IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
TEKKALI
Present:- Smt.B.M.R. Prasanna Latha,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTABOMMALI
FAC JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TEKKALI.
Thursday, this the 04h day of April, 2024.
C.C. No, 174 OF 2019
Between:
State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Tekkali Police Station.
Complainant
And
A1: Panga Chandrayya, S/o late Sanyasi, age 75 yrs, Rlo Chakipalli
village, tekkali mandal.
A2: Panga Ramu, S/o Chandrayya, age 38 yrs, R/o Chakipalli village,
tekkali mandal.
A3: Panga Kanthamma, Wlo Ramu, age 35 yrs, R/o Chakipalli village, tekkali mandal.
A4: Panga Vasanthakumar, S/o Laxmanarao, age 28 yrs, R/o Chakipalli village, tekkali mandal.
.... Accused Nos.1 to 4
This case is coming on 26.03.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P. Babu Rao, counsel for the accused and the matter is having stood cver for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali Police Station, filed charge sheet 1. in Cr.No.140/2019 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 323 rlw 34 IPC of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as
IPC).
2. The averments of the charge sheet are as follows:
The Injured/complainant/LW.I is residing at Chakipalli (v), Tekkali (M) along with his wife/LW.3 and a child (Dhanvanthari, aged about 5 years). L.W.1 studied M.Sc, BED., He is in search of a job and doing cultivation works for livelihood. He is the supporter of YSRC Party. Accused / A1 to A4 belongs to TD Party. During General Elections-2019, L.W.1 supported to YSRC Party and casting most of the villagers votes in-favour of YSRC Party. By keeping the political and personal grudges, A1 to A4 used to abuse against L.W.1 in a foul and filthy language. As usual, on 22-06-2019 morning the accused picked up a quarrel with L.WI and the situation is calm down. While so, night about 10 PM, while L.W.1 was boarding the stairs of his house, A1 to A4 rushed to the spot and all of a sudden, caught hold him and dragged towards downside of the stairs and during scuffle, A4 grew wild, armed with iron rod and beat on the left hand shoulder of LW.1, who sus tained swelling injury, rest of the accused/A1 to A3 beat L.VW.1 with hands indiscriminately and LWs.2 & 3 caught hold of the gullet of L.W.1 and pressed forcibly. LWs.2 to 5 witnessed the highhanded acts of the accused towards LW.1, LW.2 rushed to spot and separated L.W.1 from the clutches of the accused and shifted him to Govt. Hospital, Tekkali through his motor cycle for treatment. Thus, a prima facie case is clearly proved against the guilt of offence committed by the accused A1 to A4.
Basing on the statement of the victim/L.W.1, LW.9 registered a case in Cr.No. 140/2019 U/sec 324, 323 rlw 34 IPC of Tekkali PS on 23-06-2019 at 00.15 hours and investigated into. During the investigation, L.W.9 exam - ined the witnesses L.Ws.1 to 5 recorded their statements U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence at 07.00 hours in the presence of LWs. 6 &7, drew rough sketch in Cr.Nos 140 & 141/2019), seized the crime weapon (one iron rod), got drafted the scene observation report duly at tested. L.W.9 issued 41-A Cr.PC notice to the accused on 24-06-2019 by following the conditions of Crl. Amendment Act., subsequently got proper ex planation from the accused. On 02.07.2019,. L.W.9 obtained Wound Certifi cate in-respect of injured/L.W.1 from w8. in which it has stated that the in - juries are simple in nature.
