1 C.C No.327 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT: KALWAKURTHY.
Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022.
Present:- Smt.Sampathi Rao Chandana, I-Addl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.
CC No. 327 of 2015
Between:-
State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy P.S.,
...Complainant.
A n d
1.Paladi Madhusudhan S/o Ramulu, Age.58 years, Padmashali, Proprietor of Jagadamba cloth center, Kalwakurthy.
2.Paladi Chandramouli S/o Madhusudhan, Age.33 years, Padmashali, Propprietor of Kalanjali Cloth Center, Kalwakurthy.
3.Paladi Shiva S/o Madhusudhan, Age.29 years, Padmashali, Pvt., Employee.
4.Paladi Srinivasulu @ Sreenu S/o Madhusudhan, Age.31 years, Padmashali, Proprietor of Jagadamba cloth center, Kalwakurthy.
5.Paladi Veena W/o Chandramouli, Age.26 years, Padmashali, Housewife.
6.Paladi Shyamala W/o.Vasudev, Age.28 years, Padmashali, House wife.
All are resident of H.No.13-37, J.L.B Road, Kalwakurthy.
...Accused
This case is coming up before me on 06-04-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Karthik, learned A.P.P for the complainant and Sri S.Jayanth Kumar, learned Counsel
for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till
this day this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalwakurthy Police
Station has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 6 for the offence under Sections 348, 323 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC.
2 C.C No.327 of 2015
2. The brief facts of the Charge sheet are as follows:
That on 09-04-2015 at 5.00 p.m., the complaint
Paladi Murali lodged a report in which he stated that “on the same day i.e. on 09-04-2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to his shop, on the way his brother Paladi
Madhusudhan and his sons Chandramouli, Shiva, Sreenu,
Veena W/o Chandramouli and Shyamala W/o Sreenu i.e. A1 to A6 bet him and forcibly took him into their house bearing
No.13-37 for not giving his property when they demanded to give his property and tied him with ropes to a chair, then they doused themselves with petrol and bolted the house from inside and threatened him that they will set-fire themselves and also kill him. Saying so, they confined him from 10.00 a.m., to 2.30 p.m., duly demanding him to give 50 lakhs or put his signature on empty bond paper. The MRO., Kalwakurthy and Fire Engine also reached there, on questioning of the elderly persons of their community the accused released him at 2.30 p.m., The persons by name Dodla Krishnaiah, Nagula
Venkateshwarlu, Masna Pandu, Masna Ramchandraiah and some others witnessed this incident” hence requested to take necessary legal action against the accused 1 to 6.
As per the contents of the above petition, the
Lw.10/K.Srinivas Reddy, Asst., Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.89/2015, under sections 348, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the 3 C.C No.327 of 2015 course of investigation examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1/Paladi Murali at police station and visited the scene of offence at Jhansi Laxmibai Road, Kalwakurthy caused enquires and conducted a panchanama in the presence of two mediators i.e. Lws.8 and 9 and drafted rough sketch in crime details form and seized a white colour plastic can containing 10 liters can consisting of about 2 liters petrol under crime details form, duly affixing panch chit. Moreover, the Lw.10 secured the presence of an eyewitnesses i.e. Lws.2 to 7, examined them thoroughly and recorded their detailed statements. Later the Lw.11/Md.Maqdum Ali, Sub Inspector of
Police took up further investigation of this case and perused the investigation done by Lw.10 and found it to be on proper lines. On 25-04-2015, the Lw.11 issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice the accused A1 to A6 to appear before the SHO., Kalwakurthy on or before 27-04-2015. On 25-04-2015 at 4.00 p.m., A1 to A6 came to police station and surrendered before him duly admitting their guilt of offence and after complying the notice they obtained station bail and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons.
3. This court took the cognizance for the offence under
Sections 348, 323 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused 1 to 6.
4. After receiving of the summons the accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4 C.C No.327 of 2015
5. Later the accused was examined under section 251
Cr.P.C. for the accusation of the offences under Sections 348, 323 r/w 34 and 506 of IPC, the accused denied the charge sheet allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. On behalf prosecutionPWs.1 to 7 are examined and exhibits P1 to P4 were marked on their behalf. The exhibit 4 is the property deposit form has marked as the prosecution failed to furnish material object. The Lw’s 4, 7 and 8 are given up by learned APP as their evidence is similar to the evidence of
Pws.4 and 5. Likewise, the prosecution given up the evidence of Lw 11. On behalf of the defence Dws.1 and 2 were examined and no exhibits were marked on their behalf.
