Smt. B. Rupasree

1C.C. No.51 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Present: Smt. B.Rupasree, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Thursday, this the 13th day of July, 2023

Calendar Case No.51 of 2016 Crime No.101 of 2015 of Nagaram P.S

Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station.. . . Complainant

Vs

1.Lachi Peda Nancharaiah S/o.Subbaiah, age 65 years,

2.Lachi Venkayamma W/o.Peda Nancharaiah, age 62 years,

3.Veeranki Srinivasa Rao S/o.Yedukondalu, age 24 years,

4.Arepalli Ravi S/o.Veera Babu, age 20 years, (All are R/o.Pudiwada, Padamatipalem Village, Nagaram Mandal) . . . Accused no.1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 13.07.2023 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. Kesana Rama Swamy,

Advocate for the accused no.1 to 4 and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 4 for the offence under sections 323, 324 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code in Crime No.101 of 2015 of Nagaram Police Station.

The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :

2.On 03/11/2015 PW6/G.Bhaskara Rao, the then Asst. Sub-Inspector of

Police, Nagaram Police Station received hospital intimation along with the statement of PW1 from Community Health Center, Repalle. According to the prosecution the statement of PW1 discloses that PW1 is living by doing agricultural coolie works and 2C.C. No.51 of 2016 they are ten daughters to their parents. Accused no.2 is one of her sister and accused no.1 is husband of accused no.2. Accused no.3 and 4 are close relatives of accused no.1 and 2. PW1’s father belongs agricultural land of Ac.01.00 cents.

Accused no.1 cultivating agricultural land of Ac.01.00 cents after demise of her father.

PW1 along with her sisters except Accused no.2, asked accused no.1 to give share in the agricultural land and they would cultivate on their own. Accused no.1 objected to give share in the agricultural land. While things stood thus, on 02/11/2015 at about 10:00 am., PW1 along with PW2, PW3, PW4 and Immadi Seetha went for mediation before PW4, who is village elder. The accused no.1 to 4 also came to the house of PW4. PW4 expressed his difficulty in compromising the matter and asked them to leave. While returning from the house of PW4, the accused no.1 and 2 gave sticks to Accused no.3 and 4 and insisted to beat them. Then Accused no.3 and 4 both beat PW1 till the sticks were broken into two pieces. The accused no.3 and 4 also gave a blow on PW2 and PW3 also. On shouting the accused no.1 to 4 fled away from that place. Later they engaged an auto and went to Community Health

Center, Repalle for treatment.

PW6 registered the statement of PW1 as a case in Crime No.101/2015 for the offence under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 4 and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW6 visited the Community Health

Center, Repalle, examined Pws.1 to 3, LW4/Yadavalli Venkayamma and recorded their statements. PW6 proceeded to scene of offence which is situated at Pudivada,

Padamatapalem village, Nagaram Mandal and prepared a rough sketch. Ex.P8 is the rough sketch. PW6 examined PW5 and LW6/Lachi Yesaiah and recorded their statements. Based on the merits of investigation PW4 added section 323 of Indian

Penal Code against accused no.1 and section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against 3C.C. No.51 of 2016 accused no.2 to 4. PW6 handed over the case file to LW10/B.Ashok Kumar, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police for further investigation. On 18/11/2015 LW10/B.Ashok

Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused no.1 to 4. After completion of investigation and on obtaining wound certificates of

Pws.1 to 3 LW10/B.Ashok Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and against the accused no.2 to 4 for the offence under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code.

3.On filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused no.1 to 4 for the offence under section 324 r/w.34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 4 before this Court copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused no.1 to 4 in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.1 to 4 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge has been framed against them for the offence under section 324 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 6 on its behalf and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P8 documents.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 to 3 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused no.1 to 4 and perused the record.

4C.C. No.51 of 2016

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of IPC?

5C.C. No.51 of 2016

P O I N T

10. To prove its case prosecution examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8 PW1 is defacto complainant. PWs.2 and 3 are the sisters of PW1. PW4 is village elder. PW5 is the Medical Officer, who issued Exs.P3 to P5 wound certificates. PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

11.PW1 deposed before this Court that A2 is her elder sister. After the death of her parents accused no.1 used to cultivate the agricultural land of Ac.01:00 cents. Accused no.1 cultivated the said land for two years. Thereafter, except accused no.2, PW.1 and her remaining sisters objected the cultivation of said land by accused no.1 and they tried to claimed their share and started cultivating the agricultural land. Accused no.1 objected more than five to six times the cultivation of the land by them. She deposed that all the sisters intend to compromise the matter about the agricultural land in the presence of elders i.e., PW4. PW1 along with PW2, PW3 and LW4/Yadavalli Venkayamma and one Seethamma went to the house of PW4. Accused no.1 to 4 also came to the house of PW4. PW4 expressed his difficulty in compromising the matter and asked all of them to leave including the accused persons. Pws.1 to 3 returned from the house of PW4 and reached near to the house of LW6/Lachi Yesaiah, then the accused no.1 to 4 came there, and picked up quarrel with them. Accused no.4 beat PW1 on her left shoulder and on her back indiscriminately i.e., nearly 20 blows and caused bleeding injuries. Accused no.3 beat

PW1 with a bamboo stick and that stick was broken into two pieces. Accused no.3 and 4 also beat PW1’s sisters i.e., PW3, Seethamma. She further deposed that accused no.3 and 4 beat PW3 at her waist and she did not sustain any bleeding injuries. Accused no.1 to 4 are also beat Sethamma.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW2, that accused no.1 and accused no.2 gave sticks to accused no.3 and 4 to beat them. Then accused no.3 and 4 beat PW1 6C.C. No.51 of 2016 till the sticks were broken into two pieces. Then accused no.3 and 4 also gave a blow on all the remaining sisters. She further deposed that PW2 along with her remaining sisters went to Repalle Court and case was drafted in Court hall at about 04:00 pm by the police. In her cross examination, she deposed that they were beaten in the premises of the site of PW4.

13.It is the version of PW3, accused no.2 gave a long stick to accused no.4 and instigated him to beat all of her sisters. Then accused no.4 beat PW1 indiscriminately till that stick was broken. Then accused no.3 with the broken piece of stick beat PW3 on her waist by giving two or three blows. Accused no.4 beat

PW2 with the other broken stick on her back by giving four to five blows. PW3 deposed that they returned to their home and went to the Hospital, Repalle. Police came to the hospital and drafted the case. In the cross examination, PW3 deposed that compromise talks were held at the house of PW1. PW1 asked them to leave as it was not possible for compromise. Before leaving the place of compromise and after going to their houses nothing was happened.

