1
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KURNOOL.
PRESENT : Sri A. Srinivasa Kumar I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Wednesday, the 18th day of October, 2023.
Sessions Case No.380/2014
State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Complainant Bethamcherla UPS
1. Talari Pedda Maddilety, S/o. Talari Nagamaddi @ Dubbanna, age 45 yrs, Farmer.
2. Talari Chinna Maddilety, S/o. Talari Nagamaddi @ Dubbanna, age 38 yrs, Farmer
3. Talari Thimmaiah, S/o. Talari Nagamaddi @ Dubbanna, age 30 yrs, Farmer. Name of the accused4. Talari Chandra, S/o. Talari Pedda Maddilety, age 21 yrs, Farmer.
5. Talari Maddilety, S/o. Talari Nagesh @ Nagesham, age 23 yrs, Farmer.
6. Boya Rama Naidu, S/o. Sunkanna, age 45 yrs, Farmer.
7. Boya Maddilety, S/o. Rama Naidu, age 25 yrs, Farmer.
8. Talari Nagesh @ Nagesham [died] u/Sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 324 of IPC and Offences charged u/Sections 147, 148, 326, 324 and 302 r/w.149 of IPC. Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty Name of the police station & Cr.No. Crime No.6 of 2014 of Bethamcherla PS Findings of the JudgeFound guilty Sentence or orderIn the result, A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 [five] years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 [six] months each for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC; A1 to A3 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 [two] years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 149 IPC; A4 to A7 are sentenced to undergo 2
Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 [one] year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; A1 to A7 are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with 149 IPC and A1 to A7 are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with 149 IPC. The above sentences shall run concurrently. The case against A8 is abated as he died. The remand period of accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.PC. The imprisonment imposed on accused is subject to the provisions of Sec.427 Cr.PC. M.O.1 to M.O.8 as in C.P.R.NO.11 of 2017 are ordered to destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of Judgment to each of the accused and they are also informed that they have got right to appeal against the Judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Nelapadu at Amaravathi.
This case coming on 03.10.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri M.L. Srinivasa Reddy and
Sri B. Chennakesava Reddy, Advocates for the Accused, upon hearing both sides, on perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
3
J U D G M E N T
As a prologue of this Judgment, this court would like to state that this Judgment is the outcome of a case and counter case, one is this case and another is
S.C.No.164/2018 and both the matters have been tried separately with the help of separate Additional Public Prosecutors and finally, it has come to the stage of
Judgment. It is a well established principle of law that a common Judgment cannot be passed in a case and counter case and the court shall give two separate Judgments independently based on the facts and circumstances of case case. Of-course, there is no bar for the court to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of each case while giving Judgment. Keeping in mind these principles, this court further proceeded to pass a Judgment in this case.
2.On 8th January, 2014 at about 8.00 pm., one Mannem Sudhakar, who is the resident of Bethemcherla of Rudravaram [M], Kurnool District, made a written complaint
before the Inspector of Police, Bethamcherla in Government General Hospital, Kurnool
against A1 to A8, inter-alia, alleging against them that his parents have two children, one is himself and another is a daughter. So far as the incident took place is concerned, the complainant has stated that about one month prior to the alleged incident,the son of his senior paternal uncle, namely, Sreenivasulu, intended to sell away his agricultural land and Accused No.1, namely Talari Pedda Maddilety [hereinafter referred to as A1] and his younger brothers i.e., Accused No.2, namely,
Talari Chinna Maddilety [hereinafter referred to as A2] and A8, namely, Talari Nagesh @ Nagesham [herein after referred to as deceased accused, who died during pendency 4 of this case], with a malafide intention, tried to purchase the said land for a cheaper rate, but his [complainant] father, namely Swamulu [herein after referred to as ‘deceased’] interfered and got the said land sold away to one Harijana Ranganna of the same village for higher price and since then, misunderstandings have arisen between his [complainant] father and the family of A1 and they used to scold their family members whenever they appear before them. While so, according to the complainant, on 8th January,2014 in the noon, he came to know that the accused persons scolded his [complainant] paternal aunt, namely, Lakshmi Devi and knowing the said fact, the son of his Junior paternal aunt, namely, Vikram, went to the house of A1 at about 1.00 pm., and questioned A1 about their highhandedness in scolding Lakshmi Devi. Then, according to the complainant, A1 to A8, thereby, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, started beating Vikram with sticks and stones and on observing such highhandedness, the complainant, his father i.e., Swamulu and the mother of complainant, namely, Mannem Venkata Lakshmamma and his [complainant] paternal aunt Mandla Lakshmidevi went to the rescue of the said Vikram and then, A1 and A2 beat the father of the complainant Swamulu with sticks and his father fell down due to the impact of such hitting and then, A3 to A7 again started beating the father of the complainant with stones and they also beat his mother when she went to rescue her husband. Later, according to the complainant, his relatives, namely, Raju, Mohan and others came and rescued them. After the incident, according to the complainant, they found bleeding injury on the head of his father Swamulu and also blood was oozing from his nose and he was unconscious and he [complainant] also found bleeding injuries on her mother and dumb injuries on Vikram and later they took his father i.e., 5
Swamulu to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool in an Ambulance at about 3.00 pm., but his father succumbed to the injuries at 4.45 pm on the same day.
Based on the above said complaint, the Investigating Officer took up investigation and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, who witnessed the incident, conducted inquest over the dead body of Swamulu in the presence of panchayatdars and also received postmortem certificate from the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and later filed Charge sheet against A1 to A8 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code [for the short ‘IPC’]
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone has taken cognizance of the case under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149 IPC against the accused.
On appearance of the accused, copies are furnished to the accused under Section 207
Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone after going through the record, found that the Sections 307 and 302 are exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions in Additional Court, has committed the case through the orders in
P.R.C.No.26/2014 dated 5th August, 2014 to the court of Principal Sessions Judge,
Kurnool, where, after taking cognizance of the said case for the above said offences, re-numbered the said case as SC.380 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court, which was received such record on 7th October, 2014.
4.The accused 1 to 7 and deceased A8 made their appearance on 10th November, 2014 and on 9th January, 2015, this Court after examining the accused, framed 6 charges against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 324, and under Sections 147, 148, 326, 324 and 302 read with 149 of IPC.