7. On conclusion of trial the accused examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses they denied the same and reported evidence on their behalf.
8. Heard both sides. The learned APP submitted that , the prosecution has successfully bring home the guilt of the accused , the Pws.1 to 3 withstood in the chief examination with that of the contents of the complaint and their sec 161
Cr.P.C statements without any contradictions. The Pws.4 and 5 who are the independent witness to the commission of offence supported the version of the Pws.1 to 3 without any contradictions, the accused failed to rebut the evidence of prosecution through the defense evidence and in the cross 5 C.C No.327 of 2015 examination , all the witness of prosecution withstood by their chief examination without any major contradictions , there by the prosecution establish the ingredients of sections 348, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused 1 to 6 in the interest of justice.
Disagreed with submissions of the learned prosecution, the counsel for accused and the accused No 3 who had led the case through party in person submitted that, the present case was foisted against the accused 1 to 6 with a mala fide intention to involve the accused in the alleged offences with the help of all the interested witnesses and to avoid the allotment of property to the accused from their fathers share. The accused 1 to 6 never confined the Pw1 in their house and they were just intended to made talk with the
Pw1 , the Pw2 intentionally created the talk as a confinement.
The own admission of the Pws.1to 3 that there are property disputes between the accused is itself sufficient to disbelieve the version of Pw1 and non seizure of rope which is alleged to be tied by the accused can said to be the malignant to the case of the prosecution and finally requested to acquit the accused 1 to 6 for the alleged offence. The said submissions reduced into writing and filed the written arguments by the accused
No 3.
9. Now the point for determination is:
(i) Whether is there any delay in lodging complaint by the Pw.1 before the concerned police?
6 C.C No.327 of 2015
(ii) Whether the Pw 1 was wrongfully confined in the house of accused, on 9-4-2015 and tied the Pw1 with rope to a chair and compel the restoration of property to the accused and the Pw 1 was caused with voluntary hurt and threatened the Pw1 on demand of Property?
(iii) Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 348, 323 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
(iv) To what finding?
10. Point no.(i):-
Whether is there any delay in lodging complaint by the Pw.1 before the concerned police?
On careful reading of Ex.P1 i.e., the complaint lodged by Pw.1 wherein the incident was occurred in between 10 a.m to 2.30 pm on 9-4-2015 and the incident was reported on the same day at about 17.00 p.m., i.e 5.00 pm that is within two and half hours from the time of incident, hence it can be said that the complaint was lodged before the concerned police within a reasonable time after the incident.
Thus it can be consider that there was no delay in lodging the complaint/ExP1 before the concerned police and the Ex.P3 i.e., the First Information report marked through Pw.7 was issued immediately after the receipt of the Ex.P1.
Therefore, there is no delay in lodging the complaint
before the police in the eye of any prudent man, hence point
is answered in favour of the prosecution.
7 C.C No.327 of 2015
11. Point no.(ii):-
Whether the Pw 1 was wrongfully confined in the house of accused, on 9-4-2015 and tied the Pw1 with rope to a chair and compel the restoration of property to the accused and the Pw 1 was caused with voluntary hurt and threatened the Pw1 on demand of Property?
In order to go into the detailed discussion of the point we must go through the ingredients of the section . The section 348 IPC reads as follows:
Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property.—Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The plain reading of the section shows that , the accused 1to 6 should wrongfully confine the Pw1 in order to prevent the complainant/Pw1 form proceeding out of the 8 C.C No.327 of 2015 confined area which the Pw 1 is right to proceed. On demand of property or any security.