Investigation disclosed that | LW.1/Panga Sanyasirao is supporter of
YSRC party and Accused A1 to A4 langs to TDP party and while s0, dur ing general elections 2019, L.W1 his support to YSRC party by Way of casting the villagers votes in favour of YSRC party. So, by keeping the politi- cal and personal grudges, all the accused abusing to L.W.1 in a foul and tilthy languages and on 22-06-2019 morning they raised disputed with LW1 and situation is calm down and at about night 10 PM, while LW1 was board L.W.1 house, A1 to A4 rushed to spot, caught LW1 and ing the stairs of dragged towards downside of the stairs and while A4 armed with iron road and beat to LW1 on person caused simple injuries. So A4 is liable for pun ishment under section 324 IPC rest of the accused A1 to A3 beat LW1 with hands indiscriminately and Accused A2 and A3 pressed the gullet of the LW1 forcibly. So accused A1 to A3 are liable for punishment under section 323 |PC, All the accused committed the offence with common intention, So
A1 to A4 are liable for punishment under section 34 IPC.
LW.9 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 under section 3. 324, 323 rlw 34 |PC. This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under section 4 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4. On their appearance
before this court, the case copies under section 207 Criminal Procedure
Code are furnished to them. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 5 PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8, PW.9 is the investigation officer who filed charge sheet. Ex.P1 is report to the police through statement dt.23-06 Sec. 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3, dated 2019, Ex.P2 is the 23.06.2019, Ex.P3 is the Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 dated 20.10.2018, Ex.P4 is the Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, dated 23.06.2018, Ex.P5 is the scene observation report, dt:23-06-2019, Ex.P6 is the Wound certificate of P.W.1, dt.25-06-2019, Ex.P7 Original FIR, dated 22 00-2019, Ex.P8 is the rough sketch. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 6. were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. On behalf of accused Nos, 1 to 4 no oral evidence is adduced and no docu ments marked.
Heard both sides. 7. The learned APP submitted that P.VV.s 1 to 8 are examined in this case. The eye witness to the incident is P..2 who is wife of P.W.1. P.Ws 3,4,5, mediator. P.W.7 is Doctor who are eye witnesses turned hostile P.W.6 is who treated P.W.1, the injured. P.W.8 is the .0, P.W.1 deposed that A4 beat him with rod on his elbow and A3 cought hold his leg. M.O.1 is marked. Sec. 323, 324 IPC ingredients are proved. P.w.2 also stated that A4 beat
PW.1 and P.W.3 shifted him to hospital. Direct witnesses turned hostile.
Remaining evidences corroborated with each other. She further submited
that the quality of witnesses should be counted but not the quantity of the witnesses while determining the case, the prosecution established their case, hence prayed the court to convic the accused.
Lr. Counsel for the accused submitted that A1 is father of P.W.1, A2 is brother, A3 is sister in law, A4 is cousin of P.W.1. The alleged scene is
dated 22.6.2019. Police filed charge sheet on 2.7.2019. May 31 st new gov
ernment has been formed. The alleged incident time is 10.00 p.m. I.0./ P.W. 8 admitted that one has to cross his police station to go to the hospital. The Doctor deposed that the patient is conscious and coherent. The I.0. de - posed that he went to hospital at 0.15 a.m.and to the village at 7.00 a.m. for scene observation, which cannot be possible. It is not mentioned in EX, P.1 that independent witness saw the scene. The injury is swelling injury. No body witnessed the incident. WVife is sleeping in the house. She came out on hearing the shoutings. P.W.1 also deposed the same, in Chief on raising cries. 1st line cross at the time of incident no one witnessed the incident. P.W.3 remained hostile. Compound wall is a question. S.I. stated as Ground flour. A2 is residing in upstairs. Seizure is at 7.00 a.m. in the pres ence of P.W.6 P.W.1 stated that when he went home at 5 to 6 a.m., he did
not find the rod there. Mediators signatures are not obtained on M.O.1. Only
one neighbour is examined as P.W.4, who remained hostile. There are no steps for P.W.1. There are steps for A2. Seizure is doubtful. Scene of of
fence is shifted. No independent witness supported the case of the prosecu
tion. As per Ex. P.1 and as per evidence of P.VW.1" ma inti metlu ekkuthundaga annaru. Metlu ekkada vunnayo teleedu. Inti metlu ekkada." I.0. admitted in the cross examination, that within the boundary wall. But steps are not there. So the entire scene of offence is shifted. Lr. APP replied that "x" is the crime scene.
