B. Nirmala F.A.C

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC/Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023

S.C.No.238/2017

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Yellanur Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:1. Mooli Malla Reddy, S/o late M.Narapa Reddy, aged 42 years,

2. Mooli Bharath Kumar Reddy, @ Bharath, S/o M.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 19 years,

3. Mooli Amarnath Reddy, @ Amarnath, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 21 years,

4. Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy, @ Krishna Reddy, S/o Narapa Reddy, aged 50 years,

5. Mooli Manikanta Reddy, @ Manikanta, S/o Venkatanarayana Reddy, aged 24 years,

6. Bhumireddy Rupeswara Reddy, @ Rupesh, S/o late Pedda Reddy, aged 30 years,

7. Bhumireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy,@Chandra,S/o Suryanarayana Reddy, aged 28 years,

8. Bhumireddy Rama Mohan Reddy, @ Ramu, S/o Jayarami Reddy, aged 25 years,

9. Dathili Bhupathi Narayana Reddy, @ Bhupathi, S/o Narayana Reddy, aged 52 years,

12. Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy, @ Chinnodu, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 42 years,

All are residents of Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanur Mandal.

3)Offences:U/s 147,148,324and 307 r/w 149 IPC 2

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 10 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3 5 to 10 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No.65/2016 of Yellanur Police Station. station.

This case coming on 21-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri Z.Satheesh, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellanur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 10 in Crime No.65/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148 and 324 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: -

There are ill feelings in between LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva Kesava and Accused

No.1 with regard to Anganwadi teacher post at Kondavandlapalli. On 13.08.2016

Sunday Sri J.C.Prabahakar Reddy, MLA, Tadipatri visited the house of LW.1-

Yampalaku Shiva Kesava, so LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva Kesava has arranged tea, coffee and tiffen to Sri J.C.Prabhakar Reddy and his followers. So, the Accused No.1 and his family members developed grudge against the family of LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva

Kesava. keeping the above ill feelings, on 126.8.2016 at 7.30 PM while LW.1-

Yampalaku Shiva Kesava was standing in front of his house at that time Accused

No.1 to 10 formed themselves into with a common object came to LW.1-Yampalaku

Shiva Kesava threatened him how dare he called J.C. Prabhakar Reddy and arrange breakfast. If they will murder, no other will not do the mistake and instigated his 3 followers to murder, so threatening Accused No.1 armed with sickle hacked on the lip of LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva Kesava with an intention to murder and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.2 armed with iron pipe beat on the right thigh of LW.1-

Yampalaku Shiva Kesava with an intention to murder and caused bleeding injury the other accused hurled stones on them and one of the stone hit on the left hand of

LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva Kesava and caused bleeding injury. LW.2 and his father witnessed the occurrence went to there and rescued LW.1-Yampalaku Shiva Kesava.

Accused No.3 armed with an iron pipe beat left-hand wrist of LW.1-

Yampalaku Shiva Kesava and caused bleeding injury. One of the stone hurled by the accused hit on the right leg of LW.2 and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.2 armed with a iron pipe beat LW.3 on the stomach and caused contusion injury.

LW.4, 5 and 6 namely G.S.Damodar, V.Ankalamma and T.Ankanna witnessed the occurrence came to rescue of LW.1 to 3 and all the accused went away of they did not intervened the accused will murder him. All the three injured shifted to

Government General Hospital, Tadipatri and admitted. On receipt of medical admit intimation from the medical officer, GGH, Tadipatri LW.11 visited GGH, Tadipatri and recorded the statements of LW.1 and forwarded the same to SHO, Yellanur PS on the point of jurisdiction.

LW.12-T.S.Anees Basha, registgered a case in Cr.No.65/2016 U/s 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC of Yellanur PS and LW.13 investigated the case. During the course of investigation, LW.13-M.Pradeep Kumar, SI of Police visited the

Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu on 17.8.2016 at 9.30 AM and seized the blood stained cloths of LW.1 under cover of police proceedings and visited scene of offence at 4PM and dragged Scene observation mahazar in the presence of LW.7 and LW.8 and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. As per the evidence of eye witnesses Accused No.10, 11, 13 and A14 are not participated in the commission of offence nor found in the company of accused near the scene of offence, no offence is made out on the said accused, so the case was no charge on Accused No.10, 11, 4 13 and 14. During the course of investigation, on 23.8.2016 at 9 AM arrested the accused near primary health care centre Thimmamapali village, Accused No.1 to 9, under the cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.7 and 8 and send them to remand. LW.9 and 10 medical officers treated LW.1 to 3 issued wound certificate.

After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Tadipatri as case in PRC No.38/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC.

4. As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the P.R.C.38/2016 as Sessions Case

No.238/2017 and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 before this Court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC against accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 have been framed, read over the same in

Telugu to the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P1.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

5 8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home the

guilt of Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 to for the

offences punishable u/secs.147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w

149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 to the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and that accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 may be convicted.

11.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive party of the offence and alleged eye witnesses turned hostile and there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution and that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused

No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 and hence, accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are entitled to acquittal.

12.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to 7 witnesses. PW.1 deposed in his evidence that he fell down and sustained injuries. PW.1 further deposed that he obtained treatment at Anantapuramu Government General

Hospital, there police obtained his signature in a statement without knowing contents of it and he signed on it. PW.1 further deposed that he was not examined by police. PW.2 also injured witness deposed in his evidence that he fell from his two wheeler bike and sustained injuries, obtained treatment in hospital and he do not know anything about this case.

13.PW.3 to and 6 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police.

14.PW.1 and PW.2 defacto complainant cum injured witness and eye witness, 6

PW.3 to 6 did not support the version of prosecution and turned hostile. Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor treated PW.1 to 6 as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P7. In the cross examination of PW.1 he denied the suggestion put to him that there are disputes in between PW.1 and accused regarding appointment of Anganwadi teacher in their village, both of them disputed with each other and he sustained injury. In the cross examination PW.2 to 6 deposed they denied that they were present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident. They also denied that they are deposing false.