The Pw1 in his chief examination submitted that ,on 09-04-2015 at about 10.00 a.m., while he was proceeding to his shop, on the way his brother Paladi Madhusudhan and his sons Chandramouli, Shiva, Sreenu, Veena W/o Chandramouli and Shyamala W/o Sreenu i.e. A1 to A6 bet him and forcibly took him into their house bearing No.13-37 for not giving his property when they demanded to give his property and tied him with ropes to a chair, then they doused themselves with petrol and bolted the house from inside and threatened him that they will set-fire themselves and also kill him. The Pw1 also stated that the accused didn’t allow him to attend the natural calls hence he urinated in the sink. Saying so, they confined him from 10.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., duly demanding him to give 50 lakhs or put his signature on empty bond paper. The MRO., Kalwakurthy and Fire Engine also reached there, on questioning of the elderly persons of their community the accused released him at 2.30 p.m. The Pw2 informed the incident to the Pw3 and in turn he informed to the police hence the police and fire service person came to the scene of offence .
The version Pw 1 supported by the Pw.2 and Pw.3 who are the wife and brother of Pw1 respectively. The contents of the chief examination of Pws.1 to 3 are consistent and 9 C.C No.327 of 2015 cogent without any contradictions and corroborated with the contents of the complaint and with the contents of their Sec 161 Cr.P.C statements.
At this juncture we should see whether the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 supported by any independent evidence, for which the prosecution examine the Pws.4 and 5 i.e Nagula
Venkateswarulu and Masna Pandu. The Pws.4 and 5 consistently stated that on the information received by them they went to the scene of offence and they peeped into the house from the window and there they found that the pw1 was tied into a chair and the all the accused threatening the Pw1 with regard to the property and poured petrol on noticing the petrol can they have informed the concerned police and Fire station. The Pws.1 to 3 repeatedly convinced the accused that they can resolve the disputes through talks on repeated requests the accused opened the door at 2.30 pm.
The entire ingredients of chief examination of the
Pws.4 and 5 are consistent to the contents of their Sec 161
CR.P.C statement without any contradictions. Likewise the
Pw.6 who was the panch witness for the preparation of Crime details form deposed that the panchanama prepared in his presence and the ingredients of Crime details form are known to him and the Ex P2/Crime details form. The Pw 7 investigation officer of this case deposed evidence with that of the contents of the charge sheet without any contradiction.
10 C.C No.327 of 2015
The combined reading of the entire evidence of the prosecution that is Pws 1to 5 consistently establishes that the
Pw1 was confined in the house of the accused 1 to 6 in between 10 am to 2.30 pm on 9-4-2015, with demand of compel restoration of property. The Pw 4 and 5 who are the independent and elders of Padmashali society Kalwakurthy consistently stated that there are disputes in between the Pw1 and accused with regard to the family properties.
Here at this stage we can take have the reference of the Judgement of Hon’ble high Court of Gujarath In “Gujarath
Vs Keshav Lal Magnabhai Gujoyan [ 1993Crl.J 248 Guj.] where in it was held that “ for a charge of wrongful confinement , proof of actual physical restriction is not essential It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind of the victim , a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart . If the impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape , a reasonable apprehension of the force rather than the actual use is sufficient and important”
On applying the said findings to the case on hand it can be said that, the prosecution with the aid of cogent, consistent and corroborative evidence of Pws.1 to 5 successfully establishes that the Pw1 was wrongfully restrained on 9-4-2015 in between 10 am to 2.30 pm 11 C.C No.327 of 2015 demand of property and the recovery of petrol tin from the scene of offence strengthen the version of Pw1 . When it comes to the aspect of voluntarily causing hurt the Pw 1 deposed that he was tied to a chair and threatened by the accused with a Petrol Tin the version of Pw1 supported by the
Pws.2 to 5 without any contradictions. But to believe the version of Pws.1 to 5 with regard to tying the Pw1 with a rope there shall be seizure of rope and there shall be a medical evidence that the Pw1 was sustained hurt but the same are lacking. Therefore the prosecution who intends to establish the ingredients under section 323 would have deposit the ropes or could have submit any medical evidence but the same are absent which are fatal to the case hence the prosecution evidence does not fulfill the ingredients of section 323 of IPC.