The Ir. Counsel for defence contended that there is no evidence to establish that the accused No.1 to 4 committed crime against P.W.1. Lr. APP replied that "x" is the crime scene.
9. In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:
"Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused by establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable un der sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt" ?
10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined L.W.1/Panga Sanyasi Rao as P.W.1, L.W.3/Panga Manasa as P.W.2, L.W.2/Panga Chandramouli as P.W.3, L.W.4/Panga Laxminarayana as P.W.4, LW.5/Tangi Bhaskara Rao as P.W.5, L.W.6/Vana Appanna as as P.W.7 and L.W.8/Dr.B.R.K.Maharaj, Civil Surgeon P.W.6, L.W.9/B.Ganesh. M.O.1 is the Iron Rod.
11. () To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Panga Sanyasi Rao, who deposed that on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs while he was coming from chandramouli' house (LW.2) which is located in adjacent street to his house and while he was going through the steps of his house, Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) beat him with iron rod on his left hand elbow and sweling occurred on his left hand elbow. A1 to A3 came and
caught hold his neck towards ground and also tried to squeeze his throat. He
raised cries and upon hearing his cries Panga Chadramouli came there and
shift him to Government Hospital, Tekkali by bike. He undergone treatment. Police examined him at the hospital and recorded his statement. M.O.1 is the iron rod. He gave a report to police through his statement dt.23-06-2019 which is marked as Ex.P1. He know the contents of Ex.P.1.
(i) During cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the house of P.W.2 is just opposite street to his house. He further deposed that no one witnessed the offence. The incident happened at the upstairs of his house. He admitted that the contents of EX. P.1 are correct. He further admitted that the scene of offence is not within the boundary wall. He admitted that he has no disputes with A1 to A4 with respect to properties. After the incident he first went to the hospital. Nearly 30 members gathered at the incident. He lost
Conscious when A4 beat him with rod and that he do not know what had happened after that. Hence, he cannot sav who took the rod from the scene of offence. On the next day in the early mornina between 05 to 06 he went to his house after taking medical treatment. When he went to home the rod used against him is not present at the scene of offence.He did not give any report regarding the morning incident. He denied that he is deposing false evidence by keeping political rivalries and civil disputes. He admitted that the wife of L.W.7 is presently MPTC, Chakipalli village. He denied that with the influence of LW7 a false case was foisted against A1 to A4 and that they did not commit any crime against him.
12. (i) To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.2 Panga Manasa, who deposed that she and her husband are Supporters of Y.S.R.C.P, on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs while she was sleeping in her house, her husband Panga Sanyasi Rao came to house from Muddada veedhi and while opening the gate of their house Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) attacked her husband with iron rod and beat him and her husband raised cries, upon that she woke up and opened the door and observed A4 beating her husband with iron rod and A1 to A3 also attacked her husband by caught holding his neck and some people gathered at her house. Panga Chandramouli came there and shifted her husband to Government Hospital, Tekkali. Police examined and recorded her statement.
(i) During cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that there are no property disputes inbetween her husband and her parents, brothers. She slept in the first room of her house on 22.6.2019. After hearing the cries of her husband she went outside, nearly 15 persons gathered there. She witnessed the incident. A1 to A4 beat P.W.1 with sticks. She did not rescue P.W.1 out of fear. When she came out of her house A1 to A4 left PW1 and went away. She denied that A1 to A4 are falselv implicated in this case using the influence of L.W.7 on Tekkali police She further denied that she is deposing false evidence at the instance of her husband Pv.
13. To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.3 Panga Chandramouli who deposed that on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs while he, P.W.1 and L.W.7 are talking at the end of their street and when he is about to go to his home he heard a voice as Champesaru. Then he came out of his house. The wife of L.W.7 came to him and stated that A1 to A4 are beating P.W.1. Then he immediately went to rescue P.W.1, But when he went there the persons nearby rescued P.W.1 and P.W.1 reported that his left hand shoulder is injured. Then he took him to the hospital by bike. Due to election disputes A1 to A4 beat P.W.1. He did not witness A1 to A4 beating PW.1. he came to know about the incident through P.W.1 and wife of L.W.7. He is not a direct witness to the incident. Police did not xamine him and did not record his statement. He did not support the case of the prosecution.
