CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 1 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, MANCHERIAL.
Present : Sri Sampath Challuri Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Mancherial FAC II Add.Judicial Magistrate of first class, Mancherial
Tuesday, this 06th day of February, 2024.
CC.No. 636 of 2021
Between:-
The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mancherial (Cr.No.207 of 2021).
...Complainant
//AND//
Kamarapu Sandeep, S/o.Sankaraiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Lorry Driver, R/o.Ramnagar, Mancherial. ….Accused
This case is coming for final hearing before me on 02.02.2024 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri G.Rajesh Goud, Advocate
for accused, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over
for consideration, this court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
1. This is a case of hurt alleged to committed by the accused, the
SHO, PS Mancherial Town filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC in Cr. No.207/2021 with a prayer to punish the accused.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 2 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution, is that on 13.05.2021 at 19.00 hours the defacto complainant/Shakapuram Rajesham came to
Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that on the same day at about 11.30 hours, his neighbour Kamarapu Sandeep/accused by keeping the previous grudges in his mind, beat the sister of the complainant /Devuni Srilatha/PW4 with stone on her head, as such she sustained severe bleeding injuries on her head, then the accused fled away from there, presently her sister was undergoing treatment at
Medilife Hospital, Mancherial. Hence, he requested to take the necessary action.
3. On receipt of the same, LW9/P. Venkannagoud, ASI of Police,
Mancherial Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.207 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3, visited the scene of the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drew rough sketch in the presence of mediators/LWs.6 and 7 and seized crime weapon stone from the scene of offence. Subsequently, LW10/D. Kiran Kumar, S.I of Police, Mancherial took up investigation from LW9 and found it on the correct lines. On 25.05.2021, the accused was arrested in Cr.No.141/2021 of PS
Mancherial and produced before the Court. After completion of the
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 3 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
investigation, and receipt of the medical certificate, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
4. On the strength of said charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC against the accused and issued summons to him. On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to him duly complying with Section 207 Criminal
Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr. P.C’) and thereafter, he is examined under
Section 239 Cr.PC for the accusation levelled against him under Section
Section 324 IPC. The charge framed for the above-said offence was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were exhibited and MO.No.1 marked. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 is the elder sister of PW4, PW3 is the panch witness for CDF, PW4 is the injured and elder sister of PW1, PWs.5 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, PW7 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW8 is the first I.O who issued FIR and PW9 is the final Investigating Officer.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under
Section 313 Cr.PC for which he pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 4 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Now the point for determination is:-
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused
for the charge levelled against him under Section 324 IPC beyond a
reasonable doubt?”
P O I N T:-
8. This specific case of the prosecution is that On 13.05.2021 at 11.30 hours the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the PW4 using stone/MO.1 as a weapon and PW4 sustained severe bleeding injury on her head, as such the accused committed an offence punishable under
Section 324 IPC. Hence, the charge.
9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the defacto complainant was examined as PW1. During the chief examination, he was deposed as that of contents mentioned in his report to the Police under ExP1. He further deposed that he shifted the PW4 to the Medilife
Hospital for treatment. Then he went to the Police Station and lodged complaint.
During the cross-examination, he admitted that the accused has his own house situated in front of his house, he has a wife and children, the
PW4 husband died and no issues to her. He further admitted that money disputes were pending between the accused and PW4 before this
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 5 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
incident and also admitted that PW4 said to the accused that she would file the case if he asked to return the money. He further deposed that he received a phone call when he was at Old Mancherial at the time of the incident, after knowing the incident, he came to the scene of the offence at 11.30 am. He further admitted that at the time of the incident, the accused resided at Old Mancherial in a rented house. He along with his neighbours, LW3 shifted the PW4 to the Hospital in an auto, LW3 came to the scene of the offence from Ramagundam after knowing the incident. They reached the hospital at 12.00 pm, one can reach the Police
Station within 10 minutes. They reached the Police Station at 12.00 pm directly from the hospital, half an hour took place to scribe ExP1 and to present before the SHO, then he went to the Hospital.