When it comes to the question of criminal intimidation the very confinement of the Pw1 as established by the prosecution fulfill the ingredients of sec 506 of Ipc as the accused 3/ Dw1 himself admitted in cross examination that there are family disputes between the accused and Pw1 .Moreover the Ex P4 i.e the property deposit form discloses that there is a seizure of the Petrol Tin from the scene of offence . The Pw 4 and 5 categorically stated that the accused threaten the Pw1 on demand of property. Therefore the prosecution with the consistent evidence of Pws.1 to 5 categorically establishes that that the Pw 1 was wrongfully 12 C.C No.327 of 2015 confined in the house of the accused and criminally intimidate the Pw 1 on demand of property.
At this point we should see whether the defence counsel made any efforts to rebut the evidence of the prosecution. The Pws.1 to 5 were examined in length in cross examination and the accused No 3 examined himself as Dw1 and Dw.2. In the cross examination the defence counsel and the accused no 3 trying to impress upon the court that there are property disputes between the accused and the Pw 1 and basing on the same they have foisted this false story which was denied by the Pws.1 to 3. Likewise the Pw 4 and 5 who are the witnesses to the incident denied the suggestions that no incident was occurred and the pw1 never confined in the house of accused. Likewise the version of Dw.1 and Dw.2 is not trust worthy as the Dw1/A3 himself admitted that there are property disputes against the accused and Pw1, also admitted that on the date of the incident all the accused were intended to have talks with the Pw 1 and they invites the Pw1 to their house in such a case they would have allow the Pws.4 and 5 to their house and what is the necessity for them to peep into the house through the window. The Dw.2 himself admitted that he is the brother in law of accused No.3 and he was present along with the accused in their house on the date of incident, his presence was not mentioned by the prosecution witnesses and the A3/Dw1 did not mention the presence Dw.2 in his lengthy chief examination which is 13 C.C No.327 of 2015 newly introduced. Therefore the version of the Dw.1 and 2 are not believable. Therefore the lengthy cross examination or the evidence of Dws.1 and 2 did not come to the aid of accused and they have failed to rebut the cogent and consistent evidence of the prosecution. Thus the version of the prosecution is believable and the prosecution establishes the ingredients of the sections 348 and 506 of IPC. The nutshell of the reasons for the said conclusion are.
1. The consistent, cogent and corroborative evidence of Pws.1 to 5 with regard to the offence of wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation and their Un- rebutted version inspires the confidence of the court.
2. The seizure of petrol Tin from the scene of offence.
3. The failure of the accused that their failure to file any proof that they have approached the civil court to resolve the property disputes.
4. Failure of the accused toestablish the presence of the Dw.2 at the time of the incident in the scene of offence. If the presence of the Dw.2 is correct the Pw1 would have lodge the complaint against the Dw.2 but that is absent.
5. The elaborate contents of the cross examination denied by the Pws.1 to 5.
6. The crime details form clearly shows that there is window attached to the scene of offence where there is a chance of peeping into the scene of offence.
7. The failure of the accused to establish that the Pws.4 and 5 are the interested witness to the case of prosecution . As the accused themselves admitted that they are the elders of Padmashali Society and the Pw 4 and 5 stated in their cross examination that they are the neutral persons and not interested either to the Pw 1 and accused.
8. The failure of the accused to furnish any documentary proof that the Pw1 have wrongfully took the properties of the accused.
14 C.C No.327 of 2015
9. The version of the accused doesn’t inspires the confidence of the court and the failure of seizure of bond paper doesn’t hit the root of the case of the prosecution
Therefore with the discussion made above the prosecution successfully establish that the accused wrongfully confined the Pw 1on 9-4-2015 in between 10 am to 2.30 pm and criminally intimidate him on demand of property by threatening to set-fire by pouring petrol, but failed to establish the voluntarily causing hurt to the Pw1. Thus the point answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.
12. Point no.(iii):-
Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 348, 323 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
In view of the discussion made under point No 2 the prosecution successfully establish the guilt of the accused 1 to 6 for the offences under sections 348 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and the prosecution failed to establish ingredients under section 323 of IPC. Thus the point is answered is answered accordingly.
13. Point No.(iv):-To what finding?
In the result, the accused 1 to 6 are found guilty for the offence under Sections 348 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC and they are convicted u/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C and the accused 1 to 6 15 C.C No.327 of 2015 are found not guilty for the offense under section 323 IPC hence the accused 1 to 6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of
Cr.P.C.
I-Addl., Judl., Magistrate of First Class Kalwakurthy.