5.In order to establish the said charges against the accused 1 to 7 and deceased
A8, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.17 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on its behalf and M.O.1 to M.O.8 were also marked.
6.After conclusion of the trial and as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure [for the short ‘Cr.P.C’], this Court examined A1 to A7 on 18th November, 2020, while explaining the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by each witness against them, on which, Ex.D1 to Ex.D15 were marked on their behalf as defence evidence.
7.Heard the learned Advocate for the accused and also the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this Court to the entire case record, has vehemently contended that the prosecution could establish the charged offences against A1 to A7 and deceased A8 and further contended that it is an admitted fact about the occurrence took place on 8th January, 2014, wherein there was a free fight between these accused and the accused in S.C.No.164/2018, resulted the death of said Swamulu in this case and therefore, this court must take the matter seriously and punish A1 to A7 as per Law. The Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon several Judgments which are noted below in support of his contentions.
a. “Susanta Das Vs State of Orissa” reported in ‘2016 [1] ALD Crl. 372 SC’ 7 b. “Krishnan Vs State rep by Inspector of Police” reported in ‘2003 Crl.J.3705
SC’ c. “Bishwanath Mochi Vs The State of Bihar” reported in ‘AIR 2006 Jarkhand 856’ d. “Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh” reported on ‘20th October,2016 [SC]’ e. “Amar Malla Vs State of Tripura ” reported on ‘23rd August, 2002 [SC]’ f. “Dharminder Vs State of Himachal Pradesh ” reported on ‘3 rd September, 2002 [SC]’ g. “Laxmi Raj Shetty Vs State of Tamil Nadu ” reported in ‘AIR 1988 1274 [SC]’ h. “Sukhdev Yadav Vs State of Bihar ” reported in ‘2002 ALD Crl.36 [SC]’ i. “Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh Vs State of Gujarat ” reported on‘ 3rd
October, 2016 [SC]’
9.On the other hand, the learned Advocate for A1 to A7 has vehemently contended that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive i.e., the dispute over the land in this case and there are several contradictions and omissions in the evidence of all witnesses and therefore, the accused are entitled to acquittal. He further contended that there are contradictions in the alleged eye witnesses i.e., PW.1 to PW.7 and therefore, it is a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. He further contended that there are injuries sustained by A1 to A7 and deceased A8 also in the alleged incident, but the prosecution failed to establish those injuries, which is an aspect to disbelieve the case of the prosecution, finally, the Advocate has relied upon the following Judgments:
a. “K. Ashokam Vs State of Kerala ” reported in ‘1998 [2] LawSuit 36 [AP]’ 8 b. “The Public Prosecutor Vs Rangam Subbarayudu ” reported in ‘2007 [2]
LawSuit 36 [AP]’ c. “Padam Singh Vs State of U.P.” reported in ‘2000 SAR [Crl] 107 SC’ d. “Viram @ Virma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in ‘2002 AIR [Crl] 194
SC’ e. “Bandela Daveedu Vs State of A.P.” reported in “2011 [2] ALT [Crl] 184 [A.P]’
This Court has perused the entire case record meticulously and also took into consideration of the arguments advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor and also the Advocate for A1 to A8 and formulated the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution could establish the charged offences u/S.147, 148, 324, 326, 302 read with 149 of IPC., against A1 to A7 and deceased A8?
2. Whether the injuries sustained by A1 to A8 and non explanation of those injuries fatal to the case of the prosecution?
3. Whether there was intention on the part of A1 to A7 and the deceased A8 to kill the father of complainant i.e,. Swamulu?
4. If so, to what relief?
10.POINT Nos.1 to 3:
1. Whether the prosecution could establish the charged offences u/S.147, 148, 324, 326, 302 read with 149 of IPC., against
A1 to A7 and deceased A8?
9
2. Whether the injuries sustained by A1 to A8 and non explanation of those injuries fatal to the case of the prosecution?
3. Whether there was intention on the part of A1 to A7 and the deceased A8 to kill the father of complainant i.e,. Swamulu?
A.As already stated by this court in the factual matrix, undoubtedly, there was an incident on 8th January, 2014 at about 12.00 noon, wherein the present accused and the accused in S.C.164/2018 had a free fight, thereby, causing the death of Swamulu and injuries to his family members etc. Therefore, the accused in this case, cannot gainsay about the incident, stating that they did not cause injuries to the said
Swamulu and his family members. We can come to a definite conclusion about the said incident, when we keep in mind the facts of this case and also the facts involved in
SC.NO.164/2018. Even a judicial notice can be taken about the incident occurred on
8th January, 2014. Normally, a judicial notice can be taken by a court not in criminal cases, but in the circumstances, where the things are obvious even to the general public like hot climate in summers, cold climate in winters, rains in rainy season etc.
But,the Honourable Apex Court in a very recent Judgment decided between “Harendra
Rai Vs State of Bihar”, reported in ‘AIR 2023 SC 4331’, wherein, it has been held in 66th Paragraph that ‘A Judicial notice of any such fact as per Section 56 of Evidence Act can be taken by a court, which is well known to everyone, which is in the common knowledge of every one which is authoritatively attested, which is so apparent on the face of the record etc. It is further held in the same Judgment that the Judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters, but the present matter stands on an altogether different footing in view of what has been noted herein above. In this case 10 also, this court has no hesitation to take Judicial notice of a fact with regard to the incident occurred on 8th January, 2014 between the two groups, wherein the said
Swamulu had died. The only duty cast upon this court is to see as to whether such death of Swamulu was intentionally caused or not, which has to be discussed in the end part of the Judgment.
B.As further stated by this court in the factual matrix, it is the case of the prosecution that there was a rivalry between the accused and the complainant regarding a land issue, wherein, the deceased Swamulu interfered and got the land of
Sreenivasulu sold to Harijana Rangaiah for higher price and from that day onwards, according to the case of prosecution, the accused party used to scold the family members of the complainant whenever they appear before them and like-wise, on 8th
January,m 2014 when the said Lakshmi Devi was going in front of the house of A1, the accused scolded her in filthy language and she came to the house of the complainant and informed the same to them and the said Vikram, immediately, went to the house of
A1 and questioned them about their attitude towards Lakshmi Devi and then, the accused, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, beat the said Vikram and also the complainant and his family members, including the deceased Swamulu, thereby, causing the death of Swamulu. In this regard, the accused are charged for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 read with 149 of IPC.