10. PW2 is sister of PW1. During the chief examination she deposed that she along with her sister/PW4 was present in her house, at about 11.00 am, the accused came to their house and beat the PW4 with a stone on her head, as such she received a bleeding injury and fell into unconscious, then after she informed the same to her relatives who came and shifted the Petitioner PW4 to the Police Station, then to the Hospital.
During the cross-examination, she admitted that she did not state to the Police that PW4 fell to the unconscious. She admitted that they went to the Police Station and then hospital. PW4 was admitted to the hospital
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 6 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
for eight or ten days, after eight days she regained consciousness.
11. In order to prove the scene of offence panchanama prosecution examined LW6/panch witness for Crime Detail Form as a PW3. He deposed that on 14.05.2021 Police conducted scene of offence panchanama under ExP2 and also drafted rough sketch in his presence, after knowing the panchanama contents he signed on it along with the
LW7/Co-panch witness.
During the cross-examination, he deposed that he could not say the house number of PW1, PW1 is his friend. There are houses of Purella
Rajaiah and Lalaiah near the house of PW1.
12. LW2/injured examined as PW4, she deposed that her husband died due to ill health, the accused is residing in front of her parents house. She made close acquaintance with the accused and they were in a living relationship for some period, the accused used to beat her in a drunken condition, and due to the said harassment, she came back to her parent's home. But the accused on 13.05.2021 at 11.30 am, came to her parent's house and asked her to return the amount of expenditure on her, beat her with a stone on her head. As such she received bleeding injuries, and then after, she was shifted to the Medilife Hospital, wherein she was treated with stitches.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 7 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
During the cross-examination, she admitted that the accused is a married person and had children and also admitted that at the time of the incident, the accused resided in Old Mancherial. She further deposed that she used to work in a canteen day by day i.e., evening to next day evening. She further admitted that there were disputes about the money given by the accused to her. She further deposed that first she was admitted to Medilife Hospital, Gandhi Hospital, Mancherial and then took treatment at Medha Hospital. She was admitted to the Hospital at 02 or 03 months as she lost blood and went unconscious. There were blood- stained marks at the scene of offence and also on her clothes, she was examined by the Police on the next day of the incident in the Hospital by
Constable.
13. The LW4 who was shown as a neighbor and eye witness to the incident examined as PW5, as per him on the relevant day, he went to the scene of offence after the incident and found that PW4 was in a pool of blood, as such he made 100 dial and 108 ambulance, but due to Corona ambulance did not came, as such he along with PW1 and LW5 were shifted PW4 to the Government Hospital, Mancherial, the doctors said that PW4 was in serious condition, as such she was shifted to the Medilife
Hospital.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 8 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
During the cross-examination, he deposed that there is a 150-meter distance to his house from the scene of offence. He was deposed in another case before the Court. He further admitted that he has not stated to the Police that he along with PW1 and LW5 were shifted PW4 to the
Hospital and also about dialling the 100 and 108 and also not stated that they first went to the Government Hospital. He added that the doctors in the Government Hospital did not admit PW4, and as such they went to
Medilife Hospital, he further admitted that he had not stated about not admitting the PW4 in the Government Hospital.
14. LW5/ another neighbour and eye witness to the incident examined as PW6, he deposed that while he was in the home situated beside the house of PW1, at that time, PW1 came to his house and informed that the accused beat PW4 with a stone, as such he rushed there and found that accused was present and threatening PW4 who was in pool of blood by receiving the injuries by stating that he will kill her, but he along with PW5 admonished the accused and sent him away. Then after, he along with
PW5 and PW1 shifted PW4 to the Government Hospital, Mancherial but they did not admit PW4, as such they shifted PW4 to the Medilife Hospital for treatment.
During the cross examination, he stated that he had not stated to the Police specifically that initially PW1 informed the incident and also not
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 9 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
stated that when he went there accused threatened PW4 to kill her, he along with PW5 admonished the accused. He further admitted that he had not stated to the Police specifically that he along with PW5, and PW1 were shifted PW4 to the Government Hospital, Mancherial, but stated that they shifted PW4 to the Medilife Hospital.
15. In order to prove the injuries, the prosecution examined
LW8/Doctor. During the chief examination, he deposed about the receiving of requisition, examination and treatment to PW4. He further deposed that on his treatment he found that PW4 received injuries i.e.,
i) Laceration 2x1 cm at left parietal occipital area of the scalp ii) Laceration 1.5 cm x 1 cm at right parietal area of scalp, both were simple in nature.