15.PW.7, the Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that one head countable B.Mohan rerecorded the statement of PW.1. Basing on the statement of

PW.1, LW.13-V.Basha registered and recorded the statement of PW.1, LW.2 and

PW.2 and PW.3 at hospital and seized blood stained cloths of PW.1 and 2 under the cover of special proceedings, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of witnesses recorded their statements, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. On 17.8.2016 he drawn scene observation mahazar. PW.4 further deposed on 22.8.2016 on the confession of accused he seized sickles and sticks arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and send them to judicial remand. Then he prepared confession-cum-arrest seizure mahazar. He predecessor officer seized blood stained cloths under the cover of police proceedings. After obtaining wound certificate of PW.1 and 2 he filed charge sheet against the accused. During the cross examination of PW.1 he denied the suggestion put to him that the accused caused injures to him. Nothing could be elicited during the course of cross examination of

PW.1 to 6 to substantiate the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 for the offences charged U/s 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC.

16.Since the witnesses has given totally entire case of prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare them as hostile and after obtaining permission and even in the cross examination by learned Assistant Public 7

Prosecutor he failed to elicit anything against the accused except marking section 161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though PW.1 to 6 turned hostile it is not a ground to discard the evidence of prosecution in toto when the evidence of Investing Officer/PW.7 is available on behalf of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence charged against the accused. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that PW.7 clearly deposed the version of prosecution, therefore it clearly shows that accused

No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 have intention to kill PW.1. Learned counsel or the accused argued that during the cross-examination of PW.1 he denied the statement before police except his signature all the other eye witness turned hostile and that the accused No.1 to 6 are not responsible for the injuries sustained to PW.1 and PW.2.

PW.1 to 6 did not support prosecution case that the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 with an intention to kill PW.1, attacked PW.1 and PW.2 with sickles and sticks.

The prosecution failed to examine the mediators to prove the seizure and confession of accused. Therefore the sole testimony of PW.7 who is the Investing

Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC because the defacto complainant and injured and eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. It also well settled principal of law, the sole testimony of Investing Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 for the charged offences U/s 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC when the defacto complainant and material witnesses did not support the version of prosecution case. Further the evidence of LW.7 to 13 viz

A.Ankanna, M.Ramanjineyulu, M.Ramanjineyulu, Dr. A.Pavan Kumar Babu, Medical

Officer, Dr. P.Vinutha, B.Mohan, HC, S.Anees Basha, HC and M.Pradeep Kumar, SI of

Police witnesses were given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and they were not examined by the prosecution. When the defacto complainant and material witnesses did not support the version of prosecution, the sole testimony of

Investigating Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and

12. In this case the offence U/s 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 IPC the defacto 8 complainant have to depose the incriminating evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12. The Investing Officer has no personal knowledge about the genesis of occurrence and the manner in which accused attacked PW.1 and PW.2. Considering the evidence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: Y.Shiva Kesava -None- PW.2: D.Nagendra PW.3: Y.Jayaramakrishna PW.4: G.S.Damodar PW.5: C.Pullaiah PW.6: V.Ankalamma PW.7: G.Harinath Reddy

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on the complaint.

Ex.P.2Signature of PW.1 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

9

Ex.P.3Signature of PW.2 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW.3 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.5Signature of PW.4 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement

Ex.P.6Signature of PW.5 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement

Ex.P.7Signature of PW.6 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement

Ex.P.8First Information Report

Ex.P.9Police Proceedings

Ex.P.10Rough Sketch

Ex.P.11 to Wound Certificate of PW.1 to 3 13

Ex.P14Scene Observation Mahazar

Ex.P15Confession and Seizure Mahazar

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked: - Nil -

Id/- B.N.L., A.S.J.

10

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.238 of 2017

1.Name of the complainant and:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Crime No. Police, Yellanur Police Station.

2.Name of the accused:1. Mooli Malla Reddy, S/o late M.Narapa Reddy, aged 42 years,

2. Mooli Bharath Kumar Reddy, @ Bharath, S/o M.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 19 years,

3. Mooli Amarnath Reddy, @ Amarnath, S/o Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 21 years,

4. Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy, @ Krishna Reddy, S/o Narapa Reddy, aged 50 years,

5. Mooli Manikanta Reddy, @ Manikanta, S/o Venkatanarayana Reddy, aged 24 years,

6. Bhumireddy Rupeswara Reddy, @ Rupesh, S/o late Pedda Reddy, aged 30 years,

7. Bhumireddy Chandra Mohan Reddy, @ Chandra, S/o Suryanarayana Reddy, aged 28 years,

8. Bhumireddy Rama Mohan Reddy, @ Ramu, S/o Jayarami Reddy, aged 25 years,

9. Dathili Bhupathi Narayana Reddy, @ Bhupathi, S/o Narayana Reddy, aged 52 years,

12. Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy, @ Chinnodu, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged 42 years,

All are residents of Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanur Mandal.

3.Date of Offence:16-08-2016

4.Date of complaint:17-08-2016

5.Date of apprehension of:23-08-2016 accused

6.Date of release on bail:07-09-2016

7.Date of committal:22-06-2017

8.Date of commencement of:6-01-2023 trial 11

9.Date of close of trial:31-3-2023 10Date of sentence of order:21-04-2023 .

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 06.07.2017 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.38/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Tadipatri and posted for appearance, on appearance of accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 06.07.2017 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 6.01.2023 trial was commenced and closed on 31.03.2023 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 21.04.2023.

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC/Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2023

S.C.No.223/2017

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Yellanur Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:1. Y.Jayaramakrishna, S/o Chennaiah, aged 55 years,

2. Y.Shivakeshva, S/o Chenniah, aged 55 years,

3.DasthaNagendra,S/o Jayaramakrishna, aged 30 years,

All are residents of Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanur Mandal.

3)Offences:Under Sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No. 66/2016 of Yellanur Police Station. station.