C.Section 147 IPC would deal with the punishment for rioting i.e., for the violence used by the accused as an unlawful assembly; Section 148 IPC would prescribe the punishment for doing rioting with deadly weapons; Section 324 IPC would dealt 11 with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons; Section 326
IPC deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons and finally, Section 149 IPC deals with the common object of the persons of unlawful assembly to cause a particular crime. Now, we have to see as to whether the prosecution could establish the charged offences against A1 to A8 in this case.
D.In their best efforts to establish the charged offences, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and on the other hand, the accused persons marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 through the cross examinations of PW.4,
PW.6 and PW.8 and they also marked Ex.D7 to Ex.D15, which are the wound certificates of A1 to A7 and the deceased A8 to show that the prosecution failed to establish their injuries etc. M.O.1 to M.O.8 were also marked in this case.
E.The first witness examined by the prosecution is the mother of the complainant M. Venkata Lakshmamma, who has stated in her chief examination about her relationship with other witnesses and stated that the deceased Swamulu was her husband and so far as the accused are concerned, she has stated that about three moths prior to the incident, her husband interefered and got the land of Sreenivasulu sold to the said Harijana Rangaiah for higher price and since then, the accused developed grudge against them. She further stated that on the date of incident, at about 12.00 noon, she came to know that all the accused were beating the said Vikram and so, she went to the house of Vikram and witnessed the accused beating him and she also questioned the accused about such act. She further stated that even her husband and other family members accompanied her and when her husband 12 questioned the accused about beating of Vikram, A8 took a stick and beat her husband on his head, thereby, causing bleeding injury and as an impact, the said Swamulu fell down and then, A1, A2, deceased A8 and A3 again beat her husband and caused injuries. When she tried to rescue her husband, she stated that A4 beat her with a stick on the left side of her head and caused injury. She further stated that A5 has thrown stones on them, wherein they all sustained injuries. She also stated that the said
Madhu Sekhar and Mohan came and rescued them. She further stated that they all took
Swamulu in an auto rickshaw to Hussainapuram and from there, they took an
Ambulance and went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where her husband succumbed to the injuries.
F.The complainant was examined as PW.2 and according to him, on 8th
January, 2014 at about 11.30 am., the said Lakshmidevi came to their house by weeping and informed him about the accused abusing her and then, the said Vikram went to the house of A3 and A8 to question them about such attitude and then, he noticed all the accused attacking Vikram and beating him and then, himself, his mother [PW.1], his father [deceased] and Lakshmi Devi went to the house of A3 and A8 to rescue Vikram and then, the accused attacked his father. PW.2 has particularly stated that A1 to A3 and A8 beat his father with country sticks, thereby, his father fell down and then A4 to A7 beat his father with sticks and also with their hands and legs. It is his further evidence that when his mother went to rescue of his father, A1 to A3 and A8 beat his mother also, thereby, causing injuries. He further stated that he went to rescue his father, but the accused pushed him aside and so, he sustained small 13 abrasions on his right knee. He too has stated that the said Madhu Sekhar and Mohan came and rescued them from the hands of the accused and took his father in an auto rickshaw til Hussainapuram and there from they went in an Ambulance to Government
General Hospital, Kurnool, where, the Swamulu succumbed to the injuries.
G.One M. Mahesh, who is the younger brother of PW.2 has stated almost the same facts as stated by PW.1 and PW.2 in their chief examination and according to him also, the incident occurred on 8th January, 2014 at about 1.00 pm., and he too would state that the said Lakshmi Devi came to their house by weeping and Vikram went to the house of A1 to question such high handedness against the said Lakshmi
Devi, wherein the accused persons started beating Vikram and so, himself, PW.1, PW.2, the deceased Swamulu, all of them went there and A1, A2 and A8 attacked his father with country sticks, causing injuries on his head and as an impact, his father fell down and so far as A3 to A7 are concerned, it is his evidence that they pelted stones on his father and also they beat his father i.e., PW.1 when she went to the rescue of his father and he too would state that the said Madhu Sekhar and Mohan came and rescued them. He too has stated that they took their father on their shoulders to
Hussainapuram in an auto rickshaw and there from, they took him to the Government
General Hospital,Kurnool in an Ambulance, where, Swamulu succumbed to the injuries.
H.PW.4 i.e., the said Lakshmi Devi has stated the same facts as stated by
PW.1 to PW.3 regarding the said incident and according to her also, A1, A2 and A8 abused her on 8th January, 2014 and she returned home and informed the same to her family members and the said Vikram rushed to the house of A1 to question their 14 highhandedness, where, A1 to A7 started beating Vikram and on seeing such attack, she along with PW.1 to PW.3, the deceased Swamulu and others went there to his rescue, where, A1 to A3 and A8 beat Swamulu with country sticks and as a result, he fell down and A4 to A7 also beat PW.1, PW.2 with stones and finally, the said Madhu
Sekhar and Moham came to their rescue and they shifted to the Government General
Hospital, Kurnool.
I.PW.5, namely, B. Meenuga Vikram, he too has stated the same facts as stated by PW.1 to PW.4 and he would state about the motive of A1 to A7 to attack them i.e., with regard to the said land dispute and he too would state that on that date,
Lakshmi Devi i.e., PW.4 was abused by the accused persons and he immediately, rushed to their house to question them and A1 to A3 and A8 beat him with sticks and
A4 to A7 pelted stones on him. According to him also, the deceased Swamulu, PW.1 to
PW.4 and others came there to his rescue, where, A1 to A3 and A8 beat Swamulu with stones,thereby, he fell down and later they also beat PW.1 to PW.3 and later, they shifted Swamulu to Government General Hospital, Kurnool.