Lr.APP sought permission to treate the witness and hostile. Permission accorded. No material is elicited through cross-examination of Lr. APP except marking of Ex. P.2.
14. To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.4 Panga Laxminarayana who deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and police did not examine him and did not record his statement and he did not support the case of prosecution.
Lr.APP sought permission to treate the witness and hostile. Permission accorded. No material is elicited through cross-examination of Lr. APP except marking of Ex. P.3.
15. To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined
P.W.5 Tangi Bhaskara Rao, who deposed that he do not know anything
about the facts of this case and police did not examine him and did not record his statement and he did not support the case of prosecution.
Lr.APP sought permission to treate the witness and hostile. Permission accorded. No material is elicited through cross-examination of Lr. APP except marking of Ex. P.3.
16. (() To establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined
PW.6 Vana Appanna who deposed that on 23-06-2019 at the instance of
tekkali police he along with them and Pondara Srinivasa Rao went to the house of Panga Sanyasi Rao and In their presence the Sub Inspector of Police, Tekkali recovered one iron rod. He can say the boundaries to the scene of offence: East: The house Of Panga Appalaswamy; West: The house of Panga Laxminarayana; North: The house of accused and victim; South: Road.
The witness identified the iron rod and the same is marked as M.O.1. He stated that The scene observation report is drafted in his presence and it bears his signature. Rough sketch is also drafted in his presence. Ex.P5 js the scene observation report, dt.23-06-2019.
() During crosS-examination, P.W.6 admitted that he is practicing as an advocate. He is working as Chairman Rytu Barosa Kendram, Chakipalli village. He is supporter of Y.S.R.C.P. He admitted that in every mediators report the mediator has to sign on the weapon recovered, but in this case he did not put his signature on MO.1. He do not know whether the police took signatures of the remaining persons on M.O.1 .He belongs to chakipalli village. He do not have acquaintance with the police. He denied that nothing was recovered in his presence by drafting Ex.P5. MO.1 was seized between the house and the compound wall of PW.1.
17. () To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.7 Dr.B.R.K.Maharaj, who deposed that on 22-06-2019 he examined one person by name Panga Sanyasi Rao, S/o Panga Chandrayya, Aged 33 yrs, R/o Chakipalli village, Tekkali mandal at 23:10 hrs. He identified the following injuries:
1) A linear elevated abrasion over left shoulder and Scapular area size 15 x1 x0.5 cm;
2) Multiple abrasion over right side of the chest and right shoulder size 2 x 2 cms and 2 x 1 cms:
3) Small swelling over left frontal area of head (scalp) size 2 x 1 cms;
He is of the opinion that injuries sustained by Panga Sanyasi Rao are simple in nature.
(ü) During crosS-examination, P.W.7 admitted that the victim did not state the name of the persons who caused injuries to him and that the injury sustained by the victim are not due to hands and that there is no significant irjury on the left shoulder and that There is a possibility that if any person fell from a running vehicle he may likely sustain similar nature of injuries.