This case coming on 21-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.Parameswara Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellanur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.66/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows: -

LW.1-Mooli Reddy is resident of Kodavandlapalli village. They are three sons and two daughters to their parents and he is the third son and there is Anganwadi school in Kondavandlapalli village and said post is vacant. So six months back one

Gangadevi Daughtert-in-law of A1-Y.Jayaramakrishana of the same village was appoitned as Anganwadi teacher. About four months back, on coming to know that the certificate produced by the Gangadevi is forged and concerned officers removed

Gangadevi and appointed one M.Sujatha daughter-in-law of his elder brother

Venkatanarayana Reddy. From that day on words, there are ill feelings between both the groups.

While that is so, on 16.8.2016 at 6 PM LW.1-Mooli Reddy left the house visited the fields, looking after the work and left for the house on his motor cycle.

At about 7.30 PM while LW.1-Mooli Reddy was near the house of Jayaramakrishna, the Accused No.1 to 3 came cross LW.1-Mooli Reddy wrongfully restrained LW.1 with by bike threatened that Anganwadi teacher which was came to his daughter- in-law get by them now they are going to murder him who will came cross, so threatening Accused No.2 armed with sickle beat on the head of LW.1-Mooli Reddy with an intent to murder and caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.1 and 2 took out sticks from the side beat LW.1-Mooli Reddy and caused swelling and contusion injuries on the back, right hand wrist. On hearing the cries of LW.1-Mooli Reddy his elder brother LW.2-Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy came and witnessed the occurrence and went to rescue LW.1-Mooli Reddy. The accused beat LW.2 with sickles and sticks with an intent to murder and caused bleeding injuries on the left knee, below and swelling injuries on left side ribs. LW.3, 4 and 5 viz B.Chinna Reddy, B.Narayana

Reddy and M.Rama Mohan witnessed the occurrence and rescued LW.1 and 2. If the above said persons are not intervened the accused will murder Malla Reddy and his brother.

On coming to know the incident LW.6-Basi Reddy venkataramireddy shifted both the injured to Government General Hospital, Anantapuramu in Bolero vehicle.

3

On the receipt of information, LW.12-K.Narayana Reddy visited Government General

Hospital, Anantapuramu recorded the statement of LW.1. Basing on the statement of LW.1, LW.13-T.S.Aneesh Basha, Yellanur PS registered the case in Cr.No.66/2016

U/s 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC of Yellanur PS. During the course of investigation,

LW.14-M.Pradeep Kumar, SI of Police, visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation mahazar and at 3 PM in the presence of LW.7-T.ankanna and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence.

On 22.8.2016 at 8 AM, near the choultry situated near SC colony

Kondavandlapalli, Accused No.1 to 3 were arrested by LW.14-SI of Police under the cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.9 and 10. Basing on the confession of the accused sized one sickle and two sticks used in the commission of offence under the cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.9 and LW.10 namely P.Lakshmi Reddy and

J.Talari Bala Govindu and send the accused for judicial remand. As per the eye witnesses LW.2 to 5 viz M.Ramakrishna Reddy, B.Chinna Pedda Reddy, B.Naryana

Reddy and M.Rama Mohan, Accused No.4/Mahesar Reddy, S/o Venkatareddy of

Kondavandlapalli village is not participated in the commission of offence nor saw the scene of offence. Hence his name was falsely implicated in this case. No offence is made out against Accused No.4, so case was not charged against Accused No.4.

LW.11-medical officer treated LW.1 and issued Wound Certificate. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Tadipatri as case in PRC No.39/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

4. As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of 4

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the P.R.C.39/2016 as Sessions Case

No.223/2017 and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 before this Court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under sections 341, 323 and 307 r/w IPC against accused No.1 to 3 have been framed, read over the same in Telugu to the accused No.1 to 3 for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P12.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home the

guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

u/secs.341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10. Point:

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3 to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and that accused No.1 to 3 may be convicted.

11.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive party of the offence and alleged eye witnesses turned hostile and there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution and that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused

No.1 to 3 and hence, accused No.1 to 3 are entitled to acquittal.

5

12.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to 4 witnesses. PW.1 deposed in his evidence that he fell down hit to a wall and sustained injuries on the middle of the head in the year 2016. Nobody beat him and attacked him. PW.1 further deposed that he obtained treatment at Anantapuramu Government General

Hospital, there police obtained his signature in a statement without knowing contents of it and he signed on it. PW.1 further deposed that he was not examined by police.

13.Death certificate of LW.2 Mooli Ramakrishna Reddy was filed. Hence, evidence of LW.2 was closed.

14.PW.2 and 3 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police.

15.PW.1 defacto complainant cum injured witness and eye witness, PW.2 and 3 did not support the version of prosecution and turned hostile. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor treated PW.1 to 3 as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. In the cross examination of PW.1 he denied the suggestion put to him that there are disputes in between PW.1 and accused regarding appointment of Anganwadi teacher in their village, both of them disputed with each other and he sustained injury. In the cross examination PW.2 and 3 deposed they denied that they were present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident. They also denied that they are deposing false.

16.PW.4, the Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that one head countable 1050 K.Narayana Reddy rerecorded the statement of PW.1. Basing on the statement of PW.1, LW.13-V.Basha registered and recorded the statement of PW.1,

LW.2 by name M.Ramakrishna Reddy and PW.2 and PW.3 at hospital and seized blood stained cloths of PW.1 and 2 under the cover of special proceedings, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of witnesses recorded their statements, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. On 17.8.2016 he drawn scene observation mahazar. PW.4 further deposed that on 22.8.2016 on the confession of accused he 6 seized sickles and sticks arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and send them to judicial remand. Then he prepared confession-cum-arrest seizure mahazar. His predecessor officer seized blood stained cloths under the cover of police proceedings. After obtaining wound certificate of PW.1 and LW.2-

M.Ramakrishna Reddy he filed charge sheet against the accused. During the cross examination of PW.1 he denied the suggestion put to him that the accused caused injures to him. Nothing could be elicited during the course of cross examination of

PW.1 to 3 to substantiate the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences charged U/s 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

17.Since the witnesses has given totally entire case of prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare them as hostile and after obtaining permission and even in the cross examination by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor he failed to elicit anything against the accused except marking section 161 cr.p statements of witnesses. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that though PW.1 to 3 turned hostile it is not a ground to discard the evidence of prosecution in toto when the evidence of Investing Officer is available on behalf of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence charged against the accused No.1 to 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that

PW.4 clearly deposed the version of prosecution, therefore it clearly shows that accused No.1 to 3 has intention to kill PW.1. Learned counsel or the accused argued that during the cross-examination of PW.1 he denied the statement before police except his signature all the other eye witness turned hostile and that the accused

No.1 to 3 are not responsible for the injuries sustained to PW.1. PW.1 to 3 did not support prosecution case that the Accused No.1 to 3 with an intention to kill PW.1, attacked him with sickles and sticks.