14.According to the case of prosecution PW4 and LW6/Lachi Yesaiah are cited as direct witnesses. PWs.1 to 3 deposed before this Court that they know PW4 and he acted as mediator between them and the accused persons, but PW 4 deposed

before this Court that he does not know PWs.1 to 3 and accused no.1 to 4. Further

PW4 deposed that he does not know anything about this case and police never examined him. He denied that he has stated in Ex.P2. PW4 did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared PW4 as hostile. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW6/Lachi Yesaiah, who is cited as direct witness.

15.As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the 7C.C. No.51 of 2016 mediation was held at the residence of PW4 and they left the residence of PW4, while going to their houses, meanwhile, the accused no.1 to 4 beat them indiscriminately, but PW3 deposed in her cross examination that the compromise talks were held at the residence of PW1 and she further deposed that before leaving the place of compromise and after going to their respective houses nothing was happened.

16.PW5 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, he deposed before the Court that on 02/11/2015 at about 01:00 pm he examined PWs.1 to 3 and found the following injuries.

1) A swelling of 15 cm x 15 cm on left biceps.

2) A blackish swelling of 20 cm x 15 cm on right biceps with a 2 cm x 2 cm laceration on it and is bleeding.

3) A 10 cm x 8 cm bruise on left glutens.

4) A 6 cm x 4 cm bruises on right glutens.

5) A 4 cm x 3 cm swelling on left forehead near hair line.

He opined that the injury was simple in nature and he issued wound certificate. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate.

On the same day he examined PW.2 and found the following injuries.

1) 6 cm x 6 cm bruising on posterior aspect of left biceps.

2) Two 8 cm x 3 cm bruises which are parallel and horizontal on left scapula

3) A 10 cm x 4 cm vertical bruising on right biceps.

He opined that the injury was simple in nature and he issued wound certificate. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate.

On the same day he examined PW3 and found following injuries.

1) A 15 cm x 3 cm horizontal bruise on right wrist.

He opined that the injury was simple in nature and he issued wound certificate. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate.

As per the evidence of PW5, that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 to P5 are possible with a blunt object but no material object is produced before this Court 8C.C. No.51 of 2016 to show the nature of the weapon.

17.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that accused no. 1 to 4 with common intention, must voluntarily caused hurt to PWs.1 to 3 and also such hurt shall be caused with a deadly weapon.

18.The remaining evidence available on record is PW6, who is the

Investigating Officer in this case, he deposed about the investigation done by him.

He does not discloses that the accused no.1 to 4 committed the alleged offence.

19.The Investigating Officer examined PW.4 and LW5/Lachi Yesaiah near the scene of offence, but PW4 turned hostile and prosecution given up the evidence of

LW5/Lachi Yesaiah. Except the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 who are the sisters, there is no independent evidence available on record.

20.In the absence of independent witnesses and as seen from the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution, there are several omissions, exaggeration and inconsistences in their evidence as discussed supra and that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is acquitted for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

21. In the result, accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.1 to 4 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 4 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me 9C.C. No.51 of 2016 in the open Court on this the 13th day of July, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

10C.C. No.51 of 2016

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused:

PW1 : 05.09.2017 : L.Suseela.

PW2 : 19.04.2022 : Karri Koteswaramma. NONE

PW3 : 19.04.2022 : Midde Lakshmi.

PW4 : 15.03.2023 : Morla Koteswara Rao.

PW5 : 28.06.2023 : K.Praveen. Civil Asst. Surgeon.

PW6 : 05.07.2023 : G.Bhaskara Rao, Retired ASI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the statement of PW1, dt.02.11.2015.

Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate of PW1.

Ex.P.4 is the wound certificate of PW2.

Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate of PW3.

Ex.P.6 is the hospital intimation.

Ex.P.7 is the FIR in Crime No.101 of 2015.

Ex.P.8 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: N I L

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

11C.C. No.51 of 2016

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Date of Date ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofrelease of commencemclose ofsentence or offenceof complainantapprehensionthe ent of trialtrialorder accused 02.11.1503.11.15- - 05.09.1705.07.2313.07.2023

Explanation for Delay :- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 13.05.2016, on 06.07.2017 accused no.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 05.09.2017 and PW1 to 6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents were marked, that on 11.07.2023 the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence, heard the prosecution and defence on 13.07.2023 and on the same day i.e., on 13.07.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. _________________________________________________________________

Judgment in C.C. No.51 of 2016 in Crime No.101 of 2015 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle. Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station.. . . Complainant

Vs

1.Lachi Peda Nancharaiah S/o.Subbaiah, age 65 years,

2.Lachi Venkayamma W/o.Peda Nancharaiah, age 62 years,

3.Veeranki Srinivasa Rao S/o.Yedukondalu, age 24 years,

4.Arepalli Ravi S/o.Veera Babu, age 20 years, (All are R/o.Pudiwada, Padamatipalem Village, Nagaram Mandal) . . . Accused no.1 to 4

Offence U/Sec : Sec.324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.1 to 4 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 4 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Copy submitted :- 12C.C. No.51 of 2016

The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

1C.C. No.534 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Present: Smt. B.Rupasree, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023

Calendar Case No.534 of 2014 Crime No.64/2014 of Nizampatnam P.S Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam Police Station.… Complainant

Vs

1.Selam Srinivasa Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 23 years,

2.Kagitala Venkateswara Rao S/o.Adam, age 35 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

3.Kattupalli Chittibabu S/o.Yesupadam, age 30 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

4.Kagitala Sudheer S/o.Dharma Rao, age 35 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

5.Selam Venkateswara Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 33 years,

6.Selam Ram Babu S/o.Subba Rao, age 27 years,

7.Ambati Bhaskar S/o.Venkaiah, age 50 years,

8.Chikati Nageswara Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 35 years,

9.Neela Petal Pal S/o.Raja Babu, age 35 years,

10.Selam Durga Rao S/o.Bhusanam, age 30 years,

11.Selam Bangaru Babu @ Chinnodu S/o. Bhushanam, age 35 years,

12.Kattupalli Nancharamma W/o.Susila Rao, age 50 years,

13.Ambati Paapa W/o.Bhaskara Rao, age 35 years,

14.Seelam Paapa W/o.Munneswara Rao, age 50 years,

15.Neela Lakshmi W/o.Srinivasa Rao, age 30 years, (Accused No.1, 5 to 15 are R/o.Kollapalem Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.) … Accused No.1 to 15.