J.PW.6, namely, Madhu Sekhar has stated the facts that he knew PW.1 to
PW.5 and also the said Sreenivasulu and according to him, his house was situated nearby the house of PW.1 to PW.5 and on 8th January, 2014, when he was in his house, he could hear hue and cries from the house of A1 and A2 and then, he came out and saw the quarrel between the accused and PW.1 to PW.5 and he also could observe
PW.5, the deceased Swamulu, PW.1 and PW.2 running towards the house of A1 and A2 and he also could observe A1 to A3 and A8 started beating Swamulu with sticks and 15 then himself and his brother Mohan went there to their rescue and by the time, they went there, Swamulu already fell down with bleeding injuries on his head and from his nose and he also could observe A4 to A7 pelting stones on PW.1 and others. It is his further evidence that they carried Swamulu on their shoulders up to Hussainapuram and from there, they took Ambulance and shifted him to the Government General Hospital,
Kurnool, where the said Swamulu succumbed to the injuries.
K.PW.7 i.e., the said Harijana Ranganna, has stated in his evidence about the motive of A1 to A8 to attack PW.1 to PW.5 and according to him, he has ten acres of land in Rudravaram Village and he purchased two acres of land from the said
Swamulu for Rs.6,20,000/- and paid Rs.2,30,000/- as advance and he is yet to pay the remaining balance. The predecessor of this court having treated the said witness as hostile and at the request of the Additional Public Prosecutor, allowed him to cross examine and in that cross examination, a few suggestions were put to him regarding the motive part and he denied the same.
In the said aspect, this court relies on a decision of Honourable Apex
Court in a case decided between “Abdul Sayeed Vs State of Madhyapradesh”, reported in ‘2010 [10] SCC 259’, which is aptly applies with regard contention as to the value of hostile witness.
L.PW.8, namely, the said Mohan has stated the same facts in his chief examination as stated by PW.6 about his attempt to rescue PW.1 to PW.5 and he too has stated that on 8th January, 2014 at about 12 noon, himself and PW.6 could hear some quarrels outside the house and they came out and could witness PW.1, PW.2, 16
PW.4 and the deceased Swamulu were running towards the house of A3 and A8 and after some time, himself and PW.6 proceeded to the house of A3 and would witness A1 to A3 and A8 bearing Swamulu with stones,thereby, he fell down on the ground and when PW.1 came to their rescue, they attacked her and PW.2 to PW.5 with sticks and stones and he further stated that himself and PW.6 went to their rescue and shifted deceased Swamulu to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, where, he succumbed to the injuries. He also has stated about the motive on the part of A1 to A7 and deceased A8 to attack PW.1 to PW.5 due to the said land dispute.
M.PW.9, namely, Sreenivasulu, has stated in his chief examination that he knew PW.1 to PW.8 and he has stated that in the year 1998, he had purchased two acres of land from A1 and A2 and in the year 2014, he intended to sell away the said land and so, he approached A8 [deceased] and his mother and enquired with them about the purchasers if any and they suggested A8 as a proposed purchaser, who agreed to purchase the said land for Rs.1,80,000/-, but he refused to accept the said price and then,he approached the deceased Swamulu, who recommended the name of
PW.7, who finally, purchased the said land for Rs.6,20,000/- and according to him, the said transaction was the motive on the part of A1 to A8, to attack PW.1 to PW.5 and the deceased Swamulu.
N.PW.10, namely, B. Prasad Reddy, has stated in his evidence that he worked as Surpanch for Emboy Village from 2006 to August, 2018 and according to him, on 9th January, 2014 at about 8.00 am., to 11.00 am., he witnessed the Police 17 conducting inquest over the dead boy of Swamulu and he also attested Ex.P3/Inquest report.
O.PW.11, namely, K. Venkata Ramudu, has stated in his evidence that in the month of January, 2014,he went to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and also witnessed the inquest conducted over the dead body of Swamulu and he also attested the said document.
P.PW.12, namely, Dr. M. Srinivasa Naik, has stated in his evidence that he was working as Associate Professor in Forensic Medical Department, Government
Medical College, Anantapur and previously, he worked as Assistant Professor in
Government Medical College, Kurnool and according to him on 9th January, 2014 at about 11.00 am., he received requisition from the Inspector of Police, Bethamcherla to conduct postmortem and accordingly, he conducted and found the following injuries:
1. Grazed abrasion of size measuring 4 x 1 cm, present over the right wrist
2. Grazed abrasion of size measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm present over right knee joint
3. On reflection of the scalp there is contusion of right occipito temporo parietal region of the scalp with contusion of right temproralis muscle.
4. Multiple depressed fractures of the right parietal,and right temporal bone of the skull measuring 9 x 4 cm with fractured bony fragments and piercing the brain matter
5. Extra dural hemorrhage present over the right temporal region of the brain matter
6. Diffuse subdural hemorrhage of both cerebral hemispheres of the brain matter 18
Finally, he opined that the cause of death of deceased Swamulu was due to
Intracranial hemorrhage. resulting from head injury and the injuries 3 to 6 also are the cause for the death of Swamulu and those injuries are possible when a person beats him with stout sticks.
Q.PW.13, namely, D. Siva Rami Reddy, who is also the resident of
Rudravaram Village, has stated in his evidence that on 9th January, 2014 at about 3.30 pm., when he was proceeding in front of the house of A8, he witnessed the Inspector of
Police, seizing blood stained earth, controlled earth, sticks and stones in front of the house of A8 and he also identified those sticks and stones in the court which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4.
R.PW.14, namely, D. Maheswara Reddy, who worked as the Inspector of
Police and who investigated into the matter, has stated in his evidence that on 8th
January, 2014 at about 3.00 pm., he received an information about rioting occurred in
Rudravaram village and immediately, he secured the presence of the Sub-Inspector of
Police and staff and went to the said village at 4.00 pm., and posted police picket and at about 6.30 pm., he received the death intimation of Swamulu from the Government
General Hospital, Kurnool and he immediately, went to the said hospital, wherein, PW.2 lodged a written complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1 and he registered the same as
Cr.No.6/2014 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with 149
IPC and on the next day, he went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and conducted inquest over the dead body of Swamulu. The postmortem examination was also conducted on the dead body and he seized the clothes of the said Swamulu which 19 are marked as M.O.5 to M.O.7 and he again went to Rudravaram village and recovered the sticks and stones and seized them and which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4 and
M.O.8 and also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and recorded the statements of other witnesses etc.
S.PW.15, namely, T. Sreenivasulu, who was the successor of PW.14 stated in his evidence that he took up investigation and arrested A1 to A8 and sent them for judicial remand.