18.The prosecution failed to examine the mediators to prove the seizure and confession of accused. Therefore the sole testimony of PW.4 who is the Investing

Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under sections 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC because the defacto complainant and injured and eye 7 witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. It also well settled principal of law, the sole testimony of Investing Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused No.1 to 3 for the charged offences U/s 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC when the defacto complainant and material witnesses did not support the version of prosecution case. Further the evidence of LW.3, 6 to 14 viz B.Chinna

Pedda Reddy, B.Venkata Rami Reddy, T.Ankanna, M.Ramanjineyulu, P.Lakshmi

Reddy, J.Talari Bala Govindu, Dr Vinutha, K.Narayana Reddy, HC, S.Aneesh Basha,

HC and M.Pradeep Kumar, SI of Police witnesses were given up by learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and they were not examined by the prosecution. When the defacto complainant and material witnesses did not support the version of prosecution, the sole testimony of Investigating Officer is not sufficient to convict the accused No.1 to 3. In this case the offence U/s 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC the defacto complainant have to depose the incriminating evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3. The Investing Officer have no personal knowledge about the genesis of occurrence and the manner in which accused attacked PW.1 and LW.2. Considering the evidence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 341, 324 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused

No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the

Accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: M.Malla Reddy -None- PW.2: B.Narayana Reddy PW.3: M.Rama Mohan PW.4: G.Harinath Reddy 8

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on the complaint.

Ex.P.2Signature of PW.1 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.3Signature of PW.2 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW.3 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.5Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.6First Information Report

Ex.P.7Special Proceedings

Ex.P.8Rough Sketch

Ex.P.9Scene Observation Mahazar

Ex.P.10Confession-cum-Arrest-cum-Seizure Mahazar

Ex.P.11Police Proceedings

Ex.P12 Wound Certificates of PW.1 and LW.2.

and

Ex.P13

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked: - Nil -

Id/- B.N.L., A.S.J.

9

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.223 of 2017

1.Name of the complainant and:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Crime No. Police, Yellanur Police Station.

2.Name of the accused:1. Y.Jayaramakrishna, S/o Chennaiah, aged 55 years,

2. Y.Shivakeshva, S/o Chenniah, aged 55 years,

3. Dastha Nagendra, S/o Jayaramakrishna, aged 30 years,

All are residents of Kodavandlapalli village, Yellanur Mandal.

3.Date of Offence:16-08-2016

4.Date of complaint:17-08-2016

5.Date of apprehension of:22-08-2016 accused

6.Date of release on bail:07-09-2016

7.Date of committal:06-06-2017

8.Date of commencement of:6-01-2023 trial

9.Date of close of trial:31-3-2023

10.Date of sentence of order:21-04-2023

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 20.06.2017 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.39/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Tadipatri and posted for appearance, on appearance of accused No.1 to 3 copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 20.06.2017 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 6.01.2023 trial was commenced and closed on 31.03.2023 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 21.04.2023.

10

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.341, 324, 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT JUDGE, GOOTY

Present: Smt.B.Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC/Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023

S.C.No.104/2021

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:1. Parimi Keshava Naidu, S/o P.Obulayya, aged 45 years,

2. Parimi Shankaraiah, S/o Chinna Narayana, aged 46 years,

3. Parimi Ashok Naidu, S/o P.Aswarthamaiah, aged 30 years,

4. Muddu Krishnama Naidu, S/o M.Thirupal, aged 25 years,

All are residents of A.Kondapuram village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District

3)Offences:Under Sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 to are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No. 106/2019 of Putlur Police Station. station.

This case coming on 21-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri G.Vijaya Bhaskar, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and Sri T.Dhanunjaya, Advocate for the Accused No.3 and 4 and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day 2 this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.106/2019 for the offences punishable Under sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follow:-

LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary is living by keeping hotel and transport and eking his livelihood. LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary is studying second year MBA at Narayana college situated near Ravi Venkatampalli village. LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary is sympathizer of TDP party. And presently he is working Telugu Yuvatha In-charge of

Anantapur District TDP. In the past Assembly and Parliamentary election LW.1-

K.Rajesh Chowdary had worked hardly for TDP. There was political rivalry between

LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary and Accused No.1 who is the sympathizer of Y.S.R.

Congress Party. Accused No.1 follower of Y.S.R.Congress Party wontedly looking for quarreling with LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary’ cruse. While that is so, on 2.9.2019 at 9

PM his cousin brother LW.5-Pransth Chowdary was sitting near the cool drink shop of LW.4-Hari. At the time, Accused No.1 visited the cool drink shop and wantonly threaten LW.5-Prsanth Chowdary stating that he is sitting in front of him by folding his legs. On that reason, that in the past elections they had supported TDP. His cousin brother turned to the house and informed about the incident. On that LW.1-

K.Rajesh Chowdary along with his cousin brother LW.5-K.Prasanth Chowdary Ex-

Sarpanch and LW.6-P. Soma sekhar Naidu visited cool drink shop of LW.4-P.Hari questioned Accused No.1 on that Accused No.1 further threatened him. Meanwhile,

Accused No.2, 3 and 4 chased LW.1 and Accused No.1 armed with machu sickle hacked on the right side of head of LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary with an intention to murder and caused bleeding injury. Again, Accused No.1 beat several times on the back and ribs of LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary with the reverse portion of sickle and caused contusion injuries. The remaining three Accused No.2 to 4 beat with hands and kicked with legs mercilessly and caused invisible injuries to LW.1-K.Rajesh 3

Chowdary. His cousin brother LW.5-K.Prasanth Chowdary, LW.6-P.Somasekhar

Naidu, LW.2-K.Subramanyam @ Hotel Subramanyam and LW.3-P.Narayanaswamy and LW.4-P.Hari witnessed the occurrence rescued LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary and shifted him to Government hospital, Tadipatri in the motor cycle of LW.5-K.Prasanth

Chowdary. On receipt of information from medical officer, Government General

Hospital, Tadipatri LW.12 visited the hospital recorded the statement of LW.1-

K.Rajesh Chowdary.