14. Hearing on the quantum of sentence, the convicted submitted that, they are having children and they are the bread winners of their family and prayed to take a lenient view. The learned APP submitted that the offence which was proved against the convicted is grave in nature any lenient view will give a wrong message to the whole society hence in the interest of justice, as well as in view of the manner of the commission a stringent punishment shall be imposed against the convicted in the interest of justice.
The court has sympathy with the submissions made by the convicted. However, considering the nature of the offence and on considering the manner of the commission of offence, the mitigating circumstances submitted by the accused appears to be less weight, considering the legislative intention and also mitigating circumstances submitted by the convicted, I am of the considered opinion that a moderate view cannot be taken in the present case for imposing punishment on the convicted and the court is not inclined to apply the
Probation of Offenders Act against the convicted as the 16 C.C No.327 of 2015 convicted are above the age of 21 years from the date of incident.
In the result, the accused 1 to 6 are found guilty for the offence under Sections 348 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC and they are convicted u/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C and the accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offense under section 323 IPC hence the accused 1 to 6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of
Cr.P.C.
This court is passing sentence against the convicted 1 to 6 for the offences under Sections 348 IPC and the convicted 1 to 6 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also liable to pay a fine of rupees 1,000/- each (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine the convicted 1 to 6 shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months each and also sentenced to pay a fine of rupees 500/- each ( Rupees five hundred each only) for the offence under section 506 r/w.34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine the convicted 1 to 6 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each .
Total fine is 1000 X 6 = 6000 and 500X 6 = 3000 ( 6000+ 3000 = 9000) the convicted was not under judicial custody at any point of time, hence there is no question of set-off under section 428 (1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period.
The convicted are apprised their right to prefer appeal against the final sentence passed by this court. The 17 C.C No.327 of 2015 convicted reported that they are having means to engage counsel for preferring the appeal.
15. The office is direct to furnish true copy of Judgment to the convicted forthwith.
Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer on my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 12th day of April, 2021.
I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kalwakurthy.
APPINDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW.1 Paladi Murali
PW.2 Lalitha
PW.3 Srinivasulu
PW.4 Nagula Venkatesh
PW.5 Masna Pandu
PW.6 Cheruku Krishna
Pw.7 K.Srinivas Reddy
FOR THE DEFENCE:
Dw.1 P.Shiva Dw.2 Vamshi Krishna
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P2 Crime Details Form
Ex.P3 First Information Report
Ex.P4 Form No.66 18 C.C No.327 of 2015
FOR THE DEFENCE:
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS:- -Nil-
I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalwakurthy.
19 C.C No.327 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT: KALWAKURTHY.
Case No. : C.C No.327 of 2015
Name of the Station : P.S Kalwakurthy
Name of the accused
1.Paladi Madhusudhan S/o Ramulu, Age.58 years, Padmashali, Proprietor of Jagadamba cloth center, Kalwakurthy.
2.Paladi Chandramouli S/o Madhusudhan, Age.33 years, Padmashali, Propprietor of Kalanjali Cloth Center, Kalwakurthy.
3.Paladi Shiva S/o Madhusudhan, Age.29 years, Padmashali, Pvt., Employee.
4.Paladi Srinivasulu @ Sreenu S/o Madhusudhan, Age.31 years, Padmashali, Proprietor of Jagadamba cloth center, Kalwakurthy.
5.Paladi Veena W/o Chandramouli, Age.26 years, Padmashali, Housewife.
6.Paladi Shyamala W/o.Vasudev, Age.28 years, Padmashali, House wife. All are resident of H.No.13-37, J.L.B Road, Kalwakurthy.
1. Date of Occurrence : 09-04-2015
2. Date of Complaint : 09-04-2015
3. Date of Apprehension of : 25-04-2015 Accused/issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice
4. Date of released of accused : 25-04-2015 on bail/compliance of 41-A Cr.P.C notice
5. Commencement of trial : 18-06-2019
6. Closure of trial : 06-04-2022
7. Sentence of Order : 12-04-2022
9. Explanation for delay : Prosecution failed to produce the witnesses, hence delay.
10. Sentence or order : Convicted
I Addl., Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Kalwakurthy.