and ocular evidence. According to evidence of Doctor there are no contusions on the person of PW.1, but PW.1 was deposed that he was attacked with pipes and sticks. This aspect the lower court failed to consider.

(10)The trial court failed to consider the explanation given that PW.1 alone present at the scene and accused are large in number and if a sickle is in the hand of PW.1, the appellants have an opportunity to prevent from attack and this explanation is not acceptable, because

PW.1 is having deadly weapon in his hand and nobody will dare to approach and prevent from attack.

(11)The trial court failed to consider the seizure of MOs. According to evidence of PWs.5 and 6 no material objects were seized in their presence, simply their signatures were taken on the mahazar. It shows that the recovery and marking of M.Os., in the court is totally falsified by the evidence of PWs.5 and 6.

6 (12)The trial court failed to consider non-sending of material objects to

RFSL for testing. Hence failure of justice.

(13)The lower court given finding that Pw.1 was in-patient for a period of 28 days is imaginary and there is no documentary proof that Pw.1 was inpatient for such a period and it is only a creation to strengthen the prosecution case.

(14)The trial court failed to consider the non-explanation of injuries on the person of appellants 1 and 2 and the finding given by the trial court is totally imagine that they might have been received injuries among themselves. This aspect the lower court failed to appreciate the injuries on the person of appellants 1 and 2 and the lower court given opinion that the injuries on appellants 1 and 2 are superficial and simple injuries. Each appellant received 3 injuries and the doctor categorically admitted these injuries can be caused with a sharp edged weapon. Hence, failure of justice.

(15)The trial court failed to consider the defense version that PW.1 attacked with deadly weapon and to save their lives in the course of self defense, 1st appellant beat with a sprinkler pipe which was available in the land of Venkataswamy.

(16)There is no evidence to show that the appellants while going to their lands were arming any deadly weapon in their hands and PW.1 also not deposed that the appellants were arming any deadly weapon in their hands at the time of attack. This aspect the lower failed to consider.

(17)The trial court failed to consider the improvements and omissions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 4.

(18)The trial court failed to consider the partial investigation in this case though there are case and counter, in each case must be common witnesses. But here the case given by 1st appellant the witnesses were not cited and partially investigated the case due to pressure by the higher officials.

7 (19)The trial court failed to consider non-examination of radiologist and the doctor/PW.9 is not a radiologist to give his opinion that PW.1 sustained fracture.

(20) The total judgment is one side only and not taken the defense plea into consideration. Hence failure of justice.

6.In view of rival submissions and in facts and circumstances of the case the point that has to be decided is :

“Whether the Judgment of the trial court is legal,

correct and based on the evidence adduced by the

prosecution and whether needs any interference?”

7.Heard both sides.

8.Point :-

The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC and the Trial Court sentenced A.1 to A.5 three months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 148 IPC and three years imprisonment for the offence under section 326 IPC and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and for the offence under section 307 read with 149 IPC A.1 to

A.5 further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and A.2 to A.5 are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and A.1, as he is the main person who is responsible for the entire incident is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to

PW.1 towards compensation for the pain and sufferings and towards medical expenses u/sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. If A.1 fails to pay the compensation, the same could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Land Revenue Act.

8

9.On careful perusal of the complaint statement of the defacto complainant, which was marked as Ex.P.1 on 06.02.2012 at about 8.30 PM while PW.1 was pouring water to his groundnut crop, all the accused came to him and A.1 armed with a knife hacked on the left jaw and the remaining accused beat him indiscriminately and he fell on the ground meanwhile his wife came there and on seeing her they went away. Thus they attempted to kill him.