Basing on the statement of LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary, LW.13-U.Venkata

Prasad registered case in Cr.No.106/2019 U/s 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW.13-U.Venkata Prasad visited Government General

Hospital, Tadipatri recorded the statement of LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary, seized the blood stained tea shirt of LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary under the cover of police proceedings. On 3.9.2019 at 8.30 AM, also visited scene of offence secured LW.2 to 4 recorded their statements, drafted scene observation mahazar, seized beer bottles from the scene under the cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.7 and

LW.8 and also drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation, LW.13 secured the witnesses, LW.6 and 7 and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation on 5.9.2013 at 12.45 PM all the accused were arrested by LW.13 and his staff under the cover of confession and arrest mahazar in the presence of LW.9 and LW.10 near petrol bunk at Kondapuram village of Putlur Mandal and basing on the confession of accused No.1 to 3, LW.13 seized the sickle which was produced by Accused No.1 under the cover of mahazar on 5.9.2019 at 1.30 PM and send them to judicial remand. LW.11-Dr. R.Ajendra

Rao, Medical Officer, examined the LW.1-K.Rajesh Chowdary and issued wound certificate. After receipt of wound certificate LW.13 added section 324 of IPC to the existing section 307 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 4.

4

3. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tadipatri as case in PRC No.34/2019 for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

4. As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the accused No.1 to 4 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the P.R.C.34/2019 as Sessions Case

No.104/2021 and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 to 4 before this Court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 to 4 have been framed, read over the same in Telugu to the accused for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P15.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home the

guilt of Accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable

u/secs.324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

5

10. Point:

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charge leveled assistant the accused No.1 to 4 to the evidence of PW.1 to 7 and that accused No.1 to 4 may be convicted.

11.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 4 argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive party of the offence and alleged eye witnesses turned hostile and there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution and that prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused

No.1 to 4 and that the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled to acquittal.

12.The prosecution has examined PW.1 to 7 witnesses to prove the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 4.

13.As per the case of the prosecution, there existing political rivalry in between the accused No.1 to 4 and prosecution party, therefore on 02.09.2019 at 9 PM,

Accused No.2 to 3 chased PW.1 and Accused No.1 armed with machu sickle hacked on the right side of head of PW.1 with an intention to murder and caused bleeding injuries. Further, Accused No.1 beat PW.1 with the reverse portion of sickle and caused contusion injuries and Accused No.2 to 4 beat with hands and kicked with legs mercilessly and caused invisible injuries to PW.1.

14.PW.1 deposed in his evidence that two years ago he went to hospital, due to ill health there police obtained his signature on white paper and he do not know the contents of Ex.P1-Report. PW.1 who is the material witness deposed that he do not know anything about the offence and he do not know contents of Ex.P1-Statement.

15.Further, PW.2 to PW.7 deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor treated

PW.1 to 6 as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P7.

In the cross examination of PW.1 he denied the suggestion put to him that accused 6 and PW.1 belongs to two different political parties both of them disputed with each other. In the cross examination PW.2 to 7 deposed they denied that they were present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident. They also denied that they are deposing false.

16.PW.7 is the Investigating Officer, deposing with evidence that on 2.9.2019 at 10.30 PM while he was present in police station he received information about injured person. Then he deputed LW.12 Ramakrishna ASI to record the statement of

LW.1. On 3.9.2019 at 3.00 AM, LW.12 came to PS presented the statement of PW.1.

Basing on the statement, he registered a case in Cr.No.106/2019 visited Area hospital recorded the statement of PW.1 seized blood stained cloths of PW.1, visited the scene of offence drawn rough sketch of offence and drafted scene observation mahazar in the presence of mediators LW.9-D.Raja Kullayappa and LW.10-P.Venkata

Naidu, seized broken beer bottle glass pieces. PW.7 further deposed that on 3.9.2019 he examined the witnesses, on 5.9.2019 at 11 AM he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators. LW.9 Razwan and LW.10 Venkata Naidu. He arrested the accused by preparing arrest mahazar after obtaining wound certificate filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.The offences U/s 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC were charged against the accused

No.1 to 4. As per the case of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 4 with an intention to kill PW.1, Accused No.1 hacked with a sickle on the right side of head of PW.1 and beat with reverse portion of sickle and Accused No.2 to 4 beat with hands and legs mercilessly and caused injuries. But all the witnesses i.e. PW.1 to 6 deposed that they do not know anything about this case. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, and PW.2 to 6 are independent witnesses and did not support the prosecution case. All the witnesses i.e PW.1 to 6 gave a different version, which contra to the case of the prosecution. Since the witnesses has given totally go by to the entire case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare them as hostile and even after obtaining permission and even 7 in the examination Assistant Public Prosecutor by way of putting questions in the form of cross-examination, he failed to elicit anything against accused except marking 161 statements of witnesses. Since the material witness have turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up LW.7 to 12 witnesses.

18.On perusal of entire evince of PW.1 to 6, this court has not found any overacts against the accused for the offences U/s 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC, as such the evidence of PW.1 to 6 can be discarded. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer done investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4. But the prosecution failed to produce reliable evidence to prove it allegations. In the absence of reliable evidence to corroborate the evidence of Investigating Officer, basing on the sole evidence of Investigating Officer alone it cannot be concluded that the accused committed the alleged offences. Though the independent witnesses and the official witnesses are available their credible and corroborative evidence was not produced by the prosecution.