He further deposed that he has referred the injured to the higher centre for better treatment, after treatment the injured again came and verified the discharge summary issued by the Medilife Hospital,
Mancherial and also CT brain report. On perusal of it, there was no fracture at the injury No.1 and 2 area. Then after he issued the
ExP3/Medical Certificate of PW4, ExP4 is discharged summery of
Medilife Hospital and ExP5 is CT Scan of brain (plain).
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 10 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
During the cross-examination, he deposed that he has worked as an ICU Physician on a contract basis at that time. He further admitted that
ExP4 and Exp5 are issued by the Medilife Hospital, Mancherial. He did not remember when PW4 again approached him along with ExP4 and
ExP5. He further deposed that it may be true that if a person falls on a hard surface, he may receive injuries.
16. The first Investigating Officer/LW9 examined as PW8, during the chief examination, he deposed about the investigation conducted by him in a chronological manner and also about the examination of PWs.1, 2, 4 to 6 and referring PW4 to the Government Hospital for treatment, preparing the scene of offence panchanama and also about seizure of crime weapon/stone under MO.1 (salpa banda) from the scene of offence. Thereafter, he handed over the entire CD file to PW9 for further investigation.
During the cross-examination, he admitted that there was a delay of 7 ½ hours to lodge ExP1 from the time of offence mentioned in ExP1, reason for said 7 ½ hours was not mentioned in ExP1. He added that PW1 first went to the Hospital for treatment of PW4 and the same was mentioned in ExP1. He has further deposed that he has not mentioned the delay in column No.8 of ExP6/FIR. He further admitted that after issuance of ExP6, he has referred PW4 to the Government
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 11 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
Hospital for further treatment. He added that as PW4 was in serious condition by receiving injuries on her head, as such he referred her to the
Government Hospital from Medilife Hospital.
17. He further admitted that as per ExP3-Medical Certificate, the time of treatment on OP basis was mentioned as 11.30 am on 13.05.2021 and discharge time by referring to the higher centre as 01.00 pm. He has not examined the doctors of Medilife Hospital. He added that he has collected the medical records of PW4 from the Medilife Hospital. He did not remember the house number of scene of offence. He has not examined the persons whose names mentioned in the ExP2-scene of offence panchanama. He added that he has examined the witnesses/neighbours who witnessed the incident. He further admitted that PW5 and PW6 were not mentioned in ExP1. He further admitted that he has not separately shown MO.1 in ExP2. He added that he had seized MO.1 from the scene of offence, the same was mentioned in ExP2. He further admitted that he had not mentioned the dimensions of MO.1. During the further cross- examination, he again admitted that witnesses also not mentioned the dimensions of MO.1 while recording their statements. He has not collected the blood stains from the scene of offence and also blood- stained clothes from PW4.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 12 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
18. The second Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet/LW10 examined as PW9. He was deposed about receiving the entire CD file from PW8, then obtaining a PT warrant from this Court as the accused was in jail in Cr. No.141/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354D, 323 of IPC, which was committed against the same victim and produced before the Court for remand. After the collection of Medical
Certificate from PW7 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not recorded the statements of witnesses, but he has examined them.
19.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the alleged offence through its evidence. The allegations are that accused bet the P.W4 with MO-1 resulting she received injuries. The alleged offence against the accused is section 324 of I.P.C. Section 324 providing punishment for causing hurt with dangerous weapons or means.
20.P.W.1 and P.W2 are brothers and sisters of injured/P.W4, they categorically deposed that the accused bet the P.W4 with a stone, and as such she received injuries. Learned counsel for the accused submitted that they are not eyewitnesses to the incident as such, their evidence is not believable.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 13 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
It is true that during the cross-examination, it was deposed by
P.W1 that he was at old Mancheriyal at the time of the incident, P.W2 came from Ramagundam after knowing the information. But this suggestion was not put to the P.W2. However, their evidence can be considered as circumstantial witnesses, and it was not disputed that P.W1 and P.W2 along with others shifted the P.W4 to the Hospital. Therefore their evidence supports the case of prosecution and the happening of the incident as mentioned by the P.W1 in his report to police under Ex.P1.