18. () To establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.8/B Ganesh, S.l of Police who denosed that on 22.06.2019 at 23:30 hrs he received medical intimation from tekkali area hospital. He went to Area
hospital and identified the injured Panga Sanyasirao S/o Chandrayya, Aged
33 yrs and recorded his statement. He returned to Police station and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.140/2019 of Tekkali P.S., U/Sec., 324, 323 rlw 34 of IPC at 0.15 a.m. on 23.6.19. He sent FIR copy to the Court and copies to the concerned departments. Immediately he went to the hospital and examined panga sanyasirao in the hospital. On the same day at 700 am., he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and drafted rought sketch in the presence of mediators Vana Appanna and Pondara Srinivas. He drafted the scene observation report. He seized crime weapon iron rod of 2 feet at the scene of offence. He secured the presence of Lws.2 to 5 and recorded their detailed statements in his part ll CD. On 24.06.2019, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notices to A.1 to A.4 and released them after obtaining sureties. He received wound certificate from tekkali area hospital on 02.07.2019. After completion of investigation he iled charge sheet. Ex.P7 is the Original FIR. Ex.P8 is rough sketch. LW.2, LW.4, LW.5 stated before him as in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. The Iron rod shown to him is the rod which he seized at the scene of offence.
(ü) During cross-examination. P.W.8 admitted that one has to cross his police staiion to go to Government Hospital and that there are two groups in Chakipalli kotturu village and that the complainant belongs to YCP party and the accused belongs to TDP party and that by the time he went to the hospital the patient is in conscious and coherent stage and that the house of the complaint is in ground floor and the accused are residing in 1st floor. The Scene of offence is within the boundary wall. The scence of offence is mentioned as No.1 in the rough sketCn. He admitted that he did not examine any other neighbours except L.W.4. he denied that Pws.3 to 5 did not state
before him as in their 161(3) Cr.P statements. He admitted that the
signature of the accused is not present on M.O.1, He denied that the accused never beat P.W.1 but he Tobted a false case against the accused on political pressure of the ruling pay. He denied that he did not conduct property investigation but prepared the entire recordin the police station and deposing false.
19. Point:
() In order to establish the culpability of the AccUsed No.1 to 4, the prosecution must establish that the accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily caused simple injuries to P.W.1 with a iron rod alleged to be the weapons of dangerOus means. In order to determine the same, the evidence available
before this court is the testimonies of PWs 1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P8.
(ii) PW.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case P.W.1 Panga Sanyasi Rao, wh¡ deposed that on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs while he was coming from chandramouli (L.W.2) house which is located in adjacent sireet in his house and while he was going through the steps in his house, Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) with iron rod beat him on his left hand elbow and Swelling occurred on his left hand elbow. The A1 to A3 came and caught hold his neck towards ground and also tried to squeeze his throat. He raised cries and upon hearing his cries Panga Chadramouli came there and shifted him Government Hospital, Tekkali by bike. He was undergone treatment. Police examine him at the hospital and recorded his statement. MO.1 is the iron rod used by A4 against him on that day of incident. He gave a report to police through his statement dt.23-06-2019 which is marked as Ex.P1. He know the conternts of Ex.P.1. on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs as him and her husband are supporters of Y.S.RC.P. while her was asleep in his house and her husband Panga Sanyasi Rao coming to her home from Muddada veedhi and while PW.1 opened gate of their house Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) atacked her husband PW1 with iron rod beat him and her husband raised cries, upon that she woke up and opened the door and observed A4 beating PVW1 with iron rodand A1 to A3 also attacked PW1 by caught holding his neck and smoke people gathered at her house. Panga Chandramouli came there and shifted her husband (Pw1) to Government Hospital, Tekkali. Police examined and recorded her statement.
P.W.1 stated that A4 beat him with iron rod on his left hand elbow and he received sweling injuries. Doctor who examined P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 received simple injuries. If the accused beat P.W.1 with a rod he Would have received grave injuries Though the iron rod is marked in this
Case, there are clear latches in seizing the same, P.W.1 himself stated that he could not find the iron rod after he came from hospital on the next day morning inbetween 5 to 6 a.m. Mediator deposed that he went to the scene and in his presence the iron rod was seized. He admitted in hís crOSS examination that he did not sign on the weapon seized. He further deposed that he is an advocate and he know that the mediator has to sign on the
Selzed property. He knowing that he has sign on the seized, but not signing
the same clearly shows that the iron rod is planted for the purpose of this case. When P.W.1 did not find the iron rod in his house how come the mediator and the 1.0. could seize the weapon tells the story. The mediator/P. W.6 further admitted that he is the supporter of YSRCP. P.W.8/ S.l. admitted that there are two groups in Chakipalli kotturu village and that the complainant belongs to YCP party and the accused belongs to TDP party. So it is clear that the parties are rivalries. As such there is a chance of disputes inbetween the parties. P.W.1 also admitted that L.W.7 is wife of present M.P.T.C., Chikipally village. Though P.W.1 denied that he got foisted this false case with the influence of L.W.7, the same is clear on careful observation. I.0. admitted that one has to cross his police station to go to Government Hospital. If such is the case P.W.1 did not go to the police station, receiving simple injuries, but went to hospital purposefully.