19.In the absence of any corroboration, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Investigating Officer. Hence, the evidence available on record, is not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused. The prosecution failed to prive the guilt of accused for the said charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 324 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 4 shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty 8

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: K.Rajesh Chowdary -None- PW.2: K.Subramanyam @ Hotel Subramanyam PW.3: P.Narayanaswamy PW.4: P.Hari PW.5: K.Prasanth Chowdary @ Prasanth PW.6: P.Somasekhar Naidu PW.7: U.Venkata Prasad

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on the complaint.

Ex.P.2Signature of PW.1 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.3Signature of PW.2 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW.3 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.5Signature of PW.4 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.6Signature of PW.5 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.7Signature of PW.6 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.8Signature of PW.7 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.9Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.10First Information Report

Ex.P.11Police Proceedings

Ex.P12Rough Sketch

Ex.P13Scene Observation Seizure Mahazar

Ex.P14Arrest Mahazar

Ex.P15Wound Certificate of PW.1

Exhibits marked for the defence: -Nil-

M.Os. Marked: -Nil-

Id/- B.N.L., A.S.J.

9

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.104 of 2021

1.Name of the complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of and Crime No. Police, Putlur Police Station.

2.Name of the accused:1. Parimi Keshava Naidu, S/o P.Obulayya, aged 45 years,

2. Parimi Shankaraiah, S/o Chinna Narayana, aged 46 years,

3.ParimiAshokNaidu,S/o P.Aswarthamaiah, aged 30 years,

4. Muddu Krishnama Naidu, S/o M.Thirupal, aged 25 years,

All are residents of A.Kondapuram village, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District

3.Date of Offence:02-09-2019

4.Date of complaint:03-09-2019

5.Date of apprehension of:05-09-2019 accused

6.Date of release on bail:23-09-2019

7.Date of committal:14-02-2020

8.Date of commencement of:31-03-2023 trial

9.Date of close of trial:31-03-2023

10.Date of sentence of order:28-04-2023

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 04.09.2021 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.34/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri and posted for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 19.08.2021 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 31.03.2023 trial was commenced and closed on 31.03.2023 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 28.04.2023.

10

In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOOTY.

Present: Smt.B. Nirmala

Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, FAC/Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023

S.C.No.11/2021

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:1. Kakimani Rajesh Chowdary, @ Rajesh, S/o K.Adinarayana, aged 24 years,

2. Kakimanu Prashanth Chowdary, @ Prashanth, aged 23 years, S/o K.Satyanarayana,

3. Parimi Somasekhar Naidu, aged 42 years, S/o late P.Obula Naidu,

All are residents of A.Kondapuram village, Putlur mandal, Anantapuramu District.

3)Offences:Under Sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC,

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No. 107/2019 of Putlur Police Station. station.

This case coming on 21-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri T.Dhanunjaya, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Putlur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.107/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu, resident of A.Kondapuram village, living by doing cultivation. LW.1 and his family are the followers YSR Congress Party. There are political rivalry in between LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu and A1-K.Rajesh Chowdary sympathizers of TDP party. In the past Assembly and parliamentary election, LW.1-

P.Kesava Naidu has supported the YSR Congress Party and worked hardly in polling the votes in favour of Y.S.R Congress Party. So, the said Chowadary has developed grudge against LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu. While so, on 02.09.2019 at about 9 PM LW.1-

P.Kesava Naidu along with his villagers LW.5-Shankaraiah LW.6-Ashok Naidu, LW.7-

Muddukrishnama Naidu were standing near cool drink shop at their village. At that time, Accused No.1, Accused No.2 who is cousin brother of Accused No.1 and Ex-

Sarpanch. Accused No.3-Somasekhar Naidu came to LW.1 threatened that after coming to Y.S.R.C.P into ruling LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu is showing extra supremacy in the village and no they are going to murder him who will come across threatening

Accused No.3, Accused No.2 beaten LW.1 with hands and kicked with legs and also cached LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu. Accused No.1 armed with beer bottles broken it stabbed on the stomach of LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu with an intention to murder. So,

LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu had taken place his both hands across to blow and the bottle hit on right hand ring finger left hand little finger of LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu and caused bleeding injury. LW.5-Shankaraiah. LW.6-Ashok Naidu, LW.7-Muddu

Krishnama Naidu, LW.2-Atal Subramanyam, LW.3-Parimi Narayanswamy and cool drink shop owner LW.4-Hari witnessed the occurrence and rescued LW.1-P.Kesava

Naidu. LW.7-M.Krishma Naidu, shifted LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu to Government General

Hospital, Tadipatri on the motor cycle of LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu and admitted.

3

On receipt of information from medical Officer, Government General Hospital,

Tadipatri, LW.13-P.Venkata Naidu, visited the Government General Hospital,

Tadipatri and recorded the statement of LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu. on the statement of

LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu, LW.14-U.Venkata Prasad, SI of Police, registered a case in

Cr.No.107/2019 U/s 307 r/w 34 IPC of Putlur Police Station and submitted copy of

FIR to all concerned officers and investigated the case. During the course of investigation LW.14-U.Venkata Prasad, SI of Police, visited Government Area hospital, Tadipatri secured LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu and recorded his statement, seized blood stained shirt of LW.1-P.Kesava Naidu under the cover of police proceedings.

On 03.09.2019 at 9 AM also visited scene of offence at 1.30 Pm drafted scene observation mahazar and seized broken beet bottle glass pieces from the scene under the cover of mahazar in the presence of LW.8-N.Sekhar and LW.9-D.Raja

Kullayappa and also drawn rough sketch of scene. During the course of investigation, LW.14-U.Venkata Naidu secured the witnesses LW.5 to 7 and recorded their statement. On 05.09.2019 at 8 AM, all the accused were arrested by LW.14-SI of Police and in his staff under cover of confession and arrest mahazar in the presence of LW.10 and LW.11 near HLC office A.Kondapuram village of Putlur

Mandal and sent the accused for judicial remand. LW.12-Dr. R.Ajendra Rao, Medical officer issued wound certificate. Basing on the Wound Certificate of LW.1, LW.14-SI of Police, added section of law 324 to existing section 307 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tadipatri as case in PRC.No.35/2019 for the offences punishable under sections.