21.The evidence of PW5 and PW6 who were said to be eyewitnesses and they both with one voice deposed that the accused beat PW4 with stone and caused injuries on the head of PW4. PW5 categorically deposed that he went to the scene of offence after the incident and found that PW4 was in a pool of blood. His house is only 150 meters distance away from the scene of offence. He has shifted PW4 to the Government
Hospital. PW6 also categorically deposed that he rushed there and found that the accused was present and threatened PW4 by stating that he will kill her, but he along with PW5 admonished the accused and sent him away, they shifted PW4 to the Hospital.
22. Further, P.W.4 categorically deposed that on 13.05.2021 at 11.30 hours the accused came to her parent's house and asked to return the
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 14 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
amount of expenditure incurred on her, beat her with MO-1 on her head, and as such she received bleeding injuries.
Injuries on the person of a witness ensure her presence at the time and place of the occurrence and the evidence has a ring of truth. Being an injured witness, her testimony inspires more confidence. The law on this point is clear that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of her presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate the accused for the commission of the offence. The deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of her evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
23.In the present case, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that there were money disputes, PW1 and PW4 also categorically admitted the same, hence, their evidence is not believable.
In this regard, it is important to mention here that PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that PW4 said to the accused that she will file the case if he asked to return the money. PW4 also categorically admitted that she and the accused were in a living relationship, due to said relationship, they lived some period together, but due to harassment of
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 15 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
the accused, she came back. She further deposed that the accused came and asked to return the amount of expenditure incurred on her and beat her with a stone. The P.W1 or P.W4 did not try to hide the money-related disputes.
24. It is significant to mention here that it is not the case of the accused that he has lent some amount to the PW4 either as a hand loan or for interest to return the same, it is evident from the P. W4 that she and the accused were in a living relationship for some period, it was not denied by the accused. If at all P.W4 was in debt to the accused he has to seek legal remedies. Therefore, it has to be treated that asking to return the money/expenditure incurred on P.W4 while living together is nothing but harassment and it does not shake the case of the prosecution. Here, this Court has to see whether the accused beat PW4 with MO.1/stone or not and caused injuries.
25.Ex.P.3 is wound certificate of P.W.4. Perusal of Ex.P.4 goes to show that P.W.4 received two injuries that were simple in nature. P.W.7 who is a doctor testified on oath that he examined P.W.4 and according to his opinion the injuries suffered by P.W.4 were simple in nature. P.W.1, 2,4 to 6 categorically deposed injuries as P.W4 was hit by stone/MO-1 by
Accused. Ocular evidence of them coupled with Ex.P.4 wound certificate
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 16 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
clearly establishes that P.W.4 suffered simple injuries. Further, the evidence of PW8 and PW9 also corroborates the prosecution case, merely not collecting the blood from the scene of offence and merely not collecting blood-stained clothes of P.W4 is not a ground to discard the entire evidence of the prosecution.
26. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined witnesses, but nothing could be elicited to doubt the evidence of the prosecution.
The evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence categorically shows that it is consistent, cogent and convincing to show that the accused beat PW4 at the relevant time with stone/MO-1 and caused injuries.
27.The learned counsel for the accused argued that PWs.1 and 2 are brother and sister of PW4 as such their evidence cannot be relied on. It is well settled that a mere relationship between the parties does not disqualify the persons from deposing the evidence, when their evidence is trustworthy, the Court should rely on it. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, this Court found no doubt with regard to the happening of the incident, they deposed in a natural way without hiding the disputes between the
P.W4 and accused. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is not believable.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 17 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
28.Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the time to reach the hospital, and the time to reach the Police Station did not match and also from the prosecution case it is not clear in which hospital PW4 was treated and no doctor of medilife hospital was examined.