T.PW.16, who worked as Associate Professor of Government General
Hospital, Kurnool has stated in his evidence that on 9th January, 2014 at about 11.23 am., he examined PW.5 and found fracture of shaft forearm ulna, which is grievous in nature and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P10. Since the Civil Assistant
Surgeon,namely, T. Sreenivasulu, who examined other witnesses, has died, this witness identified his signature and the wound certificate of Venkata Lakshmamma [PW.1] was marked as Ex.P12.
U.Finally, R.G. Subramanyam, who worked as Inspector of Police, was examined as PW.17 and he has stated in his evidence that on 5th February, 2014, he took up investigation and after receiving the report from the Forensic Science
Laboratory, he filed charge sheet. Now, it is the duty of this court as to whether the evidence of PW.1 to PW.17 is trustworthy and believable.
11.As one could peruse from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.17, there is no doubt at all about the incidence occurred on 8th January, 2014, wherein, the accused persons participated in the offence as unlawful assemble and caused the death of Swamulu and caused injuries to other witnesses. This Court has perused the cross examination of 20 each witness and found that there is no point at all to disbelieve their evidence, except some contradictions and omissions, which are not at all material and important. As rightly contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor, minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, shall not a ground to disbelieve their evidence as laid down by the Honourable Apex court in the said Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh’s case. However, this court would like to discuss the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 in detail.
12.Undoubtedly, the Advocate for A1 to A8 could elicit from the cross examination of
PW.1 to PW.9 about their relationship with each other, particularly to the deceased family. But, that itself shall not be a ground to disbelieve their evidence as laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in several Judgments and this court would place its reliance on one of such Judgments decided between ‘Vinay Kumar Vs State of Bihar”, reported in ‘AIR 2008 [SC] 3276’. However, the Honourable Apex Court guides the lower courts that ‘While appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses, a careful scrutiny to be made in their evidence’. Therefore, the contention of the Advocate for A1 to A8 is not sustainable under the said point. Now, coming to the further evidence of
PW.1 in the cross examination, the Advocate tried to elicit about the counter case I.e,.
SC.No.164/2018 and also put a few suggestions regarding the said aspect and PW.1
denied their involvement in the said Sessions case. The Advocate questioned PW.1 about the motive part of A1 to A7 and the deceased A8 alleged by them i.e., with regard to the land dispute and PW.1 expressed her ignorance about the said land dispute. Here also, we cannot disbelieve the evidence of PW.1, simply on the reason that she failed to state a motive part in her evidence, because, she being an old 21 woman, might not have known the transactions that were being played by her husband i.e., the deceased Swamulu.
The Advocate also could elicit from the cross examination of PW.1 that her house is situated nearby the house of A8 and the said answer given by PW.1 would rather helps the case of the prosecution to show about the witnesses, witnessing A1 to
A8 beating Vikram I.e,. PW.5 near their house. She has clearly stated that her house and the house of A1 and A2 are situated just after two houses. This answer also would help the case of the prosecution to show that there was an incident, where PW.5 was beaten by A1 to A8 and on hearing hue and cries, they reached the house of A1 to A8.
However, PW.1 made to admit in the same cross examination by the Advocate for A1 to
A8 about A8 filing complaint before the Police against her, Lakshmidevi i.e., PW.4,
Sreeramulu, who is the father of PW.5, PW.5, Madhu Sekhar [PW.6], one B. Ravi,
S/o.Sreeramulu, one B. Ranjith and Meesala Pedda Maddilety and such admission would help this court to draw a presumption and also a Judicial notice about the occurrence took place between these prosecution witnesses and A1 to A8 on 8th
January, 2014. She also admitted about the transfer of such criminal case to this court form Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,Kurnool. When the Advocate questioned PW.1 about the period for which, Talari Chinna Maddilety [A2] remained in the Government
General Hospital, Kurnool, she expressed her ignorance and she also expressed her ignorance about the newspaper publication regarding the incident. She was put a suggestion in the same cross examination about the incident took place on that date on the reason that her family members were doing illicit liquor business and A8 gave information to the Excise Police, who raided and destroyed the illicit liquor and that was 22 the reason for them to foist this case against A1 to A8 and PW.1 denied the said suggestions. She was also put a suggestion that herself and other family members attacked A1 to A8 and caused injuries to them, but she denied the said suggestion as in correct. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 could not be shaken by the Advocate for A1 to
A8 in the cross examination and there is no point to disbelieve her evidence. Now coming to the evidence of PW.2 i.e., the complainant, the following are the findings of this court.
13.PW.2 was also questioned with regard to the motive part alleged by him in his complaint i.e., with regard to the land dispute, wherein, the deceased Swamulu recommended Sreenivasulu i.e., PW.9 to sell the land to Harijana Ranganna i.e., PW.7 by which, A1 to A8 grew wild and caused the death of Swamulu and injuries to them and PW.2 denied the said suggestion. A point to be remembered that motive part alone would not play a vital role in appreciation of the evidence of a prosecution witness, when such witness has seen the occurrence directly and gives the evidence in a proper way as laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in a case decided between “Babu Lodhi
Vs State of Uttar Pradesh”, reported in ‘AIR 1987 SC 68’. In this case also, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9 is quite trustworthy and moreover, they are direct witnesses to the incident. Therefore, a motive part alone cannot give strength to the defence raised by A1 to A8. So, whatever the suggestion put in the cross examination of PW.2 about the land dispute, has no bearing under the facts and circumstances of this case. This witness was also cross examined on the aspect about the counter case filed by A1 to A8 against him, PW.1 and other witnesses 23 and as already stated by this court, the said question would rather help the case of the prosecution in establishing the incident occurred on 8th January, 2014.
Undoubtedly, there are some omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.2, but they are immaterial and minor. PW.1 was asked as to how many times A1 to A8 beat his father and PW.2 failed to answer the said question and said that he could not say. But such failure on the part of PW.2, has no much bearing in the facts and circumstances of this case, as there were so many persons involved in the said incident and naturally, PW.2 being a victim cannot sit leisurely in the incident and count the blows each accused gave to his father and he being the son of Swamulu, will be in a shock and will be not in a position to observe such things. Therefore, such failure to give proper evidence by PW.1 shall be ignored. However, he was made to admit in the same cross examination that A1 to A3 and A8 beat his father with country sticks indiscriminately and A4 to A7 thrown stones. He was put suggestions in the same cross examination that at the time of the incident, he was not at all present in the village and he was elsewhere and therefore, speaking falsehood. But, this witness denied the said suggestion and stated that he was definitely present at the time of the incident. Regarding this aspect, the accused persons failed to establish that PW.2 was not present at the time of the incident in the village. Therefore, there is no point to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 also. Now coming to the evidence of PW.3, the following are the findings of this court.