P.W.1 stated that while he was going through the steps of his house, Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) beat him with iron rod on his left hand elbow and swelling occurred on his left hand elbow. A1 to A3 came and caught hold his neck towards ground and also tried to squeeze his throat. P.W.2 Panga Manasa deposed that she and her husband are supporters of Y.S.R.C.P, on 22-06-2019 at about 22:00 hrs while she was sleeping in her house, her husband Panga Sanyasi Rao came to house from Muddada veedhi and
while opening the gate of their house Panga Vasantha Rao (A4) attacked
her husband with iron rod and beat him and her husband raised cries, upon that she woke up and opened the door and observed A4 beating her husband with iron rod and A1 to A3 also attacked her husband by caught
holding his neck and some people gathered at her house. Panga
Chandramouli came there and shifted her husband to Government Hospital,
Tekkali. P.W.1 says that the incident happened at the upstairs of his house.
So here there are two stands here, wnich is again a controversy. No one witnessed the incident, which means there is no eve witness to the incident, which means every thing is cooked up.
P.W.2 wife of P.W.1 stated that there are no property disputes inbetween her husband and her parents, brothers. She slept in the first room of her house on 22.6.2019. After hearing the cries of her husband when she went outside, nearly 15 persons gathered there. She witnessed the incident. A1 to A4 beat P.W.1 with sticks. P.W.2 deposed in her chief examination that (A4) attacked her husband with iron rod and beat him and A1 to A3 also attacked her husband by caught holding his neck. In her crosS-examination she deposed that She witnessed the incident. A1 to A4 beatP.W.1 with sticks. P.W.2 deposed in her chief examination that (A4) attacked her husband with iron rod and beat him and A1 to A3 also attacked her husband by caught holding his neck. In her cross-examination she deposed that She witnessed the incident, A1 to A4 beat P.W.1 with sticks. Thus there is a contradiction in between her chief examination and her cross-examination. So her evidence cannot be believed, as she her self is not clear of her own version. Also on hearing cries she went there, which goes to show that after the incident she went there, which means she is not an eye witness. So there is no eye witness to this incident.
P.W.6 who is said to be mediator admitted that he did not sign on the weapon. He further admitted that every mediator has to sign on the eapon recovered. He do not know whether the police took signatures of the remaining persons on M.O.1 . Wyhen the mediator himself is admitting that he did not sign on the weapon, knowing very well that the mediator has to sign on it, clearly shows that he did not go to scene but signed in the police station. Further his statement that he do not know whether the police took signatures of the remaining persons on M.O.1 supports his absence at the recovery of weapon.
P.W.8 I.0. admitted that he did not examine any neighbours of PW.1 except P.W.4. He further admitted that the signature of the accused is not present on the M.O.1. Why the sinnoture of the accused is missing on the M.O.1 is not answered by the .o or by the prosecution. Which goes to show that M.O.1 is planted for the purpose of this case later. Even P.W.1 deposed that he did not find the iron od at his house after his discharge on (3 the next day morning. If P.W.1 himself could not find the rod how the pollce can seize the rod is a mystery. Even the mediator L.W.6 who 0s examined as P.W.6 also.deposed tjat he did not sioan on M.O.1. and further stated that he do not know the other persons signed or not.