324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

4. As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the accused No.1 to 3 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the 4 proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the P.R.C.35/2019 as Sessions Case

No.11/2021 and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 before this Court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under sections 324 and 307 r/w IPC against accused No.1 to 3 have been framed, read over the same in Telugu to the accused No.1 to 3 for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P15.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused No.1 to 3 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution would able to bring home the

guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

U/secs 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. Point:

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charge leveled assistant the accused No.1 to 3 to the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and that accused No.1 to 3 may be convicted.

11.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive party of the offence and alleged eye witnesses turned hostile and there is no corroboration to the case of the 5 prosecution and that prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused

No.1 to 3 and that the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled to acquittal.

12.The prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 witnesses to prove the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3.

13.As per the case of the prosecution, there existing political rivalry in between the accused and prosecution party, therefore on 02.09.2019 at 9 PM, PW.1, PW.5

PW.6 and PW.7 were standing near the cool drink shop, Accused No.1 and 2,

Accused No.3 came to PW.1 threatened him and Accused No.2 and A3 beat PW.1 with hands and kicked with legs and also chased PW.1, Accused No.1 armed with beer bottle, broken it and stabbed on the stomach of PW.1, when PW.1 placed his both hands across the blow his right hand ring finger and left hand little finger of

PW.1 and caused bleeding injury.

14.PW.1 deposed in his evidence that two years ago he went to hospital, due to ill health police obtained his signature on white paper and he do not know the contents of Ex.P1-Report. PW.1 who is the material witness deposed that he do not know anything about the offence and he do not know contents of Ex.P1-Report.

15.Further, PW.2 to PW.7 deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor treated

PW.1 to 8 as hostile and their 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P7.

In the cross examination of PW.1, he denied the suggestion put to him that accused

No.1 to 3 and PW.1 belongs to two different political parties both of them disputed with each other. In the cross examination PW.2 to 8 deposed they denied that they were present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident. They also denied that they are deposing false.

16.PW.8 is the Investigating Officer, deposing with evidence that on 2.9.2019 at 10.30 PM while he was present in police station he received information about injured person. Then he deputed LW.13 Ramakrishna ASI to record the statement of 6

LW.1 on 3.9.2019 at 3.30 AM, LW.13 came to PS presented the statement of PW.1.

Basing on the statement, he registered a case in cr.No.107/2019, visited area hospital recorded the statement of PW.1 seized blood stained cloths of PW.1, visited the scene of offence drawn rough sketch of offence and drafted Scene Observation

Mahazar in the presence of mediators LW.8-N.Sekhar and LW.9-D.Raja Kullayappa, seized broken beer bottle glass pieces. PW.8 further deposed that on 3.9.2019 he examined the witnesses, on 5.9.2019 at 1 PM he arrested the accused No.1 to 3 in the presence of mediators. LW.10-Razwan and LW.11-Venkata Naidu. He arrested the Accused No.1 to 3 by preparing arrest mahazar after obtaining Wound

Certificate filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.The offences U/s 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC were charged against the accused

No.1 to 3. As per the case of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 3 with an intention to kill PW.1, Accused No.1 with broken beer bottle tried to stab into the stomach of

PW.1, but he put his hands across the blow, therefore he sustained injury on his fingers. Therefore, he sustained injury on his hands and fingers. But all the witnesses i.e. PW.1 to 7 deposed that they do not know anything about this case.

PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, and PW.2 to 7 are independent witnesses and did not support the prosecution case. All the witnesses i.e PW.1 to 8 gave a different version, which contra to the case of the prosecution. Since the witnesses has given totally go by to the entire case of the prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare them as hostile and even after obtaining permission and even in the cross examination Assistant Public

Prosecutor by way of putting questions in the form of cross-examination, he failed to elicit anything against accused No.1 to 3 except marking 161 statements of witnesses. Since the material witness have turned hostile, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor given up LW.8 to 13 witnesses.

18.On perusal of entire evidence of PW.1 to 7, this court has not found any overacts against the accused for the offences U/s 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC, as such 7 the evidence of PW.1 to 7 can discarded. PW.8 is the Investigating Officer done investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. But the prosecution failed to produce reliable evidence to prove it allegations. In the absence of reliable evidence to corroborate the evidence of Investigating Officer, basing on the sole evidence of Investigating Officer alone it cannot be concluded that the accused No.1 to 3 committed the alleged offences. Though the independent witnesses and the official witnesses are available their credible and corroborative evidence was not produced by the prosecution.

19.In the absence of any corroboration, it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of investigating Officer. Hence, the evidence available on record, is not sufficient to prove the alleged charge against the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt for the said charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs 324 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. and accordingly the Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/s 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 3 shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Typed by the Stenographer-II to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: P.Keshava Naidu -None- PW.2: K.Subramanyam @ Hotel Subramanyam PW.3: P.Narayanaswamy PW.4: P.Hari PW.5: P.Shankaraiah PW.6: P.Ashok Naidu PW.7: M.Krishnama Naidu PW.8: U.Venkata Prasad 8

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on the complaint.

Ex.P.2Signature of PW.1 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.3Signature of PW.2 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW.3 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.5Signature of PW.4 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.6Signature of PW.5 on 161 Cr.P.C Statement.

Ex.P.7Signature of PW.6 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.8Signature of PW.7 on 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.9Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.10First Information Report

Ex.P.11Police Proceedings

Ex.P12Rough Sketch

Ex.P13Scene Observation Seizure Mahazar

Ex.P14Arrest Mahazar

Ex.P15Wound Certificate of PW.1

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-Nil-

M.Os. Marked: -Nil-

Id/- B.N.L., A.S.J.

9

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.11 of 2021

1.Name of the complainant and:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Crime No. Police, Putlur Police Station.