14.PW.3 was made to attempt in his cross examination about the news paper statement regarding the quarrel taking place in the village and also the illicit liquor was 24 destroyed by the Excise Police and also injured some persons, including his father i.e.,
Swamulu and that was the reason for his death. But, such statement in the newspaper shall not be considered as it is hearsay evidence, hit by Section 60 of Indian Evidence
Act. In the evidence of PW.2 also there are some omissions and contradictions which are also immaterial and minor and can be safely ignored. PW.3 was further cross examined on the aspect that A2 and A8 also sustained injuries in the said incident and as an answer,PW.3 stated that he had not observed such injuries. Here, it is the intention of the Advocate to focus on the aspect about the failure of the prosecution to explain such injuries of A2 and A8, so that to claim private defence in the case. When such is his intention, heavy burden lies on A1 to A8 to establish those injuries and of-course, the accused marked Ex.D9 to Ex.D13 to show such injuries on the accused persons and this aspect has been discussed by this court in the latter part of the
Judgment. The said question posed by the Advocate would rather help the case of the prosecution to establish that an incident has occurred on 8th January, 2014 where, both the parties have clashed against each other. He was also put a suggestion that he too was not present at the time of the incident and he denied such suggestion as incorrect.
He too was put suggestion about the Excise Police raiding their village and destroying the illicit liquor allegedly prepared by the said Sreeramulu and his family members and the said Swamulu died due to the attack made by Excise Police and PW.3 denied the said suggestion. Now coming to the evidence of PW.4, the following are the findings of this court.
25
15. PW.4 has admitted in her cross examination that she too helped the said
Sreenivasulu/PW.9 to sell the land to PW.7 at his request. In the cross examination of this witness also, there are some omissions and contradictions which are immaterial and will not effect the case of prosecution. Undoubtedly, this witness has some improved versions regarding the manner of incident, but the same shall be ignored on the reason that she being one of the victims, cannot be expected to give each and every particular regarding the manner of incident and as already stated by this court, a victim cannot be expected to count each blow given by each accused to each person etc. This witness was also made to admit about the criminal case filed by A8 against them which is the subject matter in SC.No.164/2018. Therefore, such admission would fortify the incident taking place on 8th January, 2014 and also to disbelieve the suggestion made by the Advocate regarding the Excise Police attacking them and causing the death of Swamulu in the said attack. In support of the said view, this court relies on a decision of Honourabole Apex Court decided between “Ramappa
Halappa Pujar Vs State of Karnataka”, reported in ‘2007 [3] ALD Crl. 496’.
16.This witness i.e,. PW.5 is very important as he was the main root cause for the said attack made by A1 to A8 against them. As already stated by this court, it is the case of the prosecution that there was a dispute between the accused family and the family of these witnesses regarding the land, where the deceased Swamulu recommended PW.9 to purchase the land of PW.7, when the accused party intended to purchase the said land for a cheaper rate and it is also their case that from that day onwards, the accused developed grudge and started abusing these witnesses whenever 26 they appear before them. Like-wise, they abused PW.4 when she was going infront of the house of A1 and when she informed the same in the house, this witness rushed to the house of A1 to question him about the highhandedness of A1 to A8 etc. This witness was made to admit in the cross examination that A1 to A3 and A8 abused
PW.4, when she was returning from her house and then he went to their house within 15 minutes to question them about their highhandedness.
In the evidence of PW.5 also there are some omissions and contradictions, which are not at all important and worth for consideration. PW.5 has stated in his cross examination about his failure to observe which accused beat PW.1 in the said attack. Such answer given by him is natural as one could not explain each detail of the attack, when he was also a victim. He also stated in the same evidence about his failure to observe A2 to A8 and other woman receiving injuries in the said attack. However, he admitted in the same cross examination about filing of a criminal case of A1 to A8 against them. Once again, it is the definite finding of this court that there was an incident on 8th January, 2014. The remaining part of the cross examination are only suggestions, where, PW.5 denied them as incorrect.
17.Coming to the evidence of PW.6, there are some small omissions and contradictions which can be ignored in the facts and circumstances of this case, where, both the parties have admitted about the fight between them occurred on 8th January, 2014, where Swamulu has died. He too has stated about his position as one of the accused in the said criminal case filed at the instance of A. Sreeramulu in 27
SC.No.164/2018. The remaining part of the cross examination are filled with
suggestions, where, PW.6 denied them as incorrect.
18.Now, coming to the evidence of Harijana Ranganna i.e., PW.7, who was the person purchased the land from PW.9. According to his evidence, he failed to give proper explanation about the said land dealing and he was suggested in the cross examination about the failure of such land dealing etc. As already stated by this court, a motive is not important when there is direct evidence regarding the incident and so, the evidence of PW.7 is of no significance in this case.
19.Coming to the evidence of PW.8, his evidence is very important as he is an independent witness, who has clearly stated in the chief examination about the attack made by A1 to A8 against PW1 to PW.6 and he was the person, who rescued them from the hands of A1 to A8. In the cross examination, he has expressed his ignorance about the land dispute between A1 to A8 and PW.1 to PW.15 and in his evidence also, there are some small omissions and contradictions which shall be ignored. He too has expressed his ignorance about A3 and A8 receiving injuries in the said incident. It was suggested in his cross examination that he was not at all present at the time of the incident and he denied the said suggestions as incorrect.
20.PW.9, namely, Srinivasulu, has stated about the said land dealings made by him and also about his selling away his land to PW.7. In the cross examination, he has frankly admitted about his failure to produce any document to show his purchase of land from A1 and A2 in the year 1998 and also to show his position over the said land and etc. The main purpose to examine this witness is to establish the motive part of A1 28 to A8 to attack PW.1 to PW.5. But, the said purpose, as laid down by the Honourable
Apex Court would apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, as there is the direct evidence to establish the attack made by A1 to A8 against PW.1 to PW.5. The evidence of PW.10and PW.11 is not worth for appreciation as they spoke about their witnessing inquest over the dead body of Swamulu.
