1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PONNUR
Monday, the 17thday of June, 2013
Present:- Sri K.RAVI, B.Com.,B.L., Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur. * * *
C.C.NO. 33/2012
State : Station House Officer, Ponnur Rural P.S.
...Complainant
Vs.
1. Kochara Peda Bushanam S/o. Kornelu, 40 years.
2. Kochara Sundhararao S/o. Peda Bushanam, 24 years.
( Both are caste by Mala, residence of Doppalapudi (V).
...Accused
This case coming before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri B. Prakasharao, Advocate for the accused( A1 and A2), upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The S.I of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S filed charge sheet in crime
No.186/11 of his station alleging as follows:- Due to previous misunderstandings between the accused and LW1-Komarabathuni Bhagyarao on 26.12.11 morning there was quarrel in between Kotchera Dilip and Davuluri Devasahayam and on account of the same both parties went to Ponnur Rural P.S to lodge their respective complaints. After their departure from the village, women folk of both parties were quarreling with each other. When LW1-Komarabathuni Bhagyarao intervened, A1 beat over left side of his head and A2 beat over his left shoulder with sticks and caused swollen injuries. On the report of LW1-Komarabathuni
Bhagyarao a case in crime No.186/11 was registered and investigated into.
LW4-Dr. MD. Nurul Huda, M.O. CHC, Ponnur who treated the injured issued wound 2 certificate opining that he sustained simple injuries. On 3.1.12 the accused were arrested and sent for remand. Hence the charge.
2.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34
IPC against the accused (A1 and A2) and registered as C.C.No.33/12. On appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to them as required under
Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. They denied the offences. Charges under Sections 324 IPC against A1 and A2 are framed against, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W. 1 is examined and EX.P.1 is marked.
5.Since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of PW1, their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.
6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the accused.
7.Now the point that arises for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”
8.POINT:-
It is the case of the prosecution that on account of disputes between
PW1 and accused on 26.12.11, the accused beat PW1 with sticks and accused injuries to him.
3
9.To prove its case, the prosecution cited as many as six witnesses but examined PW1 only and got marked EX.P1. PW1 is no other than the injured cum-complainant in this case. But he did not state anything against the accused.
It is his evidence that as some people were quarreling with each other at the center of village he went there and the people while quarreling with each other pushed him and he received injury on his fore head. He further deposed that he do not know who pushed him and that some body obtained his thumb impression on a paper at the hospital and he do not know its contents. Thus, PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution. He was declared as hostile and was cross- examined by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court but nothing favourable to the prosecution is elicited from his cross examination except marking his 161 Cr.P.C., statement as EX.P1. Having received injuries and having given report to police, for the reasons best known to him PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution. PW1 being the injured is the material witness in this case but he has given a total go bye to the case of the prosecution. In view of the same, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LWs. 2 and 3. There remains the evidence of LWs. 4 to 6 who are doctor and police officials. As the prosecution did not produce them in spite of giving sufficient opportunity this court closed their evidence. Even though they are examined, their evidence will be of no use to the prosecution since the material witness i.e. PW1 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution . Except the evidence of PW. 1 there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the charges framed against them.
10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them and they are to be acquitted.
4
11.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.
The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced in the open court by me this the 17th day of June, 2013.
Sd/- K. Ravi.
ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PONNUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NONE
PW.1 : Komarabathuni Bhagya Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EX.P.1/ - 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1
Id/-. K.R. A.J.M.F.C.,Ponnur.
//True Copy//
Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ponnur.
5
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PONNUR.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C.NO. 33/2012 DATES OF ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 26.12.11 26.12.11 17.1.12 4.1.12 17.5.13 14.6.13 17.6.13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 6.3.12, copies furnished to accused (A1 and A2) on 27.8.12, and accused were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., on 9.5.13. On 17.5.13 PW. 1 examined, EX.P1 marked A.P.P given up the evidence of LWs. 2 and 3. On 14.6.13 prosecution evidence is closed and since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and Heard arguments of both sides. On 17.6.13 judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- State: Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village
1. Kochara Peda Bushanam S/o. Kornelu, 40 years.
2. Kochara Sundhararao S/o. Peda Bushanam, 24 years.
( Both are caste by Mala, residence of Doppalapudi (V).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature of Offence :- under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC in crime No. 186/11.
Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found Not guilty.
SENTENCE OR ODER:- In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 324 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)
Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.
Sd/-. K. Ravi.
ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
PONNUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.
//True Copy//
Addl. Jr. Civil Judge, Ponnur.