2.Name of the accused:1. Kakimani Rajesh Chowdary, @ Rajesh, S/o K.Adinarayana, aged 24 years,

2. Kakimanu Prashanth Chowdary, @ Prashanth,aged23years,S/o K.Satyanarayana,

3. Parimi Somasekhar Naidu, aged 42 years, S/o late P.Obula Naidu,

All are residents of A.Kondapuram village, Putlur mandal, Anantapuramu District.

3.Date of Offence:02-09-2019

4.Date of complaint:03-09-2019

5.Date of apprehension of:05-09-2019 accused

6.Date of release on bail:23-09-2019

7.Date of committal:13-02-2020

8.Date of commencement of:31-03-2023 trial

9.Date of close of trial:31-03-2023 10Date of sentence of order:28-04-2023 .

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 21.01.2021 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.35/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri and posted to 22.04.2021 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 21.01.2021 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 31.01.2023 trial was commenced and closed on 31.01.2023 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against them. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 28.04.2023.

10

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Sd/- Smt B.Nirmala,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOOTY

Present: - Smt. B. Nirmala,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC/Senior Civil Judge, Gooty.

Friday, this the 20th day of October, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.57/2023

Between:

1. Kantagani Rajendra, S/o Kantagani Chandra Narayana, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Residing at D.No.1-53, Kandigopula Village, Putluru Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2. Busagani Amrutha, W/o Kantagani Rajendra, D/o B. Venkata Siva, Hindu, aged about 22 years, residing at D.No.2/115, Obulapuram Village, Putluru Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

…Petitioners

And

NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming on 20-10-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent is being remained exparte, and upon heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed U.Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage act, 1955 seeking the Court to dissolve the marriage held between the petitioners on 25.08.2021 by way of divorce on mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The marriage of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner was performed on 25.08.2021 at Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Yarraguntapalli Village, Tadipatri

Mandal, Ananthapuram District as per Hindu religious rites and customs prevailing in their community. In the presence of both side family members, relatives, friends and well-wishers immediately after marriage, 1st petitioner joint the 2nd petitioner at her matrimonial house and them lived as husband and wife and their marriage was consummated, but they have no issues. Both of them live together amicably for 3 months. After marriage owing to differences temperament habits, tastes, thoughts and increasing compatibility the relationship between the petitioners is deteriorated. Frequent quarrels resulted as between them and several re- 2 conciliations conducted, finally after a very serious quarrel and in order to avoid further deterioration of relationship which might reflect on their families and friends.

The petitioners our of free will and separated in the month of January 2022 and they never returned to each other. The efforts and attempts made by mutual friends to effect re-conciliation for resumption of the marital relationship, but, it has not been possible owing to the vital differences in temperature and total in compatibility gives rise to invincible repugnance which had rendered normal marital life impracticable and impossible.

The petitioners mutually agreed and decided that there is no point for the continuation on marital relationship and have further agreed upon the dissolution of the marriage tie by the decree of divorce on mutual consent.

The 1st petitioners agreed to pay sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards permanent alimony, accordingly, the 1st petitioner paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and she has received the same and balance amount will be payable at the time of decree of divorce and 2nd petitioner agreed for the same. Both petitioners agreed that will not claim any right or maintenance on each other or file any, criminal or civil cases against each other, in the present and in the future if any cases are pending against each other will be withdrawn un-conditionally. The petitioners are agreed to exchange their belongings. Therefore, necessary in the interest of both parties marriage between the petitioners to be dissolved by way of decree of divorce on mutual consent. So, that they may be able to lead their own lives independently. Hence, filed present petition seeking decree of divorce of mutual consent.

3.In order to prove their respective cases, the 1st petitioner is examined asPw1 and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked. The 2nd petitioner herself examined as Pw2. Ex.P1 is

Wedding card and Ex.P2 is marriage photograph.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5.The point for arise for determination is:- 3 “Whether the marriage between the petitioners can be

dissolved by granting decree of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for”?

6.Point:-

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that marriage between the petitioners was performed on 25.08.2021. They lived together for a period of 3 months later they are serious disputed and differences are and between the petitioners and since January 2022 they are living separately and they have no issues. The petitioners are not intended to live together and there is no possibility of re-union between them.

7.In order to prove their case, the 1st petitioner examined is Pw1 and Ex.P1 and

P2 are marked on their behalf. On perusal of Ex.P1 which is wedding card and Ex.P2 is marriage photographs. The 2nd petitioner also examined as Pw2. As per the evidence of Pw1 and 2 both the petitioners lived together for 3 months only and since January 2022 they are living separately. This present petition filed on 13.04.2023 since 14 months prior to filing of this petition they are living separately.

As such both petitioners have complied Sec.13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In order to comply section 13-B(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, six months period after filing of the present petition has also been lapsed.Further, this court has not found any chance of re-union of petitioners as they are repeatedly testified that they are no chance or re-union or re-conciliation. As such the petitioners are entitled for divorce by dissolving their issues held on 25.08.2021 on mutual consent.

8.Basing on following terms and conditions, both petitioners agreed to dissolve their marriage. The 1st petitioners agreed to pay sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the 2nd petitioner towards permanent alimony, accordingly, the 1st petitioner paid

Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and she received the same and remaining balance amount also paid of Rs.3,50,000/- was also paid to the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner also received the same.

9. In view of the settlement in between them this court has not found any chance of re-union of petitioners, as they are living separately since January 2022.

Prior to filing of the present petition and clearly deposed in their evidence that there 4 is no chance of re-union as such petitioners are entitled for divorce by dissolving their marriage held on 25.08.2021 on mutual consent.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed dissolving the marriage between the petitioners/ Kantagani Rajendra and Busagani Amrutha held on 25.08.2021 by way of mutual consent and decree of divorce and in the circumstances, without costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 20th day of October, 2023.

Senior Civil Judge,

Gooty

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondent:

PW.1: Kantagani Rajendra -None- PW.2: Busagani Amrutha.

Exhibits marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P1:Wedding card. Ex.P2:Marriage photograph

Exhibits marked for Respondent:

- Nil -

S.C.J.