21.Now, coming to the evidence of PW.12, who is the Doctor and who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of Swamulu and also about his observation of six injuries on his body and according to him, the injuries 3 to 6 caused the death of Swamulu and those injuries are the head injuries caused by stout stick.
Therefore, the evidence of the Doctor is very clear that the cause of death was due to the injuries 3 to 6. The evidence of PW.13 needs no appreciation as his evidence is with regard to the seizure of MO.1 to M.O.4. Now coming to the evidence of PW.14 i.e., one of the Investigating Offices, this court has perused his cross examination in detail and found nothing to doubt his evidence and of-course, the Advocate for A1 to
A8 could elicit Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 i.e., omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
PW.4, PW.6 and PW.8. As already stated by this court, those omissions and contradictions are very minor when the prosecution could successfully establish the attack made by A1 to A8 against PW.1 to PW.5. The same fate would attract to the evidence of PW.15 to PW.17 also.
22.Now coming to the defence raised by A1 to A8, they marked Ex.D9 to Ex.D13 wound certificates to show the injuries sustained by A8, one Lakshmidevi, one M
Sreeniasulu and Talari Maddilety i.e., A2 and also to one D. Savithri. Except A2 and A8, 29 the remaining witnesses are not the accused in this case. Of-course, the wound certificate relating to A2 would disclose the injury on his left fore arm as ‘grievous’ in nature. But, it is noted in Ex.D12 wound certificate about the observation of the Doctor, who issued such certificate, was only a swelling on the left forearm. This court really did not understand as to how the said injury can be considered as grievous in nature.
The definition of ‘grievous injury’ is laid down under Section 320 IPC., wherein, it has been stated the following injuries alone can be considered as grievous:
1. Emasculation
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent dis figuration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
These are the injuries to be considered as grievous. But,in Ex.D12 certificate, the injury or swelling cannot be considered as grievous. It is also a superficial injury. Coming to the wound certificate of A8 i.e., Ex.D11, the injuries are noted as a blunt contusion with swelling and a blunt contusion with swelling and the
Doctor opined them as simple in nature. Therefore, the contention raised by the
Advocate for A1 to A8 about non explanation of injuries cannot be considered as they are only superficial. The Honourable Apex Court has laid down in a case decided between “KASAM ABDULLA HAFIZ Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA”, reported in ‘AIR 1998 30 [SC] 1451’, wherein it has been held that the injuries found on the accused, when only simple and superficial, the prosecution need not explain those injuries. Therefore, such point raised by the Advocate for A1 to A8 does not help the evidence of A1 to A8.
23.Therefore, for the reasons stated above,this court has no hesitation to conclude that A1 to A8 formed themselves into an unlawful assemble and caused the injuries to
PW.1 to PW.5 and caused the death of Swamulu. But, the facts and circumstances of this case would clearly indicate that there was no intention on the part of A1 to A8 to kill Swamulu,but their intention was only to cause injuries to them and in that process, they caused injuries to them, but unfortunately, the said Swamulu has died due to the head injury caused in the said attack.
24.As already stated by this court, the injuries 3 to 6 contusion of right occipito temporo parietal region of the scalp with contusion of right temproralis muscle; multiple depressed fractures of the right parietal, and right temporal bone of the skull measuring 9 x 4 cm with fractured bony fragments and piercing the brain matter; Extra dural hemorrhage present over the right temporal region of the brain matter; Diffuse subdural hemorrhage of both cerebral hemispheres of the brain matter. So, there are four injuries on the head caused by A1 to A3 with sticks and the remaining persons with stones. But,the same Doctor i.e., PW.12 has admitted in the cross examination like this:
“It is true that due to impact of only one blow or hit with stone or stout stick, the injuries 3 to 6 referred above, are possible, which means that one blow alone caused the said 3 to 6 injuries in this case.
31
Finally, the evidence of PW.12 would give meaning that the said
Swamulu died because of one blow on his head given by a stout stick by A1 and A2.
When such is the evidence of Doctor that Complainant died because of only injury on the head, the offence comes under Part-II of 304 of IPC. In support of said view, this court would place its reliance on the following Judgments:
1. “Manoj Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh”, reported in ‘AIR 2018 SC 2693’
2. “Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh Vs State of Punjab”, reported in ‘AIR 2021
LawSuit [SC] 536’
3. “Thankachan Vs State of Kerala”, reported in ‘AIR 2008 [SC] 406’
The above quoted Judgments would clearly indicate the nature of the offence when there was a free fight between two groups in a heat of passion, is a
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder and the said offence would fall under the category of either 304-I or 304-II IPC., depending on the facts and circumstances of this case, but not under Section 302 IPC. It is further held in the above quoted
Judgments that the court should be cautious in assessing the intention of the accuse when there are civil disputes between them. In this case also, there are disputes and enmity between A1 to A8 on one hand and PW.1 to PW.5 on the other hand and there was a fight ensured between the two groups when A1 to A8 abused PW.4 in a filthy language. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the death of
Swamulu was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which attracts against A1 to 32
A3 and A8 [deceased] only, hence, they are liable for punishment under Section 304-II
IPC.
25.Coming to Section 326 of IPC., wherein it finds that “Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous 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 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 under the above Section. In the present case, A1 to A3 & A8 [deceased] caused grievous hurt to
PW.5 which reflects through Ex.P10/ wound certificate of him. Therefore, this court concludes that A1 to A3 & A8 also liable for punishment under Section 326 IPC.
26.Now it has to be seen as to how far Section 324 of IPC attracts and against whom. As already stated in the factual matrix, it is an admitted fact as to causing injuries by A3 to A7 to the victims i.e., PW.1 and PW.4, which clearly establishes through the wound certificate of PW.1, thereby, this court without any hesitation can attribute Section 324 IPC., against A4 to A7 only, accordingly, they are liable for punishment under the above Section.
27.The next offence to be discussed herein is about Rioting, which attracts Section 147 IPC., wherein, it clearly defines as to the rioting by forming into an unlawful assemble. The present case facts straight away attracts such Section, since A1 to A8 [deceased] were made quarrel on 8th January, 2014 with the complainant, by forming 33 into an unlawful assemble, as such, A1 to A8 [deceased] are also liable for the punishment under Section 147 IPC.