(Case against accused no.1 and 12 abated as they were died) 2C.C. No.534 of 2014

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10/07/2023 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. V.Uday Prasad, Advocate

for the accused no.1 to 15 and the matter having stood for consideration till this day,

this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam Police Station filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 15 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.64 of 2014 of Nizampatnam

Police Station.

The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :

2.On 05.08.2014 PW11/P.Bhaskar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nizampatnam Police Station, received a report from PW1. As seen from the report of

PW1, it discloses that, PW1 is wife of accused no.1. There are existing disputes between PW1 and accused no.1. PW1 went to parent’s house for delivery and she delivered a baby boy. On 04/08/2014 parents of PW1 invited accused no.1 and his relatives to attend function of their son. On that day accused no.1 with his relatives nearly 25 persons were attended to that function. Except accused no.1 remaining relatives left the house of PW1 after the function. PW4 kept hot water to accused no.1 for bath, on that pretext accused no.1 abused PW1 for not providing the facilities. Accused no.1 also abused PW.4 and PW6, who are the parents of PW1.

Later accused no.1 went to the house of accused no.2, which is situated in the same village and accused no.2 to 4 conspired with each other and made a phone call to

Kolapalem Village. Then Accused no.1 to 15 went to the house of PW.1, picked up quarrel and beat PWs.1 to 6 with sticks and also accused no.1 chased PW6 with a knife.

3C.C. No.534 of 2014

Based on the report of PW1, PW11 registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2014 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian

Penal Code against accused no.1 to 15 and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation PW11 examined PWs.1 to 6 at police station and recorded their statements. PW1 went to the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. Ex.P11 is the rough sketch. PW11 examined PWs.7 to 9 at the scene of offence and recorded their statements respectively. On 12/08/2014 PW11 served section 41-A Cr.P.C notices on accused no.1 to 15. After completion of investigation and on obtaining wound certificates of PWs.1 to 5, PW11 filed charge sheet against accused no.1 to 15 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 15.

3.On filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused no.1 to 15 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.1 to 15.

4.On appearance of the accused no.1 to 15 before this Court copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused no.1 to 15 in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.2 to 15 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge has been framed against them for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code against accused no.2 to 15, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

4C.C. No.534 of 2014

6.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 11 on its behalf and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P11 documents.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence available against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code?

P O I N T

10. To prove its case prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P11. PW1 is defacto complainant. PW.2 is the brother of PW1. PWs.3 and 5 are relatives of PW1. PWs.4 and 6 are the parents of PW1. PWs.7 to 9 are the direct eye witnesses. PW10 is Medical Officer. PW11 is the Investigation Officer.

11.PW1 deposed before this Court that about seven years ago her marriage was performed with accused no.1. Disputes arose between PW1 and accused no.1 she came to the house of her parents at Kallipalem Village for delivery. PW1 delivered a baby boy and they informed about the 21 days purudu function to accused no.1 and his relatives. Only lady members along with accused no.1 attended to the function and except accused no.1 remaining members left their house after having meals. On that day accused no.1 came upon PW1 to beat on the ground that 5C.C. No.534 of 2014 she did not hand over the soap and water to the accused no.1. Then accused no.1 went to Kallipalem Village and brought his relatives by autos and came to PW1 house with knives and sickles and chased father of PW1 i.e., PW6. The elder sister of accused no.1 by name Lakshmi i.e., accused no.15 beat PW1 on her neck and chest. PW1 lost her conscious and fell down. PW1 identified accused no.15 present

in the Court hall. PW1 cannot identity remaining accused persons.

12.As per the evidence on record PW2, PW4 and PW6 are the brother, mother and father of PW1. Pws.3 and PW5 are close relatives of PW1, they deposed

before this Court that about eight years ago, PW1 delivered a baby boy and they

were performed the bathing ceremony of PW1’s son. After completion of ceremony, the accused no.1 with his relatives came to the house of PW1 and beat them. PW6 identified only the accused no.5 and they categorically deposed before this Court that they could not identify the accused persons as it was night.

13.PW6 further deposed before this Court that PWs.7 to 9 shifted them to hospital. But PWs7 to 9 categorically deposed before this Court that they do not know anything about this case and police never examined them. They denied to have stated before police as in Exs.P2 to P4 respectively.

14.PW10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, and he deposed that on 05/08/2014 he examined Pws.1 to 5 and found the following injuries:

i) Finger nail abrasions 1x3 1x1 2x1 cms in size over the left fore arm, ii) Finger nail abrasions 1x1 1x1 1x1 cms in size in right shoulder.

He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex.P6 wound certificate.

6C.C. No.534 of 2014

He examined PW3 and found an abrasion of 1x1 cms size over the left side of face, which is simple in nature and issued Ex.P7 wound certificate.

He examined PW.4 and found a swelling of 1X1 cms size over the right wrist joint and finger nail abrasion of 1/2 X 1/2 cms size over the left fore arm, which are simple in nature and issued Ex.P8 wound certificate.

He also examined PW.5 and found a finger nail abrasions of 2 X 2 cms 1 X 1 size over the right scapula and finger nail abrasions 1 X 1 cms size over the neck which are simple in nature and issued Ex.P9 wound certificate.

15.In cross examination he deposed that for the finger nail abrasions, there is no need for the injured persons to be as in patient in the hospital.

16.The remaining evidence available on record is PW11, who is the

Investigating Officer, he deposed before this Court about the investigation done by him. During the course of investigation PW11 examined PWs.1 to 6 at police station and recorded their statements. PW1 went to the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. Ex.P11 is the rough sketch. PW11 examined PWs.7 to 9 at the scene of offence and recorded their statements respectively. On 12/08/2014, PW11 served section 41-A Cr.P.C notices on accused no.1 to 15.

17.The Investigating Officer examined Pws.7 to 9 at the scene of offence and recorded their statements but Pws.7 to 9 did not support the case of prosecution.

Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile. Pws.2 to 5 cannot identify the accused persons as it was night and PW1 and PW6 identified the accused no.15 and accused no.5 but they could not identify the remaining accused persons. Except the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 who are the family members, there is no independent evidence available on record.

7C.C. No.534 of 2014

18.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 with common intention, must voluntarily caused hurt to

Pws.1 to 5 and also such hurt shall be caused with a deadly weapon.

19.In the absence of independent witnesses and in the circumstances discussed supra this Court hesitates that the prosecution is able to establish that the guilt of the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

20. In the result, accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- B.Rupasree.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

8C.C. No.534 of 2014

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused:

PW1 : 27.12.2021 : Seelam Vimala. PW2 : 28.06.2022 : Neela Rajesh. NONE PW3 : 28.06.2022 : Merugu Nageswara Rao. PW4 : 28.06.2022 : Neela Meremma. PW5 : 28.06.2022 : Neela Shadrak. PW6 : 29.06.2022 : Neela Yesupadam. PW7 : 29.06.2022 : Mande Suresh. PW8 : 29.06.2022 : Kattupalli Kishore. PW9 :29.06.2022 : Kattupalli Nani. PW10 : 13.07.2022 : Dr.D.Nagarjuna, CAS PW11 : 28.06.2023 : P.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW.1. Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7. Ex.P.3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8. Ex.P.4 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate of PW2. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate of PW3. Ex.P.8 is the wound certificate of PW4. Ex.P.9 is the wound certificate of PW5. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report in Crime No.64/2014. Ex.P.11 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: N I L

Sd/- B.Rupasree.

A.J.C.J., Repalle.

\\ True Copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

9C.C. No.534 of 2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Date ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofDate of sentence release ofcommencemclose of offenceof complainantapprehensionor order the accusedent of trialtrial

A1 to A11 13.08.14 04.08.1405.08.1412.08.1427.12.2128.06.2314.07.2023 A12 to A15 14.08.14 Explanation for Delay :- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 05.06.2015, on 03.02.2016 accused no.2 to 15 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 27.12.2021 and PW1 to 11 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents were marked, that on 06.07.2023 the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence, heard the prosecution and defence on 10.07.2023. On 14.07.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. _________________________________________________________________

Judgment in C.C. No.534 of 2014 in Crime No.64/2014 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle. Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Nizampatnam Police Station.… Complainant

Vs

1.Selam Srinivasa Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 23 years,

2.Kagitala Venkateswara Rao S/o.Adam, age 35 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

3.Kattupalli Chittibabu S/o.Yesupadam, age 30 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

4.Kagitala Sudheer S/o.Dharma Rao, age 35 years, R/o.Kallipalem Village,

Nizampatnam Mandal.

5.Selam Venkateswara Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 33 years,

6.Selam Ram Babu S/o.Subba Rao, age 27 years,

7.Ambati Bhaskar S/o.Venkaiah, age 50 years,

8.Chikati Nageswara Rao S/o.Munneswara Rao, age 35 years,

9.Neela Petal Pal S/o.Raja Babu, age 35 years,

10.Selam Durga Rao S/o.Bhusanam, age 30 years,

11.Selam Bangaru Babu @ Chinnodu S/o. Bhushanam, age 35 years, 10C.C. No.534 of 2014

12.Kattupalli Nancharamma W/o.Susila Rao, age 50 years,

13.Ambati Paapa W/o.Bhaskara Rao, age 35 years,

14.Seelam Paapa W/o.Munneswara Rao, age 50 years,

15.Neela Lakshmi W/o.Srinivasa Rao, age 30 years, (Accused No.1, 5 to 15 are R/o.Kollapalem Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.) … Accused No.1 to 15.

(Case against accused no.1 and 12 abated as they were died)

Offence U/Sec : Sec. 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 448, 452 r/w.149 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.2 to 11 and accused no.13 to 15 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- B.Rupasree.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

\\ True Copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

1C.C. No.11 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Present: Smt. B.Rupasree, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Thursday, this the 06th day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No.11 of 2018 Crime No.59 of 2017 of Tsodayapalem P.S

Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Tsodayapalem Police Station.… Complainant

Vs

1.Kosuri Nagalakshmi W/o.Muddula Krishna, age 31 years,

2.Kosuri Muddula Krishna S/o.Venkateswara Rao, age 36 years, (Both are R/o.Potumeraka Village, Repalle Mandal.) … Accused No.1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29/03/2023 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. Borra Srinivasa Rao,

Advocates for the accused no.1 and 2 and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tsodayapalem Police Station filed charge sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code in Crime No.59 of 2017 of Tsodayapalem Police Station.

The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :

2.On 16.11.2017 PW7 Sri. K.Ch.Sambaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Tsodayapalem Police Station received the complaint from PW1 at Tsodayapalem Police

Station. He recorded the statements of PWs1 and 2 in the police station. PW7 sent

PW2 i.e., injured person to the Community Health Center, Repalle for treatment.

According to the prosecution the statement of PW1 discloses that PW1 is an 2C.C. No.11 of 2018 agriculturist. PW1 is mother of PW2. PW2 is studying V Class at Raghava

Vidyalayam, Repalle. PW1 sent PW2 to school in school bus in a regular course. On 14.09.2017 at about 05:45 pm PW2 came to the house by crying and informed PW1 that accused no.1 beat PW2 with an iron scale and PW2 sustained an injury to his right eye. PW1 went to the house of accused no.1 and 2 and questioned her about the incident. Then accused no.1 and 2 informed PW1 that they would bear expenses of treatment for PW2. Subsequently, PW1 took PW2 to the Sankar Eye Hospital,

Guntur for treatment. The doctors informed PW1 that it was highly difficult to get the vision of PW2. Later PW1 took PW2 to LV Prasad Eye Hosptial, Hyderabad.

There also the doctors informed that it was difficult to get the vision of PW1 and advised PW1 to took PW2 to Chennai Hospital. Therefore, PW1 requested accused no.1 and 2 to bear the expenses whatever they incurred for the treatment of PW2.

Then accused no.2 who is spouse of accused no.1 interfered and abused PW1 in filthy language and picked up quarrel with PW1 and stated that he did not come and asked

PW1 to do whatever she wanted to do. Hence, PW1 lodged a report before

Tsodayapalem Police Station.

PW7 registered the statement of PW1 as a case in Crime No.59/2017 for the offence under section 324, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 and 2 and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation PW7 visited the Raghava Vidyalayam,

Repalle and examined PW3, LW4/Repalle Prasanna, PW4 and PW.5 and recorded their stamens and prepared a rough sketch. Wx.P7 is the rough sketch. On 20.11.2017 the accused no.1 and 2 surrendered before PW7 voluntarily. PW7 issued section 41-A

Cr.P.C. notices to accused no.1 and 2. On 26.12.2017 PW7 obtained wound certificate of PW2 and altered section of law from 324 to section 326 of Indian Penal 3C.C. No.11 of 2018

Code. On the same day PW7 filed the section law alteration memo to the Court.

Ex.P8 is the section of law alteration memo. After completion of investigation PW7 filed charge sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

3.On filing of charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence against accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2 before this Court copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused no.1 and 2 in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.1 and 2 are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and a charge has been framed against them for the offence under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of

IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 7 on its behalf and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P8 documents.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused no.1 and 2 and perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under 4C.C. No.11 of 2018 section 326 and 509 r/w.34 of IPC?

10. To prove its case prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. PW1 is the defacto complainant and mother of injured/PW2. PW2 is the injured person. Pws.3 to 5 are direct witnesses. PW6 is Medical Officer, who issued

Ex.P5 wound certificate. PW7 is the Investigation Officer.

11.PW1 deposed that on 14-09-2017 at about 05:00 pm PW2 came to the house by crying and informed to PW1 that he sustained an injury to his right eye.

PW2 informed PW1 that his teacher I.e., accused no.1 throw a scale on PW2 in the school van. Then PW1 went to the house of accused and questioned her abouit the incident. Then accused no.1 informed that it was her mistake and promised that she would bear the medical expenditures. PW1 took PW2 to Sankar Eye Hospital, Guntur for treatment. Accused no.1 along with her husband/accused no.2 also accompanied

PWs1 and 2 and stayed in the hospital for three days. An operation was performed to

PW2 and accused no.1 and 2 bore all the expenditures. PW2 was discharged after three days with an advise to visit the hospital after one month. Accordingly they left the hospital. After tone month PW1 took PW 2 to the Sankar Hospital, Guntur but the doctors informed PW1 that it was highly difficult to the vision of PW1 even though operation was performed. Later PW1 informed accused no.2 about the condition of PW2 and requested accused no.2 to took PW1 to LV Prasad Hospital to ask him to accompany them and to share the medical expenditure. Then Accused no.2 abused PW1 in filthy language and chased her. Accused no.2 picked up quarrel with PW1 and stated that he would not come and asked PW1 to do whatever she want to do. Then PW1 took PW2 to LV Prasad Hospital, Hyderabad, there the doctors informed that it was not possible to get the vision of PW2. Thereafter, as per the advise of elders PW1 took PW2 to Madurai Hospital for treatment. There the 5C.C. No.11 of 2018 doctors informed that if the operation was performed, there is possibility of regaining the vision. PW1 went to the house of Accused no.1 and requested her to share the medical expenditures. Then accused no.1 informed that whatever she can spent, she already spent and she does not share any more money. However, PW1 got operated to the eye of PW1 at Madurai by staying for a period of one week. Accused no.1 and 2 sent elders to PW1 house with a word that they would send Rs.70,000/- but the elders advised the accused no.1 and 2 to give Rs.1,00,000/- to Pws.1 and 2 as PW1 husband was no more. Accused no.1 and 2 did not give any money to PW1. Finally,

PW1 lodged a report before Tsodayapalem Police Station against the accused no.1 and

2. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1. Police examined PW1 and recorded her statement.

12.In the cross examination PW1 deposed that she did not see while the teacher throwing the scale and there was a time gap of 62 days from the date of incident Ex.P1 report. As seen from the record PW1 is not direct witness to the alleged incident.

13.PW2 deposed that he was studying V Class at Raghava Vidyalayam,

Repalle. On 14.09.2017 while PW2 was returning from school to his house in a school bus. At that time accused no.1 who was a teacher and she was also travelling in the same bus beat PW2 with an iron scale on the right eye of PW2. PW3,

LW4/Repalle Prasanna, PW4 were also present in the school bus. PW3 and PW4 dropped PW2 at his house. PW2 informed about the incident to PW1. Then PW1 went to the house of accused no.1 and questioned about the incident. Then accused no.1 promissed that she would bear the hospital expenditures. PW2 went to the

Sankar Eye Hospital, Guntur, LV Prasad Eye Hospital, Hyderabad and the doctors opined that it was difficult to regain the vision of right eye of PW2. PW2 also went 6C.C. No.11 of 2018 to Chennai for treatment. An operation was performed to the right eye of PW2.

There PW2 regained the vision lightly. Police examined PW2.

14. In the cross examination PW2 stated that after the operation of Chennai

Hospital, the doctors informed that he would regain his vision gradually with his age.

PW2 admitted that there was improvement in his vision from the date of surgery at

Chennai to today.

15.According to the case of prosecution PW3 to 5 are the direct witnesses to alleged incident but they categorically deposed before this Court that they do not anything about this case and police never examined them. they also denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P.2 to P4..

16.PW6 is the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Repalle and deposed that on 16.011.2017 at about 02:15 pm he examined PW2 and suspected corneal injury to the right eye of PW2 and referred the case to Ophthalmologist,

Government General Hospital, Guntur.

The report of ophthalmologist is :

vision of right eye- perception of vision present.

Vision of left eye – 6/6 right eye – congestion present, anterior chamber shallow present, suturing present, pupillory capture present and synechea present.

PW6 issued Ex.P5 wound certificate to that effect. Ex.P5 wound certificate shows that the injury sustained by PW2 is grievous in nature and age of injury is more than two months and it was caused by blunt object.

In cross examination PW6 deposed that the injury mention in Ex.P5 is 7C.C. No.11 of 2018 possible with a stick also while the children was playing the games.

17.PW6 is the Medical Officer and issued Ex.P5 wound certificate of PW2.

As per the evidence of PW2, that the injury mentioned in Ex.P5 is possible with a stick also while children were playing. No material object is produced before this

Court to show the nature of the weapon.

18.The remaining evidence available on record is PW7 who is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed about the investigation done by him.

19.In cross examination of PW7, PW7 admitted that the complaint was registered on 16.11.2017 and the offence committed on 14.09.2017 at about 05:45 pm. He admitted that PW1 did not file any hospital receipts. He did not seize the iron scale used in the alleged offence. Here the Investigating Officer fails to seize the incriminating material in the school bus which was involved in the alleged offence.

20.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that accused no.1 and 2 with common intention, must voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 and also such hurt shall be caused with a deadly weapon.

21. PW1 is not the eye witness to this case and Pws.3 to 5 are the direct witnesses present in this case and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In these circumstances discussed supra this Court hesitates to conclude that the prosecution is able to drive establish the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence sections 326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is 8C.C. No.11 of 2018 answered against the prosecution.

22. In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

9C.C. No.11 of 2018

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused:

PW1 : 07.06.2022 : Garikapati Padmaja

PW2 : 07.06.2022 : Garikapati Rama Kumar. NONE

PW3 : 23.01.2023 : Viswanadhuni Uday Sai.

PW4 : 23.01.2023 : Repalle Bharath

PW5 : 31.01.2023 : Garikapati Ramana

PW6 : 13.03.2023 : M.Ratna Kumari.

PW7 : 27.03.2023 : K.Ch.Sambaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW.1.

Ex.P.2 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P.3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P.4 is the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate.

Ex.P.6 is the FIR in Crime No.59/2017

Ex.P.7 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P.8 is the alteration memo.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: N I L

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

10C.C. No.11 of 2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Date of Date ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofrelease ofDate of sentence commencemclose of offenceof complainantapprehensiontheor order ent of trialtrial accused 14.09.1716.11.17- - 07.06.2227.03.2306.04.2023

Explanation for Delay :- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 01.12.2020, on 22.11.2021 accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 07.06.2022 and PW1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents were marked, that on 27.03.2023 the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence, heard the prosecution and defence on 29.03.2023. On 06.04.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. _________________________________________________________________

State:- Sub-Inspector of police, Tsodayapalem Police Station.

Judgment in C.C. No.11 of 2018 in Crime No.59/2017 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle.

S.Name of the AgeS/D/W/oReligion Address No.Accused

Muddula 1Kosuri Nagalakshmi31 y- Krishna R/o.Potumeraka Village, Repalle Mandal Kosuri MuddulaVenkateswara 236 Y- KrishnaRao

Offence U/Sec : Sec.326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326, 509 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 if any shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Copy submitted :- The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

1C.C. No.429 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: REPALLE

Present: Smt. B.Rupasree,

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

Wednesday, this the 07th day of August, 2024

Calendar Case No.429 of 2018 Crime No.79 of 2018 of Nagaram P.S Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

Pamidipamula Kotaiah S/o.Nageswara Rao, age 30 years, R/o.Pamidimarru Village, Nagaram Mandal. Driver of Bajaj APPI Auto bearing No.AP 31TC 9088. … Accused

Gaddam Chukkaiah S/o.Pentaiah, age 65 years, R/o.Meesalavariapalem Village, Nagaram Mandal. … Deceased

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 07-07-2024 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri B.Srinivasa Rao (Sr.), Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 304-A, 338, 337 of Indian Penal

Code in Crime No.79 of 2018 of Nagaram Police Station.

The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :

2.The accused being the driver of Bajaj APPI Auto bearing No.AP 31TC 9088 drove the Auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased by name Gaddam Chukkaiah.

2C.C. No.429 of 2018

PW.1 is the person, who set the law into motion by lodging a report.

PWs.2 and 3 are the direct witnesses to the alleged accident. PW.4 is the then

Investigating Officer, who registered the report of PW1 as a case in Crime No.79/2018 of Nagaram Police station for the offence under section 337 of Indian Penal Code.

LW22/M.Sivaiah verified the investigation done by PW4 and filed charge sheet against the accused.

During the course of investigation PW4 visited Government General

Hospital, Guntur and examined PW1. Later, PW4 proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated at Meesalavaripalem Village, Nagaram Mandal, in the presence of mediators LW12/P.Gangaraju and LW13/Y.Sadasiva Rao, prepared an observation report and also a rough sketch. PW4 took photographs of the scene of offence. He secured LW2/A.Thataiah, examined him and recorded his statement. On the same day

PW4 went to Nizampatnam Village, examined LW3/N.Victoriyamma,

LW4/K.Seethamma and recorded their detailed statements. Later, PW4 went to

Komaravolu village, Nizampatnam Mandal, examined LW5/K.Poleramma and recorded her statement. On 10.04.2018 PW4 went to City Hospital, Guntur, examined Pws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. Later, he went to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada, examined LW8/L.Kanakamma and recorded her statement. PW4 handed over the case record to LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station.

LW22/M.Sivaiah received death intimation of the deceased and added section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram

Police Station examined LW9/D.Gangamma, LW10/G.Kondaiah, LW11/K.Parvathalu and recorded their statements. LW22/M.Sivaiah held held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and inquest panchayatdars i.e., LW12/P.Gangaraju, LW13/Y.Sadasiva Rao and LW14/P.Nancharaiah 3C.C. No.429 of 2018 and prepared an inquest report. On 03.06.2018 accused surrendered before

LW22/M.Sivaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused and released him. LW22/M.Sivaiah received wound certificate of Pws.2, 3 and LW8/K.Kanakamma. As per the wound certificates, he added section 338 of IPC. LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, received postmortem report from the Medical Officer, he got inspect the crime vehicle by Motor Vehicle Inspector and obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection report. After securing necessary documents, LW22/M.Sivaiah filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused and summons is issued to him. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him in compliance with section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., and the accusation for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P17 documents.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4C.C. No.429 of 2018

8.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code?

9. In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the death of the deceased and it is occurred due to any rash or negligent act of the accused.

In this legal back drop as seen from the evidence available on record,

PW.1 is the person, who set the law into motion by lodging Ex.P6 report. He deposed before this Court that about six years ago at around 06:00 pm, some unknown person informed him over phone that his father met with an accident at prawns factory, Nizampatnam by unknown vehicle. He rushed to the Community

Health Center, Repalle. Doctor referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. After five days while under going treatment his father succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that Police obtained his thumb impression on blank paper, he does not know any particulars about the vehicle involved in the accident.

Police did not examine him and recorded section 161 Cr.P.C. statement/Ex.P2.

The evidence of PW1 is very clear that he is not an eye witness to the accident and even he does not know the contents of the so called Ex.P6 report.

10.PWs.2 and 3 are direct witnesses to the alleged accident. They deposed

before this Court that they does not know the accused by name Pamidipamula

Kotaiah and they does not know anything about this case and police never examined them. They also denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and P4.

11.The remaining evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.4 who is the Investigating Officers. He deposed about the investigation done by him. PW4 5C.C. No.429 of 2018 deposed that on 09.04.2018 at about 09:00 am, he received hospital intimation along with the statement of PW1 from Government General Hospital, Guntur. Ex.P5 is the

Hospital Intimation and Ex.P6 is the statement of PW1. Based on the report of PW1,

PW4 registered a case in Crime No.79/2018 for the offence under section 337 of

Indian Penal Code. Ex.P7 is the FIR. PW4 visited Government General Hospital,

Guntur and examined PW1. Later, PW4 proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated at Misalavaripalem Village, Nagaram Mandal, in the presence of mediators

LW12/P.Gangaraju and LW13/Y.Sadasiva Rao, prepared an observation report and also a rough sketch. PW4 took photographs of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the scene observation report. Ex.P9 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P10 is the photographs of the scene of offecne (6 in number). He secured LW2/A.Thataiah, examined him and recorded his statement. On the same day PW4 went to

Nizampatnam Village, examined LW3/N.Victoriyamma, LW4/K.Seethamma and recorded their detailed statements. Later, PW4 went to Komaravolu village,

Nizampatnam Mandal, examined LW5/K.Poleramma and recorded her statement. On 10.04.2018 PW4 went to City Hospital, Guntur, examined Pws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. Later, he went to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada, examined

LW8/L.Kanakamma and recorded her statement. PW4 handed over the case record to

LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station.

