1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
PUNGANUR
Present : Sri.C.Ramana Reddy
Judicial Magistrate of I Class
Thursday, the Fifth (5th) day of March, 2020
C.C.No.313 of 2017
[Cr.No.118/2017 of Punganur PS] _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Between :
The State of A.P. represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur
....COMPLAINANT
And :
1. Vadlamudi Chengalrayappa, S/o Late Muni Venkatappa, 65 years
2. Vadlamudi Siva Kumar, S/o V.Chengalrayappa, 27 years
3. Vadlamudi Lokesh, S/o V.Chengalrayappa, 20 years [All are r/o Ammiganipalle, H/o Aradigunta, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District (A.P.)]
....ACCUSED
This case coming on 03.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution and of Sri.Y.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for accused; upon hearing arguments; on perusing the material placed on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur PS laid this case against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/s.447, 324, 506 r/w 34
IPC.
2
2)The case of the prosecution is as follows : On 21.05.2017 at about 5.00 PM at the agricultural fields situated near Chettakunta tank,
Ammiganipalle, H/o Aradigunta of Punganur Mandal, the accused/A1 to A3 being relatives of the defacto complainant K.Lingappa (LW.1) have criminally trespassed into the land of Lingappa and while the accused/A1 to A3 were cutting the eucalyptus trees, the son and daugtherinlaw of Lingappa namely
K.Parandamaiah (LW.2) and K.Aruna Kumari (LW.3), who were grazing cattle noticed the same and questioned the accused about their acts, for which the accused/A1 to A3 got angry and they sprinkled soil into their eyes, beat them with sickle and caused blunt injuries. They also threatened
Parandamaiah and Aruna Kumari with dire consquences. Basing on the written complaint of Lingappa (LW.1) on 23.05.2017 a case was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined and recorded their statements. A rough sketch was prepared for the scene of offence. At the time of examination of defacto complainant
Lingappa, he produced xerox copies of pattadar pass book and the police seized the same under police proceedings. On 26.05.2017 section 41(A)
Cr.P.C. notices were served to the accused/A1 to A3. After obtaining wound certificates and complation of investigation laid this case against the accused.
3)The case was taken cognizance against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/s.447, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused/A1 to A3, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused/A1 to A3 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences u/s.447, 324, 506 IPC were framed and read over in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4)During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 7 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A3 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution witnesses for which the accused stated 3 it to be false and reported no evidence. But the accused have filed their written statement along with some documents.
5)Heard both sides.
6)Now the point for consideration is :
Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
7)The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of PW.1, who is defacto complainant, evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are injured witnesses is supported by PWs.4 and 5, who are eye witnesses, PW.6 medical evidence and PW.7 investigation officer. So, the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 coupled with
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 is sufficient to prove the guilt of accused for the charges levelled against them and hence the accused are liable for conviction. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that there is no consistency among the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to the alleged incident, PWs.2 and 3 have received the alleged injuries by falling from bullock cart and taking advantage of the said injuries, PW.1 foisted this false case against the accused in view of disputes with regard to the rasta. So, the evidence on record is not sufficient to find the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and so, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.
8)The case of the prosecution, as per Ex.P.1 report given by PW.1, is that they are having land in Chettakunta tank in which there are eucalyptus trees. On 21.05.2017 at 5.00 PM his son Parandamaiah (PW.2) and his daughterinlaw K.Aruna Kumari (PW.3) went to said land and by that time,
A1 to A3 were cutting the eucalyptus trees in his land. So, PWs.2 and 3 objected A1 to A3 as to why they were cutting their eucalyptus trees. At that time A1 to A3 thrown mud in the eyes of PWs.2 and 3 and beat PWs.2 and 3 with knife and sticks. The accused also tried to kill PWs.2 to 3 with stones. In the meanwhile, M.Venkatramaiah (PW.4) and Seenappa (LW.5) came there 4 and immediately, A1 to A3 ran away. Then PWs.2 and 3 were shifted to
Government Hospital, Punganur for treatment and from there, they were shifted to Government Hospital, Madanapalle for better treatment. It is also stated in Ex.P.1 that the accused threatened PWs.2 and 3 that they will kill them. So, PW.1 has given Ex.P.1 report against A1 to A3.
9)In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, PWs.2 and 3 are the injured witnesses, PWs.4 and 5 are eye witnesses, PW.6 is
Medical Officer who treated PWs.2 and 3 and issued their wound certificates and PW.7 is the Investigation Officer. Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW.1,
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 are the certified copies of 1B Namoona and
Adangal/pahani dt.21.06.2018 issued by the Tahsildar through Meeseva.
Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are the wound certificates of PWs.3 and 2 respectively.
Ex.P.6 is the FIR, Ex.P.8 is police proceedings dt.23.05.2017 under which
PW.7 seized xerox copies of pattadar pass book from PW.1. Ex.P.8 is the rough sketch.
10)PW.1 Lingappa deposed that he is having land to an extent of
Ac.5.00 cents in Ammiganipalle of Aragigunta panchayat and in the said land there are eucalyptus, mango, sapota, jama and coconut trees and apart from them, there is vacant land in which he is doing cultivation. He further deposed that A1, who is elder brother of his wife, has occupied Chettukunta tank and doing cultivation. On 21.05.2017 he went to Punganur for sandy at about 4.00
PM and at that time, his son K.Parandamaiah (PW.2) and daughterinlaw
K.Aruna Kumari (PW.3) were grazing cattle in his land. By that time, one
Venkatramaiah (PW.4) informed him over phone that A1 to A3 were cutting eucalyptus trees for which his son and daughterinlaw objected and A1 to A3 thrown mud into their eyes and also beat them with knife and stick and caused injuries. On coming to know that his son and daughterinlaw were shifted to
Government Hospital, Punganur, he went there and his son and daughterin law informed him about the incident and that the accused also threatened them 5 to kill. He further deposed that the said incident was witnessed by
Venkatramaiah (PW.4), Sreenivasulu and Jayamma (PW.5). Then he gave complaint to the police and he also handed over pattadar pass book to the police and later he also handed over certified copy of Adanal/pahani issued by the Tahsildar.
11)PW.2 Parandamaiah, who is son of PW.1, deposed that they are having land to an extent of Ac.5.09 cents in Sy.No.246 in Aradigunta revenue village and the revenue records stands in the name of his father i.e., PW.1. To the east of their land, there is chettakunta and there there are eucalyptus trees and mango trees in some portion and they are cultivating the remaining portion. A1 occupied chettukunta and cultivating the same. On 21.05.2017 at about 5.00 PM when he along with his wife Aruna Kumari (PW.3) were grazing cattle in their land, A1 to A3 were cutting eucalyptus trees and when he questioned the same, A1 to A3 came upon him and pushed him to ground and also thrown mud into his eyes and further beat him with stick on his head.
A2 beat him on chest with back side of knife and A3 beat him with stone on his face and stomach. A1 to A3 beat him with hands and legs on stomach, ribs and face. when his wife Aruna Kuamri (PW.3) came to his rescue, A1 to A3 beat her with hands, stones on her face, stomach and ribs. On hearing cries,
Venkatramaiah (PW.4), Sreenivasulu (LW.5), Jayamma (PW.5) came there and the accused ran away from the scene. Then he and his wife were shifted to
Government Hospital, Punganur and later his father came to know about the incident and gave report to the police against the accused.
12)PW.3 K.Aruna Kumari deposed that they are having land to an extent of Ac.5.09 cents in Sy.No.246 in Aradigunta revenue village and the revenue records stands in the name of his fatherinlaw i.e., PW.1. On 21.05.2017 at 5.00 PM when she and her husband (PW.2) was grazing cattle,
A1 to A3 trespassed into their land and were cutting eucalyptus trees and when her husband questioned the acts of accused, A1 beat him with stick on his head and A2 beat with back side portion of knife on chest; A3 beat her 6 husband with stone on his stomach. When she went to rescue her husband, A1 to A3 beat her with hands and legs. On hearing cries Venkatramaiah (PW.4),
Sreenivasulu (LW.5), Jayamma (PW.5) came there and the accused ran away from the scene. Later his fatherinlaw i.e., PW.1 gave report against the accused.
13)PW.4 M.Venkata Ramana deposed that he is watchman of the mango garden of Govindappa and PW.1 is having land to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents near mango garden of Govindappa. On 21.05.2017 at 5.00 PM while he was guarding the mango garden, and at that time PWs.2 and 3 were also grazing cattle in their land and at that time, A1 to A3 were cutting the eucalyptus trees of PW.1 for which PWs.2 and 3 objected. Then the A1 to A3 beat PW.2 with stones and knife on his right jaw and when PW.3 came to rescue, the acused pushed her down and kicked on her stomach. On hearing the cries of PWs.2 and 3, he along with one Sreenivasulu (LW.5) rushed to the scene of offence and on seeing them, the accused left the scene of offence.
Then he informed about the incident to PW.1 and shifted PWs.2 and 3 to
Government Hospital, Punganur for treatment.
14)PW.5 M.Jayamma deposed that on 21.05.2017 at about 5.00 PM when she was present in her house at Chettakunta village, A1 to A3 were cutting the eucalyptus trees in the land of PW.1 and when PW.2 objected the accused for the same, they beat PW.2 with stick, knife and stones. The accused also thrown mud on the eyes of PW.2. When PW.3 went to rescue her husband, the accused beat her and thrown her aside. Then PW.3 and one
Sreeniasulu (LW.5) came there, called 108 Ambulance and shifted PWs.2 and 3 to Government Hospital, Punganur for treatment.
15)PW.6 Dr.N.Raja Sekhar Reddy deposed that on 21.05.2017 at 6.10 PM PWs.1 and 2 came to the hospital for treatment and he examined
PW.3 and found one blunt injury over chest, blunt injury over nose and epiterxis present from nose. He examined PW.2 and found severe pain over 7 chest, a laceration injury over right frontal region and then he issued wound certificates.
16)PW.7 Rajasekhar, the Investigation Officer deposed that on 23.05.2017 at about 10.30 AM while he was present in the police station,
PW.1 came and presented a report and basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.118/2017. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also seized pattadar pass book from PW.1 under cover of police proceedings. On the same day i.e., 23.05.2017 he proceeded to the
Government Hospital, Punganur, secured the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence situated in the fields of PW.1 at Chetta Kunta and he prepared rough sketch. On 26.05.2017 he served section 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and after completion of investigation his SI filed charge sheet against the accused.
17)The main defence of the accused is that the accused are having land towards East of the land of PW.1 and there is plan marked rasta in the land of PW.1. So, with regard to the said rasta, there are disputes between the family of PW.1 and accused and due to said disputes, this false case is foisted by PW.1 taking advantage of the injuries received by PWs.2 and 3 by falling from bullock cart. The defence of accused is denied by PWs.1 to 5 and 7.
18)It is the case of the prosecution that PWs.1 to 3 are having land and accused trespassed into their land. In order to prove that PW.1 is having land, apart from oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, the prosecution has got marged
Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 which are certified copies of 1B Namoona (ROR) and
Adangal/pahani for Khata No.165 in Sy.No.246/2 to an extent of Ac.5.09 cents. As per Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, PW.1 is the pattadar and he is in possession and enjoyment of said land. In order to prove the offence u/s.447 IPC, the prosecution must prove the ingredients of section 441 IPC. Section 441 IPC reads as : 8
Criminal trespass — Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.
The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 coupled with Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 clearly shows that
PW.1 is having land and accused/A1 to A3 trespassed into the land of PW.1 with an intention to commit the offence. So, the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 447 IPC against the accused.
19)As per Ex.P.1, and the evidence of PW.1, the accused thrown mud into the eyes of PWs.2 and 3 and they beat PWs.2 and 3 with knife, stones, hand and legs and caused injuries. PW.2 deposed that A1 thrown mud into his eyes and beat him with stone on his head and caused contusion. A2 beat him on his chest with back side portion of knife and A3 beat him with stone on his face and stomach. PW.2 also deposed that A1 to A3 beat him with hands and legs on his stomach, on his ribs and face. PW.3 deposed that
A1 beat her husband with sticks on his head, A2 beat her husband with back side portion of knife and on chest. A3 beat her husband with stone on his stomach. PW.3 also deposed that A1 to A3 beat her husband with hands and legs indiscriminately. PW.4 deposed that the accused beat PW.2 with stone and knife on his face, ribs and jaw. PW.5 deposed that he witnessed that A1 to
A3 beat PW.2 with stick, knife and stone, so PW.2 received injures on his head, right side portion of chest, cheek, apart from injuries all over the body.
As per the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P.5, PW.2 received injury of lacerated size 4 x 1 cm. over right frontal region and severe pain over chest. The said two injuries are consistently deposed by PWs.2 and 3. So, there is corroboration to the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 with the medical evidence with regard to the injuries received by PW.2.
9
20)With regard to the injuries received by PW.3 is concerned, PW.2 deposed that when PW.3 came to his rescue, A1 to A3 beat PW.3 with hands and stones on her nose, face and stomach and on ribs. PW.3 deposed that when she went to rescue of her husband, the accused pushed her on the ground and they beat her with hands and legs and on her face, stomach and chest.
PW.2 further deposed that prior to 10 days of the said incident, tubectamy operation was conducted to his wife and as the accused beat her, she suffered with stomach pain. PW.3 deposed that prior to 8 months of the said incident, she delivered baby and she underwent operation. As the accused beat her on her stomach, she sustained pain. PW.4 deposed that when PW.3 came to rescue of PW.2, the accused pushed her down and kicked her on stomach.
PW.5 deposed that when PW.3 went to rescue PW.2, the accused beat her with hands and legs and thrown her aside. So, PW.3 received dumb injuries on her stomach and face. As per the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P.4, PW.3 received the following injuries :
1. Blunt injury over chest
2. Blunt injury over nose present
3. Epistesis present from nose
With regard to the injuries received by PW.3 also, the evidence of PWs.2, 3 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.P.4.
21)The defence of accused is that PWs.1 to 3 fell down from bullock cart and they received injuries. During cross examination, PW.6 deposed that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 may be possible if any person fell down from bullock cart. However, it is one of the possibility of receiving said injuries by PWs.2 and 3 by falling from bullock cart as deposed by PW.6, but it does not mean that the injuries received by PWs.2 and 3 are only by falling from bullock cart. When there is evidence of direct witnesses with regard to the incident in which PWs.2 and 3 received injuries in the hands of accused, 10 the version of accused that PWs.2 and 3 received injuries by falling from bullock cart is not tenable.
22)The learned counsel for accused argued that the alleged incident took place on 21.05.2017 at 5.00 PM whereas, Ex.P.1 was given on 23.05.2017 at 10.30 AM. So, there is delay of more than 40 hours in giving
Ex.P.1 report which is not properly explained by the prosecution. So, the said delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is true that there is delay of more than 40 hours in giving Ex.P.1 report by PW.1. In Column No.8 of
Ex.P.6 it is stated that the delay caused as the injured admitted in the hospital for treatment. In the evidence also, PW.1 deposed that since his son and daughterinlaw were taking treatment at Government Hospital, Madanapalle, he was attending them and so he could not give report immediately. In the cross examination also, PW.1 deposed that his son and daughterinlaw came to Government Hospital, Punganur at about 6.30 or 7.00 PM on the date of incident. Since the doctors advised him to take his son and daughterinlaw for better treatment, he shifted them to Madanapalle and so he could not give report immediately. PW.2 also deposed that as he and his wife were in the hospital by taking treatment, they could not give report to the police immediately after the incident. In Ex.P.6 and also in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 the reason for delay is explained stating that as PWs.2 and 3 who are injured were taking treatment, they could not give report immediately and as for the evidence of PW.1, as he was attending PWs.2 and 3, he could not give report immediately after the incident. In the cross examination PW.7 deposed that prior to 23.05.2017 PW.1 did not come to the police station to give report.
It is not the case of PWs.1 to 3 that they have given report to PW.7 prior to 23.05.2017. Moreover, as discussed supra, the prosecution has properly explained the delay of more than 40 hours in giving Ex.P.1 report. In those circumstances, the said delay is no way fatal to the case of the prosecution. So, the version of accused is not tenable.
11
23)The learned counsel for accused argued that in view of existing disputes in respect of rasta in the land of PW.1 to the land of accused, this false case is foisted by PW.1 against the accused and at the instance of PW.1,
PWs.2 to 5 are deposed false evidence against the accused. In the cross examination PW.1 deposed that the accused used to go to their land from their land, but there is no rasta in their land to go to the land of accused. PW.1 denied the suggestion that the rasta which is in their land is plan marked rasta to go to the land of accused. PW.2 deposed that there is no way to the land of accused in their land, but the accused used to go to their land on the edge of their land as the way to the land of accused is at some distance. PW.2 denied the suggestion that bullock cart and tractors used to go to the land of accused in their land for ploughing the land of accused. PW.2 also denied the suggestion that except the way in their land, there is no other way to the land of accused. PW.3 admitted that since the date of her marriage, the accused used to go to their land on the ridge of their land. PW.3 denied the suggestion that there is cart track rasta to the land of accused in their land. As admitted by
PWs.1 to 3, the accused used to go to their land in the land of PW.1, but there is no plan marked rasta to go to the land of accused in the land of PW.1. In order to prove that the accused are having land, the accused have filed their written statement along with some documents under section 313 (4) Cr.P.C. In the written statement they have stated that the accused used to go to their land through the land of defacto complainant and there is plan marked way in the land of defacto complainant. The accused have filed certified copy of 1B
Namoona (ROR) and Adangal/pahani dt.20.02.2020 for Sy.No.248/2 and 248/3, which is stands in the name of Muni Venkatamma, W/o Muni
Venkatappa (mother of A1). The accused also filed 1B Namoona (ROR) and
Adangal/pahani dt.20.02.2020 for Sy.No.248/1 which stands in the name of
A1 and xerox copy of FMB for Field No.248. By filing the said revenue records, the accused are able to prove that they are having land in Sy.No.248, but PWs.1 to 3 also not stating that the accused are not having land besides their land. The dispute is whether there is plan marked rasta in the land of 12
PWs.1 to 3 to the land of accused or not. To prove the same, the accused have not filed any piece of document. Though the accused filed FMB pertaining to their land, the rasta which said to be in the land of PW.1 will not be reflected in the said FMB pertaining to the land of accused. The accused ought to have filed FMB pertaining to the land of PW.1. If that is so, if there is any plan marked rasta, that will be shown in the said FMB. So, the defence of accused is that with regard to the plan marked rasta only, PWs.1 to 3 are having dispute with them and with that dispute, this false case is foisted against them is not having any strength and so, it is rejected.
24)Moreover, PWs.4 and 5 are independent eye witnesses and they also supported the case of the prosecution and nothing is attributed to PWs.4 and 5 to depose false against the accused. PW.4 denied the suggestion that as there are money transactions between him and PW.1 for the last 5 to 6 years, he is deposing false at the instance of PW.1. PW.5 denied the suggestion that there are disputes between their family and the family of accused for the last 10 years and so she is deposing false. Except the said suggestions, nothing was elicited from PWs.4 and 5 to discredit their evidence and there is no good reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.4 and 5, who are independent eye witnesses of the incident.
25)The learned counsel for accused argued that even assuming without conceding that the version of prosecution that PWs.4 and 5 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, as they went to the scene of offence after the incident, they could not see the alleged incident. PW.4 deposed that on 21.05.2017 at 5.00 PM he was guarding the mango garden of Govindappa and
PWs.2 and 3 were grazing their cattle in the land. At that time A1 to A3 were cutting the branches of eucalyptus trees of PW.1 for which PWs.2 and 3 objected and so, the said incident took place. During cross examination, PW.4 deposed that there is thorny fencing to the mango garden of Govindappa, the mango trees are aged about 20 years and the mango trees of PW.1 are aged about 15 years. PW.4 also deposed that immediately after hearing cries of 13
PWs.2 and 3, they rushed to the scene of offence. He deposed that the distance between the alleged scene of offence and mango garden of Govindappa is about 300 feet. By the time they went to the scene of offence, A1 to A3 were escaping. So, as per the evidence of PW.4, he was at a distance of 300 feet when the incident was going on and on hearing the incident, he rushed to the scene of offence and by that time, the accused were escaping. So, PW.4 has witnessed the accused at the scene of offence at the time of incident while committing the offence. So far as PW.5 is concerned, on 21.05.2017 at about 5.00 PM when she was present at her house, which is situated in her land near to the land of PW.1, she witnessed the incident. But in the cross examination,
PW.5 deposed that the distance between her house and the land of PW.1 is about 100 meters and there are no trees in between the scene of offence and her house. She deposed that she is aged about 50 years, but she denied the suggestion that she cannot see the alleged incident which took place at a distance of 100 meters from her house. PW.5 also deposed that by the time she reached the alleged scene of offence, the accused were not there. Though
PW.5 deposed that by the time she went to the scene of offence, the accused were not there, she categorically deposed that she has witnessed the incident from her house which is situated near the scene of offence. So, the version of accused that PWs.4 and 5 are not eye witnesses of the said incident is not tenable.
26)As discussed supra, the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients of the offence u/s.441 IPC which is punishable u/s.447 IPC against the accused. With regard to the injuries received by PW.2, PWs.1 to 5 deposed that the accused beat PW.2 with knife, stick, which are dangerous weapons. In this regard the counsel for accused argued that the alleged dangerous weapons were not seized by PW.7 and not produced before this court, so the version of prosecution is not believable. In the cross cross examination, PW.7 deposed that when he visited the scene of offence, he has not found stick, stone which were used by the accused for the commission of offence. Admittedly, no 14 material objects which were used by the accused for commission of offence were seized and produced before this court by the prosecution. However, it is settled principle of law that non seizure of weapons of offence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. So, the prosecution is able to prove that the injuries received by PW.2 are caused by the accused with dangerous weapons and as such the accused are liable for punishment for the offence u/s.324 IPC.
27)With regard to the injuries received by PW.3 is concerned, in
Ex.P.1 and in the evidence also PW.1 deposed that the accused beat his son and daughterinlaw with knife, stick, hands and legs and caused injuries.
Whereas, PW.2, who is injured witness deposed that A1 to A3 beat PW.3 with hands and stones on her nose, face, stomach and ribs. But PW.3 deposed that the accused pushed her on to ground and they beat her with hands and legs on her face, stomach and chest. Though PW.1 stated in Ex.P.1 and PWs.1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that accused beat PW.3 also with stones, PW.3 has not deposed the said fact. PW.4 deposed that the accused pushed PW.3 down and kicked her on her stomach. PW.5 deposed that A1 to A3 beat PW.3 with hands and legs and thrown her aside. So, the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 shows that PW.3 was beaten by the accused with hands and legs only while beating
PW.3, the accused have not used any dangerous weapons. So, question of attracting the offence u/s.324 IPC for the injuries caused to PW.3 does not arise, but it attracts the ingredients of the offence u/s.323 IPC, which is lesser offence. The accused are charged u/s.324 IPC for the injuries caused to PWs.2 and 3, but in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that PW.3 was beaten by the accused with dangerous weapons, but the prosecution has proved that accused beat PW.3 with hands and legs only. So, in view of section 222 (2) Cr.P.C., when a person is charged with the offence and facts are proved which reduces it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence of that he was charged with it. So, the accused are liable for punishment for the offence u/s.323 IPC for causing simple injuries to
PW.3 though it is not charged which is a minor offence than section 324 IPC.
15
28)The accused also charged u/s.506 IPC as they threatened PWs.2 and 3 in dire consequences that they will kill them. In Ex.P.1 PW.1 stated that while leaving the scene of offence, the accused threatened PWs.2 and 3 that they will kill them. In the evidence also PW.1 deposed that his son and daughterinlaw informed him that the accused threatened them that they will kill them. But PWs.2 and 3 who are victims of the offence did not depose anything with regard to the alleged criminal intimidation. PWs.4 and 5 who are eye witnesses also did not depose anything about the alleged criminal intimidation. Since PWs.2 and 3 who are victims of the offence and PWs.4 and 5 who are eye witnesses of the incident did not depose anything against the accused, that the accused threatened PWs.2 and 3 in dire consequences that they will kill them, the evidence of PW.1 alone, who is hear say witness is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of section 503 IPC which is punishable u/s.506 IPC. So, the evidence on record is not sufficient to find the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.506 IPC.
29)Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel
for accused, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.506 IPC. But the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/s.447, 323, 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
30)In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s.506 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
However, the accused/A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offences punishable u/s.447, 324, 323 IPC and are convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5 th day of March, 2020.
Sd/ C.RAMANA REDDY
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
PUNGANUR
16
31)Before awarding sentence, the accused / A1 to A3 are questioned about the quantum of sentence for the offences punishable U/Sec. 447, 323 and 324 IPC. Accused No.1 is submitted that he is aged about 68 years and he is suffering from illhealth. A1 also submitted that PW1 is his brother in law and A2 and A3 are his sons. Accused No. 2 submitted that he is married and he is having one daughter, so his wife and daughter are depending upon him.
Accused No. 3 submitted that he is unmarried and so if he is sent to jail his marriage prospects will be decreased. A1 to A3 submitted that they are agriculturalist and they pleaded mercy of the Court.
32)Upon hearing the submissions of the accused/A1 to A3 and on perusal of the evidence on record this court is not satisfied with the submissions of the accused and this court is of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for the benefits U/s.360 Cr.P.C. or U/s.3 and 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act. But considering the nature of the offence and relationship of the accused with A1 to A3 imposing of fine will meet ends of justice.
33)In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only) each IDSI for ONE Month for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447 IPC. A1 to A3 are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each IDSI for TWO Months for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, IPC. A1 to A3 are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand only) each IDSI for THREE Months for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 19500/ an amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is awarded to PW.2
K.Parandhamaiah towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5000/ (Rupees
Five Thousand) is awarded to PW.3 K.Aruna Kumari towards compensation
U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. PWs.2 and 3 are entitled to receive the said compensation amounts after lapse of appeal time.
17
34)The accused / A1 to A3 are that they have got right of appeal. If they have not able to engage an Advocate to prefer an appeal they have at liberty to approach Mandal Legal Services authority to get free legal aid.
Sd/ C.RAMANA REDDY
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
PUNGANUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined :
PROSECUTIONACCUSED
PW.1K.Lingappa Nil
PW.2K.Parandamaiah
PW.3K.Aruna Kumari
PW.4M.Venkata Ramaiah
PW.5M.Jayamma
PW.6Dr.N.Raja Sekhar Reddy
PW.7B.Raja Sekhar Reddy
Exhibits marked for Prosecution
Ex.P.123.05.2017Report given by PW.1 to the police
Ex.P.221.06.2018Certified copy of 1B Namoona
Ex.P.321.06.2018Certified copy Adangal/pahani
Ex.P.403.06.2017Wound certificate of PW.3
Ex.P.505.06.2017Wound certificate of PW.2
Ex.P.623.05.2017FIR in Cr.No.118/2017 of Punganur PS
Ex.P.723.05.2017Police proceedings
Ex.P.823.05.2017Rough sketch
Exhibits marked for Accused Nil
JMFC, PGR
18
FORM NO.72
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I
Class, Punganur
1.Offence:21.05.2017
2.Report of complaint: 23.05.2017
3.Apprehension of accused:A1 to A3 : 26.05.2017 (Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. Notices served)
4.Release on bail:A1 to A3 : 26.05.2017
5.Commencement of trial:28.08.2019
6.Close of trial:18.02.2020
7.Sentence of order:05.03.2020
8.Explanation of delay and :For non production of witnesses remarks
Judgment in Calendar Case No.313 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur
Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Pungnaur [Cr.No.118/2017]
Name of accusedAge yearsFather/Husband’s name (1)(2)(3)
1. Vadlamudi
1. 651. Late Muni Venkatappa Chengalrayappa
2. 272. V.Chengalrapayya
2. Vadlamudi Siva Kumar
3. 203. V.Chengalrayappa
3. Vadlamudi Lokesh
ReligionCallingResidenceMandal (4)(5)(6)(7)
All are r/oAll belongs to All areAll are living by Ammiganipalle H/oPunganur Hinduscultivation AradiguntaMandal
Offence:Section 447 IPC – Punishment for trespass
Section 324 IPC – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means 19
Section 323 IPC – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Sec.506 IPC – Punishment for criminal intimidation
Finding:Accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s.506 IPC. However, the accused/A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offences punishable u/s.447, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC
Sentence:In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s.506 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. However, the accused/A1 to A3 are found guilty of the offences punishable u/s.447, 324, 323 IPC and are convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 to A3 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/ (Rupees Five Hundred only) each IDSI for ONE Month for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447 IPC. A1 to A3 are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) each IDSI for TWO Months for the offence punishable U/Sec.323, IPC. A1 to A3 are also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five Thousand only) each IDSI for THREE Months for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 19500/ an amount of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is awarded to PW.2 K.Parandhamaiah towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5000/ (Rupees Five Thousand) is awarded to PW.3 K.Aruna Kumari towards compensation U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. PWs.2 and 3 are entitled to receive the said compensation amounts after lapse of appeal time.
Sd/ C.RAMANA REDDY
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
PUNGANUR
//true copy//
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
PUNGANUR