28.The another similar offence alleged against A1 to A8 is Section 148 IPC, which clearly defines that ‘Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished under the said Section’. In the present case, all the accused while committing such riot, have armed with deadly weapons viz., sticks and stones, forming into an unlawful assemble, therefore, A1 to A8 [deceased] are also liable liable for the punishment under Section 148 IPC.
29.Finally, on going through the charges, a separate charge, attracting Section 149 of IPC for the respective offences as discussed in the above paras, has also framed against all the accused. So to attract such Section of law under Section 149 of IPC., which is the common object and it clearly defined as ‘Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
In the present case, as already stated above, A1 to A8 [deceased] with a common object having formed into an unlawful assemble, attacked PW.1 to PW.5 and in such incident, one Swamulu also died, thereby, attributing Section 149 of IPC., against A1 to 34
A8 [deceased] for the respective offences, since their involvement proved under such
Sections.
30.In the above facts and circumstances, this court without any hesitation finally, concludes that A1 to A3 & A8 [deceased] only are liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 304-II and 326 read with 149 of IPC; A4 to A7 only are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 of IPC and A1 to A8 [deceased] are all liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 147 read with 149 of IPC, 148 read with 149 of IPC. Since the Accused NO.8 died before during pendency of the case, case was abated against him.
31.In the result, A1 to A3 & A8 [deceased] are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-II and 326 read with 149 IPC; A4 to A7 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with 149 of IPC and A1 to
A8 [deceased] are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147 read with 149 IPC and under Section 148 read with 149 IPC, thereby, convicting them under Section 235[2] of Code of Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the death of
Accused NO.8, case is abated against him.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18th day of October, 2023.
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
35 18.10.2023:
32. The accused 1 to 7, who have been convicted in this case are present and this
Court questioned them on the quantum of sentence as per the procedure contemplated u/Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C. and A1, as a reply has stated that he has children and he is suffering from ailments; A2 left to the court to its desecration; A3 has stated that he has one daughter and one son; A4 has stated that he too has one daughter and one son; A5 has stated that he has two small children having five years and one month; A6 has stated he has children and A7 has stated that he being a lame could not say anything and all of them requested to show some mercy on them.
33.As already stated by this court, all the accused have pleaded mercy and to show some consideration while sentencing them. Of-course, the said incident has occurred in a heated atmosphere and there was a free fight between two groups and none of them have intention to cause deadly injuries against each other and moreover, the weapons used by them are not that so deadly, unless one uses them to cause the death of a person. Under these circumstances, this court would like to show some lenience towards A4 to A7 only in sentencing them for the above said offences, but not on A1 to A3, who were responsible for the death of Swamulu. Therefore, this court passed the following sentence against the accused persons.
34.In the result, A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 [five] years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of 36 payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 [six] months each for the offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC; A1 to A3 are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 [two] years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 149 IPC; A4 to A7 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 1 [one] year each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; A1 to A7 are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with 149 IPC and A1 to A7 are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of such fine, they shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 [three] months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 read with 149 IPC. The above sentences shall run concurrently.
The remand period of accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of
Cr.PC. The imprisonment imposed on accused is subject to the provisions of Sec.427
Cr.PC.
M.O.1 to M.O.8 as in C.P.R.NO.11 of 2017 are ordered to destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The office is directed to furnish a free copy of Judgment to each of the accused and they are also informed that they have got right to appeal against the 37
Judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Nelapadu at
Amaravathi.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me on this the 18th day of October, 2023.
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
[WITNESSES EXAMINED] FOR PROSECUTION:
PW1/29.10.2018:M.Venkata Lakshmamma
PW2/30.10.2018:Manyam Sudhakar
PW3/30.10.2018:M.Mahesh
PW4/30.10.2018:M.Lakshmi Devi
PW5/30.10.2018:Boya Meeniga Vikram
PW6/30.10.2018:B.Madhu Sekhar
PW7/31.10.2018:Harijana Ranganna
PW8/31.10.2018:B.Mohan
PW9/31.10.2018:R.Srinivasulu
PW10/01.11.2018:B.Prasad Reddy
PW11/02.11.2018:Kothagolla Venkata Ramudu
PW12/02.11.2018:Dr.M.Srinivasa Naik
PW13/05.11.2018:D.Siva Rami Reddy
PW14/08.11.2018:D.Maheswara Reddy
PW15/27.11.2018:T.Srinivasulu
PW16/27.11.2018:Dr.A.Naga Raju
PW17/14.12.2018:R.J. Subramanyam 38
FOR DEFENCE: - None -
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1:Report given by PW2
Ex.P2:161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW7
Ex.P3:Inquest Report
Ex.P4:Signature of PW11 in panchanama, dated.09.01.2014.
Ex.P5:Postmortem certificate
Ex.P6:Scene observation report
Ex.P7:Death intimation
Ex.P8:FIR in Cr.No.6/2014 of Bethamcherla PS
Ex.P9:Rough Sketch
Ex.P10:Wound certificate of PW5
Ex.P11:Death particulars of B.Swamulu
Ex.P12:Wound certificate of Venkata Lakshmamma
Ex.P13:RFSL Report
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4
Ex.D2:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4
Ex.D3:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4
Ex.D4:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6
Ex.D5:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW8
Ex.D6:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW8
Ex.D7:Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.D8:Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.7/2014
Ex.D9:Certified copy of wound certificate of T.Nagesh
Ex.D10:Certified copy of wound certificate of Lakshmi Devi
Ex.D11:Certified copy of wound certificate of M.Srinivalsulu
Ex.D12:Certified copy of wound certificate of Talari Maddilety 39
Ex.D13:Certified copy of wound certificate of D.Savithri
Ex.D14:Certified copy of scene observation panchanama
Ex.D15:Certified copy of rough sketch in Cr.No.7/2014
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1:Nattu stick length about 3 feet
M.O.2:Nattu stick length about 3 feet
M.O.3:Nattu stick length about 2 feet
M.O.4:Stones (4)
M.O.5:White colour full shirt
M.O.6:Dark green colour design lungi
M.O.7:Light maroon Red colour underwear
M.O.8:Pestol (రోకలి బం�డ)
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL.