Sri. Azhar Hussain

1 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(SPL.MOBILE), AT KARIMNAGAR.

FAC: J.M.F.C SULTHANABAD.

PRESENT: Azhar Hussain Judl.Magistrate of F.C., (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar. FAC: J.M.F.C SULTHANABAD

Friday, the 23rd day of September, 2016

C.C. No. 169 of 2011 Between : The State through, S.I of Police, Pothakapalli P.S. (Cr.No.43 of 2011)

...Complainant

AND A1. Budde Rajanna @ Rajaiah, s/o Rayamallu, 48 years, A2. Budde Chandramouli, s/o Rayamallu, 33 years, A3. Budde Ravinder, s/o Lachaiah, 35 years, A4. Budde Kumaraswamy, s/o Balaiah, 40 years, A5. Budde Balaiah, s/o Ramaiah, 70 years, All are r/o Odela village and Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri B.Bhoomaiah, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Pothakapalli P.S. has laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under section 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

The complainant viz., Bodakunti Sadanandam (LW1) is a native of

Odela village and is now staying at Godavarikhani. The parents of complainant viz., B.Rajalingu and B.Laxmi (Lws.4 and 5) are residing at

Odela village and eaking out their livelihood by means of agriculture. On 11.06.2011 during night time, the father of complainant B.Rajalingu (LW4) started laying a domestic bore-well in the premises of his house. At that

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD

2 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011 time, K.Mallaiah (LW9) whose house is situated in the same locality has requested his father to lay bore-well in the premises of his house also. As such, K.Laxman (LW8) who is the owner of bore-well machine, has kept the compressor machine of bore-well in the open land of accused No.1 and started laying the bore well. The sound of the bore-well compressor disturbed the piece of accused No.1, due to which he became angry and picked up a argument with complainant and others and switched off the bore-well machine. In that regard, a scuffle taken place between the accused and complainant and others, in which the brother of complainant and others sustained simple and minor injuries. Following, the incident, the parents of complainant informed the same matter to complainant and one Karukuri

Sammaiah (LW9) and two others who formed into an unlawful assembly, armed withs ticks, cricket bat and an axe, trespassed into the house of A1 on 12.06.2011, and beat them causing injuries, which is subject matter in

Cr.No.44/2011 of PS Pothakapalli.

In retaliation to above offence, at 4.30 a.m, while the complainant and others were passing towards their house, the accused A1 to A5 formed into unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and beat the complainant and others, with sticks indiscriminately, tied them to portico poles and threatened them with dire consequences that they would kill them, as a result they sustained bleeding injuries, which are simple in nature.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the Sub-Inspector of

Police has registered it as case in Cr.No.43 of 2011, under section 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC and took up the investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD

3 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011

4.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under section 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

5. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Accused were examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the charge sheet allegations. They denied their involvement in the said offences. Hence, charges under sections 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8.

8.Since no incriminating evidence is found in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses against the accused, the examination of the accused as contemplated under section 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with.

9.Heard the learned APP for prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they be charged ?

POINT:

11.The accused are charged for the offences under sections 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC. The accusation against them is that on 12.06.2011

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD

4 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011 at 4.00 am, A1 to A5 formed into unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and beat complainant and two others with sticks indiscriminately and also threatened them with dire consequences.

12.As stated above, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses and exhibited eight documents.

13.PW1 is the complainant and injured. Pws.2 to 4 are the other injured.

Pws.5 to 7 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident.

14.Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8 are the relevant portions marked in the 161 Cr.P.C statements of Pws.1 to 7.

15.PW1 in his evidence deposed that, about 4 years ago, on one day while himself and Pws.2 to 4 were present at their fields, some un-known persons came and abused them and beat them, that they do not know them, that the accused herein were not among those persons, and that the police obtained his signature on some white papers. He further deposed that he has not given any complaint to the police against the accused and he identified his signature on the complaint as Ex.P.1.

16.Pws.2 to 4 are the inured. Their evidence runs on similar lines to that of PW1.

17.Pws.5 to 7 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident who deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case.

18. As the complainant and injured (PW1), the other injured (Pws.2 to 4) and eye witnesses to the incident (Pws.5 to 7) did not support the case of the prosecution, at request of the learned A.P.P, they were declared hostile.

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD

5 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011 However, in their cross examination by the learned A.P.P, no worthwhile material could be elicited, involving the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, except marking the portions in their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8. Since all the material witnesses including the injured (Pws.1 to 4), did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of other listed circumstantial witnesses, on the ground that examining them will serve no useful purpose and it will be a futile exercise and mere waste of the precious time of the Court. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that during pendency of the case

before this Court, the injured and the accused seems to have settled the

matter out side the Court and that is the reason they are not giving the true facts of the case before the Court. Thus, there is absolutely, no evidence whatsoever on record, to connect the accused to the offences alleged against them. In the circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged and as such, they are entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

19.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences U/s. 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences

U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 23rd day of September, 2016.

Judl.Magistrate of F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar. FAC: J.M.F.C., SULTHANABAD

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD

6 of 6 C.C.No. 169 of 2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1: B.Sadananadam (Complainant/Inured) PW2: B.Charan Kumar (Injured) PW3: P.Srikanth (Injured) PW4: B.Rajalingu (Injured) PW5: M.Venu (Eye witness) PW6: H.Prabhakar (Eye witness) PW7: K.Laxman Rao (Eye witness)

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the complaint Ex.P2 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P6 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P7 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P8 is the relevant portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Karimnagar. FAC: J.M.F.C., SULTHANABAD

J.M.F.C, SULTHANABAD