10.The learned trial judge on perusal of evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.9 coupled with Ex.P.8 wound certificate came to a conclusion that the appellants committed the offences and further the learned trial

judge hold that they are aggressors. The appellants are the complainant

party in C.C. 1/2014. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P.1 and the injuries noted by PW.9 the doctor are not tallied with Ex.P.8 wound certificate. The defacto complainant who is examined as PW.1 and he gave overt acts of the each of the accused. It is prime allegation of PW.1 that A.1 dealt a blow on his neck and the same was escaped due to which the blow fell on the left cheek causing bleeding injury. The weapon alleged to have been used by A.1 was not seized by the investigating officer. The material objects seized by the investigating officer are, boulder, stone, sprinkler pipe which are marked as

MOs.4 to 6 with which the accused beat PW.1. But on perusal of the injuries noted in Ex.P.8 wound certificate, Injuries No.1 to 5, 8, 9 are cut injuries. The injuries noted by PW.9 are all with a sharp edged weapon. Any kind of sharp edged weapon was not seized by the investigating officer. PW.9 admitted in his cross-examination that injury No.6 cannot be caused with a knife, no injury on PW.1 was noticed on chest, on fore arm and cheek. No contusions are noticed on the body of PW.1. Injury Nos.10 and 11 can be possible if a person falls on hard surface. Thus, the injuries spoken by PW.1 and the injuries noted by PW.9 are not possible with MOs.4 to 6. PW.9 failed to note 9 each of the injury or colour of the injury and other details of the injuries. The learned trial judge hold that PW.1 received a grievous injury which is a fracture and that A.1 was convicted for the offence u/sec.326 IPC. PW.9 deposed that he referred PW.1 to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. PW.9 has not exhibited the X-Ray film alleged to have been taken by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Without perusing

X-Rays film one cannot decide whether there was any fracture or not. In the instant case the X-Ray film was not marked. The learned trial judge however came to a conclusion and believed the evidence of PW.9 and concluded that PW.1 received a grievous injury. As per the medical jurisprudence and the settled law, without perusing the X-Ray film one cannot decide whether there was any fracture or not. The learned trial

judge misread the evidence of PW.9 coupled with the evidence of PW.1.

Thus, in my opinion, the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the injuries were not corroborated with the medical evidence under Ex.P.9 and PW.9 is also not upto the Board.

11.The learned trial judge treated Ex.P.1 as substantial evidence which is erroneous. F.I.R. is only to corroborate or to contradict with the maker. Thus the conclusion of the learned trial judge Ex.P.1 is substantial piece of evidence is not correct.

12.The learned trial judge believed the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 as eye witnesses to the incident. Pw.2 is the brother of PW.1 He saw the incident at a distance of 15 metres and on seeing him the accused went away. Thus the presence of PW.2 in the scene of offence is not possible and he has not explained why he went to the filed. PW.3 is the mother of PWs.1 and 2. She also stated that while herself and PW.1 were at a distance of 15 metres, the accused saw them and went away.

10

13.PW.4 is the wife of PW.1. She deposed that her husband PW.1 went on bicycle to the agricultural lands and she went to the land on foot. When she reached the land, all the accused rounded PW.1 and were beating him with MO.6 sickle, stones sand sticks. The weapon alleged to have been spoken by PW.4 were not seized by the investigating officer and the presence of PW.4 is doubtful. PWs.2 to 4 have not given any reason why they went to the land. The investigating officer also not investigated what was the crop standing in the filed of PW.1 at the time of incident. However, the complainant party in C.C. 1/2014 lodged complaint with the police when

PW.1 tried to attack them and with an apprehension of danger to their lives, they beat him with sprinklers and in that connection they also received injuries in the same transaction. Thus, it is clear the scene of offence, time of offence are one and the same in S.C. 529/2012 and the scene of offence in

C.C. 1/2014. The learned trial judge held that PW.1 received injuries more than the injuries received by the accused party in C.C. 1/2014 and concluded that the appellants herein are the aggressors and that he convicted them.

There is no explanation from PW.1 why he went to the land of

Venkataswamy which the scene leaving his land.

14.The appellants herein pleaded right of private defence. The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants party.

In a reported decision, 1976 APHN 196 it was held by the Hon'ble High

Court - “Injuries found on each of the two of the accused are equal in number found on the deceased – Failure of prosecution to prove how the injuries are caused to the accused – Right of self-defence pleaded by the accused has not been properly investigated by the prosecution – The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.” In the instant case also the investigating officer failed to investigate the case who were the aggressors.

The learned trial judge on perusal of the injuries sustained by PW.1 and the 11 number of assailants on the other side came to conclusion that the injuries sustained by the appellants are simple in nature and the injuries sustained by PW.1 herein are grievous injuries and came to conclusion that these appellants are the aggressors. The learned trial judge erred in concluding that the appellants are the aggressors as the medical evidence is not supporting the ocular evidence of PW.1 and the injuries spoken by PW.1 are all not with the weapon spoken by PW.1 and in that connection the learned trial judge could have given a benefit of doubt in stead of convicting them and the appeal grounds clearly leads to grant benefit of doubt to appellants.

15.In view of the foregoing reasons, I came to a conclusion that the learned trial judge misread the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.9 with the support of Ex.P.8 wound certificate and the evidence of investigating officer PW.7 is also not inspiring any confidence and his investigation is not supporting the version of PW.1. Under such circumstances also the learned trial judge could have given a benefit of doubt to the accused.

16.In the result, Appeal is allowed and the sentences imposed against the appellants is hereby set aside by acquitting the appellants u/sec. 235(1)

Cr.P.C. for the Charges U/secs. 148, 326, 307 read with 149 IPC. The Bail bonds of Appellants shall continue for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. The fine amount paid by the appellants shall be returned to the appellants after expiry of Second Appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20th day of February.

Sd/- A. MOSES

VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY.

1 j IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY

Present: Sri A. MOSES. VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 20th day of February, 2020.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.131 of 2018

From which Court the appeal is :Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty. preferred

Number of the case in that Court:C.C. No.01/2014

Number of the Appeal-:Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2018

Name and description of the :Masala Bheemi Reddy, age 51 years, appellantS/o Bheemalinga, Narasapuram (Vilalge)GuntakalMandal, Anantapuramu District.

Name and description of the :Nesara Lakshminarayana, age 45 respondentyears, S/o Narayana, Narasapuram (Village),GuntakalMandal, /Anantapuramu District.

Section of law under which the :Accused found not guilty for the lower Court imposedoffence u/sec.324 IPC.

Whether confirmed, modified or :Confirmed. reversed and if modified, the modification.

Date of Presentation :10.12.2018

Filed on:13.12.2018

Notice issued by the Court:18.12.2018

Appellant ordered to appear:17.01.2019

Hearing:16.12.2019

Judgment:20.02.2020

This appeal coming on 16.12.2019 before me in the presence of the appellant and Sri P. Guru Prasad and Sri M.Krishnappa, Advocates for the

Appellant/Defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

Gooty for the Prosecution for state and Sri A. Suryanarayana, Advocate for

Respondent/Accused and on perusing the appeal grounds, the record of the evidence, after duly considering the same, after hearing the appellants and the prosecution, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment dated 12.11.2018 passed in C.C.1/2014 on the file of

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty wherein and thereby acquitting the

Respondent/Accused u./sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/sec.

324 IPC.

2.The Appellant/defacto complainant and the Respondent hereinafter referred as Complainant and Accused as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3.The case of the Prosecution is that on 06.2.2012 at 1.30 PM while

PW.5 was in the police station, a oral complaint was made by PW.1, who came to the police Station along with PW.2, alleging that PW.1 has agricultural lands at a distance of 2 Kms. to his native village of

Narasapuram, that he raised ground nut crop in his fields, that the lands of the accused are situate on the western side of his land, that while PW.1 was passing through the land of accused as usual, two days prior to the present incident, the accused objected him and due to which a galata was taken place between the accused and PW.1 and in the said galata the accused and

PW.1 beat each other. It is also stated that on 06.2.2012 at about 8.30 AM while PW.1 was going to his field with his son/PW.3 through the fields of accused, the accused objected them by abusing them and also beat with a sickle on the head of PW.1 causing bleeding injury and when PW.3 and his his brother's son/LW.5 came there and tried to convince the accused, the accused did not listen them and beat on the left knee of PW.2 causing bleeding injury and also bite him on his left shoulder due to which PW.2 and

PW.5 beat the accused. Then PWs.1 and 2 went to the police station and lodged a complaint. Basing on which a case in Crime No.6/12 u/sec. 324 IPC was registered and investigated into.

3

4.In order to prove the guilt of Respondent/Accused the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

5.Assailing the correctness of the acquittal of the accused by Trial Judge, the Appellants/defacto complainant preferred the present Criminal Appeal on the following grounds :

(1)The judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(2)The trial court ought to have believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and ought to have convicted the Respondent.

(3)The trial court failed to consider the motive for the offences and hence failure of justice.

(4)The trial court failed to consider that why the respondent has gone to the land of Venkata Swamy, hence failure of justice.

(5)The trial court failed to consider the cut injuries on the appellant and also PW.6 evidence with regard to injury on the person of appellant and PW.2 Yellappa.

(6)The trial court failed to consider the character of the appellant with regard to criminal cases. Hence failure of justice.

(7)The trial court failed to consider the Easementary rights of Rastha of other farmers to go to their lands through land of Respondent.

(8)The trial court failed to consider the partial investigation of PW.4 S.I. of

Police.

(9)The trial court failed to consider the non possession of weapons buy the appellant and others.

4 (10)The trial court failed to consider the explanation given by the witnesses i.e. Appellant and others with regard to the injuries on the

Respondent.

(11)The trial court ignored whether the Ex.P.1 is oral or written and the statement of appellant was recorded by police at hospital. This aspect also trial court failed to consider.

(12)The trial court ignored the non recovery of sickle from the

Respondent. Hence failure of justice.

6.In view of rival submissions and in facts and circumstances of the case the point that has to be decided is :

“Whether the Judgment of the trial court is legal,

correct and based on the evidence adduced by the

prosecution and whether needs any interference?”

7.Heard both sides.

8.Point :-

The respondent contended that the lower court appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused punishable u/sec. 324 IPC. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly and erroneously came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

9.On careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Exs.D.1 and D.2, the trial court discussed the each and every fact and the legal aspect in detail in the judgment and came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused punishable under section 324 IPC. The appellant contended that the injuries on the appellant and also the evidence of PW.6 with regard to the inquiry on the person of the appellant and PW.2 has not properly appreciated by the trial court and 5 further contended that character of appellant with regard to the criminal cases also not taken into consideration. On examination of the evidence of

PW.6, who is the doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P.4 and

P.5. No doubt PW.6 is not well versed in the medical jurisprudence and he has not narrated each and every injury found on PWs.1 and 2. It is settled law that the evidence of medical officer is not substantive evidence and it is purely opinion evidence. The appellant also contended that the weapon was not recovered by the investigating officer. It is true that non recovery of weapon in all cases is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, this is the counter case to S.C. 529/2012 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge,

Gooty. The appellant herein is PW.1 in C.C. 1/2014, clearly stated apprehending the danger to their lives they beat the respondent herein. The learned trial judge came to conclusion that the appellant and others are the aggressors. The motive for the offence is the dispute with regard to a

Rastha. The appellant also not filed any document to show that he is having easemantary right over the disputed Rastha. On examination of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5, I came to a conclusion that the Judgment of the trial court is legal, correct and based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution and needs no interference.

10.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment and

Calendar passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty in C.C. 01/2014 is confirmed holding that the Trial Court recorded reasoned judgment. The Bail bonds of the Accused/Respondent shall continue for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the the 20th day of February, 2020.

Sd/- A. MOSES

VI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY.