CC.No.349/2017120.03.2020
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS : SULLURPET
Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020
Present : Smt.C.HARITHA,
Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet,
(FAC) Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet
CALENDER CASE No.349/2017
State: Sub-Inspector of Police,
D.V. Satram PS. ...Complainant
Vs.
Puttamaneni Kistaiah S/o Sankaraiah, Age 45 years, Muttarasi, Utchuru village, D. V. Satram mandal. …Accused
This case is coming on 04.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Sri M. Sudarsana Rao and A. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, D.V. Satram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.108/2017 for the offences U/Ss.341, 324 and 326 of IPC.
2. The brief allegations of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 04.09.2017 at about 13.30 hours while the defacto complainant was shifting the soil from village tank to the village through his tractor, the accused obstructed the tractor and picked up quarrel with defacto complainant and beat him with an iron plate and caused swelling injuries to his both hands by saying that why he is shifting the soil from village tank without his knowledge as he is
President of Water Users Association of Utchuru village of Doravari Satram
Mandal. When LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar who is the brother of defacto complainant came there, the accused also beat him and caused bleeding injury near right eye. Basing on the report of defacto complainant a case in Cr.No.108/2017 for
CC.No.349/2017220.03.2020
the offence U/Sec.341, 324 r/w 34 of IPC was registered by the SI of police. The
SI of police recorded the statements of injured, sent them for Government
Hospital, Naidupet for treatment, visited the scene of offence, inspected the same, prepared rough sketch of the same, secured the presence of witnesses, examined and recorded their statements, arrested the accused on 15.09.2017 forwarded him to the court for judicial remand. The medical officer who treated the injured issued wound certificates and opined that the injuries of defacto complainant is grievous in nature and the injuries of LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar is simple in nature. Later after completion of investigation the SI of police altered the section of law to Sec.341, 324 and 326 of IPC and laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.
3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.341, 324 and 326 of
IPC against the accused.
4. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and charges for the of- fences U/Sec.341, 324 and 326 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. The evidence of LW2 Arkaru Sudhakar was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence available on record and reported no defence evidence.
8. Heard both sides. Both the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel filed their written arguments.
CC.No.349/2017320.03.2020
9. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for offences U/Sec.341, 324 and 326 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. The allegations of the prosecution case against accused is that he wrongfully restrained PW1 from shifting the soil in his tractor to his house and further voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1 and also voluntarily caused simple hurt to LW2. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove the said charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined
Pws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. PW1 is defacto complainant Pws.2 to 4 are eye witnesses for the incident. PW5 is Medical Officer who treated the injured persons and PW6 is investigating Officer.
12. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 04.09.2017 at about 11-30 a.m. he went to shift the soil from village tank through his tractor to construct house, at about 01-30 p.m. the accused obstructed his tractor with bike near his house and picked up quarrel with him about lifting the soil from Utchuru Cheruvu without his permission and the accused beat him when he was sitting in the driver seat of the tractor with stone on his chest forcibly, due to which he sustained dumb injuries. Due to fear he get down from the tractor then the accused took keys of the tractor and when due to fear he left the tractor and went near the house of accused, the accused took an iron rod and beat him on the back side of the head and when he tried to beat him again, he put his both hands, due to which he sustained fracture injury to his right hand near wrist and also sustained fracture injury near left hand index finger. It is the further evidence of PW1 that when LW2 intervened and asked about the incident, the accused threatened that he hack with the knife at that time LW2 also sustained injury on his eye brow. Later, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint dated 04.09.2017. PW1 further deposed that he along with his brother accompanied
CC.No.349/2017420.03.2020
with one constable to a private lab for X-ray and after seeing the said X-ray the
Doctor in Government Hospital diagnosed that his right hand was fractured near wrist. Exs.P2 and P3 are X-ray reports and cash bills.
13. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined PW1 and elicited that he stated before the police that at the time of lifting canal mud for construction of house, the accused came and obstructed and he did not know whether permission has to be obtained for lifting canal mud. On his narration police drafted Ex.P1, the x-ray was done at Naidupet on 04.09.2017 and he cannot remember the date when he done x-ray at Nellore after one week of the incident. The doctor advised him to go to Nellore, but, he went to Puttoor.
14. The prosecution examined the eye witnesses as PWs.2 to 4. They deposed that they did not know anything about this case. As such, PWs.2 to 4 were turned hostile. The learned APP treated PWs.2 to 4 as hostile and put the questions in the nature of cross-examination. But, nothing is elicited in favour of prosecution except the admission made by them as the accused is their distance relative. Further PWs.2 to 4 denied their statements before the police which are recorded U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. and the same are marked as Exs.P4 to P6 respectively. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to prove the case of prosecution.
15. The prosecution examined the medical officer who treated the injured as PW5. It is the evidence of PW5 that on 04.09.2017 at 04-27 p.m. she examined PW1 and LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar and found the injuries mentioned in the wound certificates issued by her. Ex.P7 is wound certificate of PW1 and
Ex.P8 is wound certificate of LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar. During the cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused, it is elicited that the injured came to hospital on their own. She verified the X-ray film and report of private nursing home prior to issuance of wound certificate by her, the injured
CC.No.349/2017520.03.2020
themselves brought X-ray films to her on 21.09.2017, and there is a Primary
Health Center in D.V. Satram village.
16. The prosecution also examined the investigating officer as PW6, who deposed about lodging of written report by PW1 to him, registration of the case in
Cr.No.108/2017 for the offences U/Ss.341, 324 and 326 of IPC and issuance of
FIR. Ex.P9 is the FIR. PW6 further deposed about recording statements of PW1 and LW2, referring PW1 to the Government hospital for treatment, visiting of scene of offence, observation of the same, preparation of rough sketch of the scene of offence, securing the presence of witnesses there, recording their statements, arrest of the accused on 15.09.2017, forwarding him to the court for judicial remand, receipt of wound certificates, altering the section of law and finally filing of charge sheet. Ex.P10 is rough sketch of the scene of offence.
17. During cross-examination of PW6 by the learned counsel for the accused, it is elicited that the tank bund is relating to Irrigation Department, the accused is President of Water Tank User’s Association of Utchuru and transportation of sand from the tank bund without permission is illegal. It is further elicited that he never produced the x-ray films of PW1 along with charge sheet.
He saw the weapon of the offence, he never seized the same and produced
before this court. He never take action against PW1 for illegal transportation of
sand. There are two groups in Utchuru village, the accused belongs to one group and PW1 and LW2 belongs to another group.
18. The learned APP submitted his oral and written arguments. The learned APP in his written arguments submitted that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with corroborating evidence. He further submitted that the technicalities and technical reasons may not carnalise the entire case of prosecution and may not lead to acquit the accused. He further submitted that though the eye witnesses i.e,. PWs.2 to 4
CC.No.349/2017620.03.2020
turned hostile, the prosecution proved that they are relatives of the accused and in general one who is relative of another may not depose against him, hence, the case may not end in acquittal. He further submitted that the evidence of other witnesses i.e., PW1, PW5 and PW6 is corroborated with each other without any discrepancies, contradictions and omissions. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of PW5 and Exs.P2 and P7. The learned APP further submitted that all the material facts are established and proved by the prosecution and the accused is liable for conviction. In support of his argument the learned APP relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2012 Cr.L.S. 2914 S.C between (a) Best Bakery Case (b) Jersica Lal Case (c)
Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2. Criminal Appeal No.1889/2010 Rajendar @ Rajesh @ Raju Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) with Crl.Appeal No.1890/2010 in Rajkumar @ Raju Vs. State (NCT of
Dilhi) with Crl.Appeal No.2377/2014 Sharada Jain Vs. State(NCT of Delhi) of
Hon’ble Supreme Couret of India dated 24.01.2019.
3. Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259,
4. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab in Crl.Appeal No.554 of 2012,
5. Gangadhar Behra Vs. State of Orissa (2202) 8 SCC 381 SC,
6. S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.Appeal
No.639/2005,
7. Gorusu Nagaraju S/o Appa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2018 O AIR (SC) 1897, 2018 (1) ALD (crl) 904 (SC)
8. Atmaram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 Crl.L.J. 2882 SC.
9. Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl.Appeal No.(5) 2100 of 2008
10. Ashok Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 Sec.173,
11. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand (2001) 6 Sec. 71
12. Suresh Chandra Jana Vs. State of West Bengal and others 2018 (2) SCC (Cri) 187,
13. Sudha .R Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 AIR (SC) 2124,
14. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Singh AIR, 2015 SC 3980.
19. The learned counsel for accused submitted his oral and written arguments. The sum and substance of the written arguments of the accused counsel is that there is a contradiction about the weapon of crime and PW1
CC.No.349/2017720.03.2020
deposed in chief examination that the accused beat him with stone on his chest forcibly and in Ex.P1 he mentioned that when the accused tried to beat him with iron plate on his head, then he put his right hand and received abrasion injury on his right hand. He further submitted that PW1 falsely deposed that the accused took the iron rod and beat him on the back side of head, but, no injuries found on head in Ex.P7. He further submitted that prosecution failed to examine the another injured witness to prove its case and the independent eye witnesses who are examined as Pws.2 to 4 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that Ex.P2 and P3 X-ray films was obtained by
PW1 for the purpose of this case as per his admission and the investigating officer never produced the X-ray film of PW1 along with the charge sheet. Finally he submitted that the injury sustained by PW1 was received while he was driving tractor in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the mile stone and present case is foisted against the accused in view of the previous grudges at the instance of political leaders. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused from the alleged charges.
20. On perusal of the entire evidence of prosecution, PW1 being the injured and defacto complainant evidence clearly goes to show on 04.09.2017 the accused wrongfully restrained him while he was shifting the soil from village tank through his tractor. It is further clear that the accused beat him with stone on his chest forcibly and he received dumb injuries. When he left the tractor with fear and got down from the same the accused took the iron rod and beat him on the back side of the head and for the 2nd time when the accused tried to beat him he put his both hands and he sustained fracture injury to his right hand and left hand index finger. The evidence further shows that on intervention of LW2/Arkaru
Sudhakar, he also sustained injury on his right eye brow in the hands of accused.
CC.No.349/2017820.03.2020
21. Even though the prosecution examined the eye witnesses to the said incident as Pws.2 to 4, they turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The prosecution also given up the evidence of another injured witness LW2/ Arkaru Sudhakar. Therefore, they remains the evidence of medical officer, who is examined as PW5 and investigating officer, who is examined as
PW6.
22. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and cogent and same is not shaken in his cross-examination. He specifically stated specific overt acts of the accused from the stage of Ex.P1 till his evidence before this court. The evidence of PW1 is supported by medical evidence of PW5 though the eye witnesses examined as
Pws.2 to 4 are turned hostile on various reasons, the evidence of PW1 is credible and reliable and inspires confidence of this court. More over there is no delay in lodging FIR by PW1 and to believe the prosecution case and to disbelieve the version of the accused that the present case has been foisted by the PW1 in view of the previous enmity. In this regard, this court is of the opinion that the enmity is a double edged weapon and the same may be ground for correct or false implication. Absolutely, there is no reason for the injured/complainant in this case to foist a false case against the accused even though he belongs to another group in the same village. The evidence of PW1 cannot be disbelieved on the said ground alone.
23. The learned counsel for accused submitted his arguments that there is a contradiction with regard to weapon of offence used by the accused. As seen from Ex.P1 and the whole evidence of PW1 clearly shows that the accused beat
PW1 with stone at first instance and thereafter, the accused beat PW1 with iron rod. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not sustainable.
24. According to prosecution version PW1 sustained grievous injury in the
CC.No.349/2017920.03.2020
hands of accused and LW2 sustained simple injury in the hands of accused. The medical officer gave opinion that PW1 sustained grievous injury to his right forearm and other injuries are simple in nature. In this regard, the investigating officer failed to produce any MLC X-ray report of the Radiologist who is competent to speak about the receiving of fracture injuries. During course of trial
PW1 himself filed X-ray films and cash bill of private laboratory. In this regard, the contention of the accused is that Ex.P2 and P3 were created subsequently by
PW1 for the purpose of this case even as per his own admission in cross- examination. Mere filing of X-ray films without opinion of radiologist and report is not sufficient to prove that PW1 received grievous injury in the hands of accused.
Moreover, the medical officer is not competent to give opinion that the injury is grievous in nature without referring any MLC X-ray report of radiologist. The prosecution could not able to summon any concerned radiologist who said to be taken the X-ray films of PW1 for any clarification with regard to sustaining of grievous injury by PW1. In the absence of any proof of oevidence, it is not possible for this court to come to conclustion that the X-Ray films belongs to
PW1.
25. Admittedly, the weapon of offence was not seized by the investigating officer, but, the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 clearly shows that the accused high handedly attacked the PW1 and LW2 with iron rod which comes under the definition of dangerous weapon. Mereby the accused is the President of Water Tank Users Association of Utchuru village, he is not supposed to take the law in to his hand by highhandedly attacking the PW1 and LW2/Arkaru
Sudhakar. He would have proceed according to law. Moreover, mere latches and defects in the investigation cannot be ground for acquittal of the accused. When the oral evidence of sole injured witness is found trustworthy.
26. It is well settled law that a conviction can be based on sole testimony of
CC.No.349/20171020.03.2020
an injured witness when corroborated by other evidence. In the instant case the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Pws.5 and 6. At the same time this court has to see the evidence to be weighed, but, no counted. In this regard, this court is relied upon the decisions submitted by the learned APP in his written arguments.
The non-examination of another injured is also not fatal to the prosecution case as the PW1 corroborated the entire version of prosecution case. Even though the defence taken a plea that the present case is foisted against the accused it failed to produce any evidence on the said aspect.
27. In view of the forgoing evidence and discussion the prosecution is not proved the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence brought by the prosecution clearly proved that the accused voluntarily beat PW1 and LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar with iron rod and caused simple injury. Hence, the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec.341 and 324 of I.P.C only beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.
28. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.326 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is found guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 324 of IPC and he is convicted
U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, (FAC) Addl.Judl. Magistrate Of First Class, Sullurpet.
29. The accused is called present. Heard the accused with regard to quantum of sentence proposed to be imposed against him. For which the accused stated that he has to look after his family members and requested this court to take lenient view. In the facts and circumstances in which the offence committed by the accused, this court fells that it is not a fit case to extend the
CC.No.349/20171120.03.2020
benefits of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Sec.360 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this court is of the opinion that sentencing the accused to pay fine would meet the ends of justice.
30. Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence U/Sec.341 of IPC in default of payment fine, the accused has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) week and also accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) for the offence U/Sec.324 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months. In case of non-payment of fine the remand period if any shall be set off against the sentence U/Sec.428 of
Cr.P.C. If the fine amount is paid, the same shall be given to PW1 towards compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C. The accused is apprised about his right of appeal against the judgment of this court. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till expiry of 6 (six) months from today as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. As there is no property, no order passed.
Pronounced by me in the open court, typed by the Stenographer, corrected
by me on this the 20th day of March, 2020.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet (FAC)Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION DEFENCE – None
PW1 : Arkaru Polaiah
PW2 : Ch. Ramanamma
PW3 : E. Vijayamma
PW4 : L. Srimanthamma
PW5 : Dr. V. Vishnu Kalyani
PW6 : Ch. Koti Reddy, SI of police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
CC.No.349/20171220.03.2020
PROSECUTION: – DEFENCE – Nil
Ex.P.1 : Complaint dated 04.09.2017 given by PW1 to the Police
Ex.P2 : X-ray report along with receipt dated 04.09.2017 of Lakshmi S-rays and
Laboratory
Ex.P3 : X-ray and cash bill of Sri Satya Diagnostics
Ex.P4 : Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW2
Ex.P5 : Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW3
Ex.P6 : Section 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW4
Ex.P7 : Wound certificate of PW1issued by PW5
Ex.P8 : Wound certificate of LW2/Arkaru Sudhakar issued by PW5
Ex.P9 : FIR
Ex.P10 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-- NIL –
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SULLURPET.
CC.No.349/20171320.03.2020
//True copy//
PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SULLURPET.
CC.No.349/20171420.03.2020
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
District of:NELLORE
CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET
Date of Date ofDate of Date of Date ofDate of Date ofApprehension Report/ Release onCommenceClose ofSentence/ Offenceof the ComplaintBailment of trialTrialOrder Accused 04.09.17 04.09.1715.09.1715.09.1713.08.1806.02.2020.03.20
Explanation for the delay and remarks:
This case was taken on file on 01.11.2017 and posted for appearance of accused to 05.12.2017. On 05.12.2017 copies of case documents were furnished to the accused. On 29.06.2018 charges were framed against the accused and posted for trial. On 13.08.2018 PW.1 examined in chief in part, Ex.P1 marked and posted for further chief of PW1. Since then the case posted from time to time. On 06.08.2019 PW1 further chief-examined and also cross examined, Exs.P2 and P3 are marked. On 18.11.2019 PW2 examined, Ex.P4 marked. On 02.12.2019 PW3 examined and Ex.P5 marked. On 10.12.2019 PW4 examined, Ex.P6 marked. On 30.12.2019 PW5 examined, Exs.P7 and P8 marked. On 06.02.2020 PW6 examined, Exs.P9 and P10 are marked and prosecution evidence was closed. On 11.02.2020 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., On 17.02.2020 heard arguments of the learned APP. On 04.03.2020 heard arguments of the accused. On 20.03.2020 judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.
JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE No.349/2017 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULLURPET
Complainant : State Sub-Inspector of Police, D.V. Satram P.S.
Description of accused: Puttamaneni Kistaiah S/o Sankaraiah, Age 45 years, Muttarasi, Utchuru village, D. V. Satram mandal.
Offence:U/Ss.341, 324, 326 of IPC. Finding:Accused is found guilty for the offences Punishable U/Ss.341 and 324 of IPC
CC.No.349/20171520.03.2020
Sentence:In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.326 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused is found guilty of the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 324 of IPC and he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence U/Sec.341 of IPC in default of payment fine, the accused has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) week and also accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) for the offence U/Sec.324 of IPC in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months. In case of non-payment of fine the remand period if any shall be set off against the sentence U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. If the fine amount is paid, the same shall be given to PW1 towards compensation U/Sec.357 of Cr.P.C. The accused is apprised about his right of appeal against the judgment of this court. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force till expiry of 6 (six) months from today as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. As there is no property, no order passed.
Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
SULLURPET
REMARKS From The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of
First Class
SULLURPET
To The Hon’ble Chief Judl.
Magistrate-cum-Prl. Senior Civil
Judge,
NELLORE
Calendar Case No.:349/2017 Date o f 20.03.2020 Judgment: Date of Dispatch of: Calendar Dis. No. & Date: Date Received