It is true from the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 to 6 it shows that PW4 was admitted in Medilife Hospital, Mancherial but no doctor from said hospital was examined. It is important to mention here that from the evidence it is clear that P.W4 first shifted to the Government Hospital,
Mancherial but due to her serious condition, she was shifted to the
Medilife Hospital, Mancherial. This evidence shows the pathetic situation of P.W1, P.W2, P.W5 and P.W6 in providing the treatment to P.W4 but it cannot be said that P.W4 was not treated by the P.W7 and it does not mean that P.W1 not lodged Ex.P1, thus in my view it is not fatal.
29.Another contention of the learned counsel for accused is that there is a delay of 7 1/2 hours in lodging the report which can not be taken as a normal one and further if at all any incident really happened as alleged what prevented P.W.1 for making an early report, thus the delay is fatal.
30.In this regard, it is significant to mention here that an inordinate delay will always viewed suspiciously, but merely there is a delay of 7 1/2 hours it can not be said that the whole prosecution case has to be viewed
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 18 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
as doubtful. The question is whether the reason put forth for delay in lodging first information report is sufficient to be acceptable or not, if the version of prosecution witnesses is reliable and convincing to explain the delay, it is sufficient and on no account the delay can disturb the truthfulness of case of the prosecution.
Here in this case again we need to see the Ex.P.1 report which is the primary version of P.W.1 and what reason he had put forth for this delay. In Ex.P.1 report it is mentioned that“Pw4 got treated in the Medilife hospital. Further, from the record it is clear that P.W1 roamed around the hospital to admit the P.W4, the same is categorically corabrated with evidence of P.W7/I.O. Thus, from a perusal of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of
P.w1, P.W2, P.w 4 to P.W6 it is evident that the reason put forth by P.W.1 is admitting the P.W4 in the hospital. Therefore, a mere delay of 7 1/2 hours is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
31.Here in this case material witnesses given true account of incident and they deposed in a natural way to inspire confidence in the mind of the court. Though there happened to be some minor discrepancies in the versions of witnesses, but those are not touching the core of prosecution case, and that they are negligible. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that prosecution proved the guilt of Accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus Accused is liable for conviction for the offence punishable
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 19 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
U/sec. 324 of I.P.C.
32.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, accordingly, he is convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by him and after correction,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06 th day of February, 2024.
Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial
33) Hearing on quantum of sentence:
The convict present and submitted about the quantum of sentence that he has children and old aged parents and his parents are suffering from old aged ailments and he is the sole breadwinner of his family, and hence prayed to take a lenient view.
34.Heard the quantum of the sentence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C.
35. Hence, taking into the consideration of nature of the offence committed by the Accused, he is liable for the following sentence.
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 20 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
36.The charge proved against the accused is under Section 324 of
IPC. In the above context, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two months. It is evident from the record that as the accused was not in jail in this case, hence there is no order under Section 428(1) CrPC.
37.The accused is informed about the right of preferring an appeal against this judgment and further when informed about his right, the accused stated that he has got sufficient means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal. No case property.
38.The office is directed to give a copy of judgment on free of cost forthwith and obtained acknowledgment.
Dictated to the stenographer-III, transcribed by him and after correction,
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06 th day of February, 2024.
Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial
CC No. 636 of 2021 Page 21 of 21 Dt:06.02.2024
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
PW1 (LW1)Shakapuram RajeshComplainant PW2 (LW3)Shakapuram KavithaElder sister of injured/PW4. PW3 (LW6)SK.IrshadPanch witness for CDF. PW4 (LW2)Devuni SrilathaInjured and elder sister of PW1. PW5 (LW4)Ankam ManojEye witness to the incident. PW6 (LW5) Thoutapalli SrinivasEye witness to the incident. PW7 (LW8)Dr. T.AbhinavCivil Assistant Surgeon PW8 (LW9)P.VenkannagoudASI, issued FIR PW9 (LW10)D.Kiran KumarInvestigating Officer.
For Defence: - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For prosecution:
Ex.P1Report Ex.P2Crime Details Form along with rough sketch. Ex.P3Medical Certificate of PW4. Ex.P4Discharge Summery of PW4. Ex.P5CT Scan report of PW4. Ex.P6First Information Report Ex.P7PT Warrant Requisition Ex.P8PT Warrant issued by the Court.
For Defence: - NIL -
Material objects marked:
MO No.1Stone
Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of first class, Mancherial
FAC:II Addl.JMFC, Mancherial