LW22/M.Sivaiah received death intimation of the deceased and added section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Ex.P11 is the death intimation of the deceased.

LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station examined

LW9/D.Gangamma, LW10/G.Kondaiah, LW11/K.Parvathalu and recorded their statements. LW22/M.Sivaiah held held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and inquest panchayatdars i.e., 6C.C. No.429 of 2018

LW12/P.Gangaraju, LW13/Y.Sadasiva Rao and LW14/P.Nancharaiah and prepared an inquest report. Ex.P12 is the inqeust report. On 03.06.2018 accused surrendered

before LW22/M.Sivaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station and he

served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused and released him. LW22/M.Sivaiah received wound certificate of Pws.2, 3 and LW8/K.Kanakamma. Ex.P13 is the wound certificate of PW2. Ex.P14 is the wound certificate of PW3. Ex.P15 is the wound certificate of LW8/L.Kanakamma. As per the wound certificates, he added section 338 of IPC. LW22/M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, received postmortem report from the Medical Officer, he got inspect the crime vehicle by Motor Vehicle

Inspector and obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection report. Ex.P16 is the postmortem certificate. Ex.P17 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection report. After securing necessary documents, LW22/M.Sivaiah filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

The evidence of PW.4 though disclose about the investigation done by him, it does not discloses that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e.,

Bajaj APPI Auto bearing No.AP 31TC 9088, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of of Indian Penal Code.

12.In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 337, 338, 304-A of of Indian Penal Code the prosecution must establish that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and the accident was occurred due to his rash or negligent act. From the evidence available on record, those two essential ingredients are not established by the prosecution.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7C.C. No.429 of 2018

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338, 304-A of of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the another period of six months in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07th day of August, 2024.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused:

PW1 : 20.03.2024 : G.Yedukondalu.

PW2 : 29.07.2024 : B.Ranimma.NONE

PW3 : 29.07.2024 : B.Issack.

PW4 : 05.08.2024 : Shaik Karimulla, Head Constable.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the thumb impression of PW.1.

Ex.P.2 is the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.3 is the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.4 is the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.5 is the Hospital intimation.

Ex.P.6 is the statement of PW1.

Ex.P.7 is the FIR in Crime No.79/2018.

Ex.P.8 is the scene observation report.

Ex.P.9 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P.10 is the Photographs of the scene of offence (6 in number)

Ex.P.11 is the death intimation.

Ex.P.12 is the inquest report.

Ex.P.13 is the wound certificate of PW2.

8C.C. No.429 of 2018

Ex.P.14 is the wound certificate of PW3.

Ex.P.15 is the wound certificate of LW8/L.Kanakamma.

Ex.P.16 is the postmortem certificate.

Ex.P.17 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: N I L

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

9C.C. No.429 of 2018

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: REPALLE

Date of Date ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofrelease of commencemclose ofsentence or offenceof complainantapprehensionthe ent of trialtrialorder accused 07.04.1809.04.18-- 20.03.2405.08.02407.08.2024

Explanation for Delay :- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 09.03.02021, on 01.09.2021 accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C, and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 20.03.2024, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 documents marked and prosecution evidence was closed on 05.08.2024, on the same day accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence, heard the prosecution and defence on 06.08.2024, on 07.08.2024 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay. _________________________________________________________________

State:- Sub-Inspector of police, Nagaram Police Station

Judgment in C.C. No.429 of 2018 in Crime No.79 of 2018 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle.

S.Name of the AgeFather's NameReligion Address No.Accused

PamidipamulaR/o.Pamidimarru Village, 130 YNageswara Rao- KotaiahNagaram Mandal.

Offence U/Sec : Section 304-A, 338, 337 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338, 304-A of of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the another period of six months in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Repalle.

Copy submitted :- The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

1C.C. No.155 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Present: Smt. B.Rupasree, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Monday, this the 03rd day of April, 2023

Calendar Case No. 155 of 2016 Crime No.163 of 2014 of Repalle P.S

Between:

State represented by Sub - Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station.… Complainant

Vs

A1.Rebba John Paul @ Chanti S/o.Prasada Rao, age 52 years, R/o.D. No.6-10-73/4, 20th ward, Repalle.

A2.Maraka Bala Murali Krishna Raju @ Murali S/o.Sankara Rao, age 40 years, R/o.6th Ward, Repalle.

... Accused no.1 and 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 31.03.2023 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. O.Rambabu, Advocate for the accused no.1 and 2 and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code in Crime No.163/2014 of Repalle Police Station.

The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that :

2.LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao is native of Peteru Village of

Repalle Mandal. At his childhood his grandparents adopted him and brought up. The father of LW1 by name Chintalu was demised on 23.12.1997 and his mother is an old and is suffering from ill health. While his father Chintalu was alive, he executed a 2C.C. No.155 of 2016 registered will in favour of LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao to an extent of

Ac.00.74 cents of land to enjoy the fruits and nuts after their death. LW1-Chandolu

Maruti Venkata Subba Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards his household expenses from A1 by mortgaging the said land in the month of November, 2012 and registered the mortgage deed. When LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba

Rao tried to repay the due amount accused no.1 to 3 revealed that the land was got registered in favour of A1 under sale deed and cautioned that he as no right over the

Ac.00.74 cents.

That on 06.10.2014 at about 06:00 pm A1 and A2 together with mediators came to the house of LW1, while LW1 was reaping lady finger and questioned about his presence of the said land, both the parties exchanged harsh words and claimed it their own. Subsequently the accused beat over the testicles of

LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao, resulting he fell down; later A1 beaten on his nose and caused blood injury. Immediately, A2 beat him with hands and kicked with legs with an iron spoke over his back. LW2-Karumnuru Yedukondalu came to know about the incident and shifted LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao to

Community Health Center, Repalle for treatment. Lws.4 and 5 (Kesani Srinivasa Rao and Parisa Nancharaiah) witnessed the alleged incident. Later on intimation LW7-Sri.

DPC Sekhar Babu, Head Constable, Repalle Police station proceeded to CHC, Repalle and recorded the statement of LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao and registered the same as a case in Crime No.163/2014 for the offence under section 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(X) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989.

3.PW.4 took up investigation as per the orders of the Superintendent of

Police, Guntur Rural District vide C. No.142/C2/IO/2014 and examined PW2, PW3, 3C.C. No.155 of 2016

LW.1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao, LW4/ Kesani Srinivasa Rao and LW5/

Parisa Nancharaiah and recorded their statements. PW4 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Based on the evidence of Lws.2 to 5 (Karumuru

Yedukondalu, Vaka Vasu Kumari, Kesani Srinivasa Rao and Parisa Nancharaiah), they abusive by touching caste name was not proved, hence, the provisions of Sec.3(1)(X) of SCs STs (POA) Act, 1989 was ruled out and the involvement of the alleged accused by name Guthikonda Nageswara Rao was not established. PW3 treated

LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao and issued wound certificate, opined that the injuries are simple in nature. PW.4 handed over the file to LW.10/P.Suresh, Sub-

Inspector of police, Repalle and served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the accused.

After completion of investigation and on obtaining the would certificate of

LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao, LW10/Sri. P.Suresh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2.

4.On filing of charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code.

5.On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2 before this court, copies of all the documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the accused no.1 and 2 in compliance with section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Accused no.1 and 2 are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and the accusation for the offence under section 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

7.During the course of trial the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 4 on its 4C.C. No.155 of 2016 behalf of and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. None are examine on behalf of the accused no.1 and 2.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC?

P O I N T :-

11. To prove its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P8. PW1 shifted LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao to the Community Health

Center, Repalle and PW2 saw the accused persons at the scene of offence prior to the alleged incident. PW3 is the Medical Officer and PW4 is the Investigating Officer.

12.Pws.1 and 2 are categorically deposed before this Court that they know

LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao but they do not know the accused no.1 and 2 and they do not know anything about this case. Police never examined them.

They also denied to have stated in Exs.P1 and P2 respectively.

13.According to the case of prosecution LW4/Kesana Srinivasa Rao and

LW5/Parisa Nancharaiah are the direct witnesses to the alleged incident. The learned prosecution filed death certificates of LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao and

LW5/Parisa Nancharaiah. Hence, the evidence of LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba 5C.C. No.155 of 2016

Rao and LW5/Parisa Nancharaiah was closed. The prosecution given up the evidence of LW4/Kesana Srinivasa Rao as he was died.

14.The remaining evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws.3 and

4. PW3 is the Medical Officer, deposed before this Court that on 07.10.2014 at 09:00 am., he examined LW1-Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao/injured and found the injuries:

i) Nose bleeding is present.

ii) Swelling is present 1/2 X 1/2 cm size over the right frontal head.

iii) Testis pain is present.

He opined that the injury was simple in nature. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate.

15.PW4 who is the Investigating Officer, deposed before this Court about the investigation done by him and as per the instructions of PW4, LW7/D.P.C.Sekhar

Babu based on the statement of LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao registered a case in Crime No.163/2014 for the offence under section 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of

IPC and section 3(I)(X) of SC ST POA Act. Ex.P5 is the FIR. On 08/10/2014, PW4 visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch.

PW4 examined LW4/Kesani Srinivasa Rao and LW5/Parisa Nancharaiah and recorded their statements. On 18/10/2014 PW4 received wound certificate of LW1/Chandolu

Maruti Venkata Subba Rao. On 31/10/2014 he received caste certificates of complainant and accused persons. Ex.P7 is the caste certificates. Based on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, LW4/Kesana Srinivasa Rao and LW5/Parisa Nancharaiah no allegation was established on the accused by name Guttikonda Nageswara Rao and provisions of SC & ST POA Act was not established against accused persons. On 05/01/2016, LW9/P.Mahesh, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla, received orders 6C.C. No.155 of 2016 from the Superintendent of Police, Guntur to delete the provisions of Section 3(I)(X) of SC ST POA Act and deletion of accused by name Guttikonda Nageswara Rao.

Ex.P8 is the Deletion memo. On 25/02/2016 LW10/P.Suresh, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station took up investigation and served section 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice on the accused. After completion of investigation LW10/P.Suresh, the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2.

16.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to prove that the accused no.1 and 2 with a common intention must voluntarily caused hurt to LW1/Chandolu Maruti Venkata Subba Rao and also such hurt shall be caused by deadly weapon.

17.In the circumstances discussed supra this Court hesitates thatthe prosecution able to establish the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

18.In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months in compliance with Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of April, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

7C.C. No.155 of 2016 8C.C. No.155 of 2016

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Accused:

PW1 : 13.03.2023 : Karumuri Yedukondalu.

PW2 : 15.03.2023 : Vaka Vasu Kumari.NONE

PW3 : 15.03.2023 : Dr.D.Nagarjuna, Civil Asst. Surgeon.

PW4 : 28.03.2023 : K.Sudhakar, DSP Spl. Intelligence Branch.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution: For Accused: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2 is the sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate.

Ex.P.4 is the statement of LW1/Chandolu Maruthi Venkata Subba Rao.

Ex.P.5 is the FIR in Crime No.163/2014.

Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.7 is the caste certificate.

Ex.P.8 is the deletion memo.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution : For Accused:

N I L

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

9C.C. No.155 of 2016

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Date of Date ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofrelease ofDate of sentence commencemclose of offenceof complainantapprehensiontheor order ent of trialtrial accused 06.10.1407.10.14- - 13.03.2328.03.2303.04.2023

Explanation for Delay :- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 04.10.2017, on 15.03.2022 accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 13.03.2023 and PW1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 documents were marked, that on the same day i.e., on 28.03.2023 the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence, heard the prosecution and defence on 31.03.2023. On 03.04.2023 Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

_________________________________________________________________

State:- Sub-Inspector of police, Repalle Police Station.

Judgment in C.C. No.155 of 2016 in Crime No.163/2014 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Repalle.

S.Name of the AgeFather's NameReligion Address No.Accused

R/o.D. No.6-10-73/4, 20th 1Rebba John Paul52 YPrasada Rao- Ward, Repalle. Maraka Bala Murali 2Krishnam Raju @40 YSankara Rao-R/o.6th ward, Repalle. Murali

Offence U/Sec : Sec.323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months in compliance with

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Copy submitted :- The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.