The prosecution failed to bring any incriminating evidence from the cross examination of PW.3 to P.W.5 as such it is not prudent to rely upon Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 also without looking for corroborative evidence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, In the absence of cogent, convincing and clinching evidence, there cannot be any assumption or presumption that the Accused No.1 and 2 voluntarily caused simple injuries to PW.1 with a iron rod alleged to be the weapons of dangerous means. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to establish the quilt of accused No.1 to 4. The Point is answered accordingly.
20. In the result the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324, 323 rw 34 Indian Penal Code and, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be in force for a period of six(6) months as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.c., MO.1 (iron rod) shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation in the Computer, by the Stenographer Grade Ill. corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 4h day of April. 2024.
Ttyl
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kotabommali. FAC/Tekkali
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: PW1: Panga Sanysasi Rao PW2: Panga Manasa PW3: Panga Chandramouli PW4: Panga Laxminarayana PW5:Tangi Bhaskara Rao PWG: Vana Appanna PW7: Dr.B.R.K.Maharaj, Civil Surgeon PW8: B Ganesh, Sl of Police
For Defence :-None
Documents Marked For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Gave a Report to the police through statement dt.23-06-2019. Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW3. dated 23.06.2019. Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4 dated 20.10.2018. Ex.P4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW5, dated 23.06.2018. Ex.P5: Scene observation report, dt:23-06-2019. Ex.P6: Wound Certificate of PW1, dt.25-06-2019. Ex.P7: Original FIR, dated 22-06-2019. Ex.P8: Rough Sketch. For Defence: - Nil -
Material Objects Marked - Nil -
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Kotabommali. FAC/Tekkali
FORM NO.72
Calendar & Judgment
(for use in cases where there are more accused persons han oi
DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIA MAGISTRATE OF 1S CLASS,
TEKKALI
DATE OF22-06-2019
REPORT OR 22-06-2019 OFFENCE: COMPLAINT:
APPREHENSIO Notice
U/sec.41-ARELEASE ONNotice U/sec.41-A N OFCr.P.C to accused BAIL ACCUSEDCr.P.C to accused ACCUSED No.1 No.1 to 4: to 4: REMAND OFNotice U/sec.41-A ACCUSED No.1Cr.P.C to accused to 4: COMMENCEME19.10.2022 CLOSE OF TRIAL: 23.02.2024 NT OF TRIAL: SENTENCE OF04.04.2024 ORDER: EXPLANATION Non production of witnesses by prosecution
OF DELAY AND
REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN174 of 2019 Cr.No.140/2019 C.C: COMPLAINANTState rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Tekkali Police
Station.
A1: Panga Chandrayya, Slo late Sanyasi, Age 75
NAME, AGE,
yrs, R/o Chakipalli village, tekkali mandal.
FATHERS
NAME, RELIGION, A2: Panga Ramu, Slo Chandrayya, Age 38 yrs, R/o CALLING, Chakipalli village, tekkali mandal.
RESIDENCE
A3: Panga Kanthamma, W/o Ramu, Age 35 yrs, R/o
AND TALUK OF
THE ACCUSED: Chakipalli village, tekkali mandal.
A4: Panga Vasanthakumar, S/o Laxmanarao, Age 28 yrs, R/o Chakipall village, tekkali mandal.
(occupations of the accused is not mentioned in the charge
sheet)
OFFENCE: U/Sec.324, 323. r/w 34 |PC FINDING: Found not guilty
SENTENCE:
In the result the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324, 323 rlw 34 Indian Penal Code and, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 to 4 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be in force for a period of six(6) months as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.c., MO.1 (iron rod) is shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.
DATE OF04.04.2024
RECEIPT
FROM THE
MAGISTRATE:
4
Judicial Magistrate of Fiist
Class,Kotabommali. FAC/Tekkali
To The Hon'ble 1stAddl. District
Judge, Srikakulam
Calendar Case No. 174/2019 Date of Judgment: 04.04.2024 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1ADJ, Srikakulam:
Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam