Date: 17.04.20251SC.No. 258 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025.
Present:- Sri C. Suresh, Assistant Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.
SESSIONS CASE NO.258 OF 2022
(P.R.C No. 12/2012 in Cr.No.195/2011 of PS Gudur on the file of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet)
1.Name and Description of The State of Telangana through the Complainant.Sub Inspector of Police, PS Gudur.
2.Name and Description of A1 Parvatham Shankaraiah, S/o Kistaiah, the accusedAged: 36 years,Occ:Carpenter, R/o Ayodhyapuram village
A2 Parvatham Bhagyamma, W/o.Shankaraiah, Aged: 30 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Ayodhyapuram village
3. Offences with which U/S 308 r/w 34 IPC charged 4Plea of the accusedNot guilty
5.Finding of the JudgeFound guilty
6. Sentence or OrderThe accused are found not guilty for the offence under section 308 R/W 34 IPC. They are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused are found guilty for the offence under section 323 IPC. They are convicted under section 235 (2) R/W 222 Cr.P.C. A fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) is imposed on accused for the offence under section 323 IPC. In default, the accused shall suffer to simple imprisonment for one week. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months as
Date: 17.04.20252SC.No. 258 of 2022
contemplated under section 437 A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.
7.Prosecution conducted by Smt. M. Santhoshi, Sri. Ganesh Anand ,Sri.
K.Muralidhar Rao,
Addl. Public Prosecutors.
8.Defence defended by Sri. K.Sanjay Kumar, Bura Srinivas Goud Advocates
This case is coming on 11-04-2025 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutors for the State and in the presence of , Sri. K.Sanjay Kumar, Bura Srinivas Goud Advocates for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following.
::J U D G M E N T::
1. The accused stand charged for the offences punishable U/S 308, R/W 34 IPC.
The Sub inspector of Police Gudur PS filed final report against the accused U/S 173
Cr.P.C in Cr.No. 195/2011 with following allegations in brief as follows:
2. The LW1 Peddoju Yadagiri Chari is the complainant of this case and also husband of the victim, LW2 Nirmala is victim and both are of Valmidi village of
Palakurthy Mandal, LW3 Kistaiah is the father of LW2 and eye witness, whereas
LW4 to 6 are the circumstantial witnesses. The accused A1 and A2 are the wife and husband both are of Ayodhyapuram village. In view of Dusserah festival LW1 and 2 came to Ayodhyapuram village which is parents place of LW2 to celebrate the festival and having completed the festival the LW2 decided to go to her village as such LW3 and others have asked her to go later because that day was Sunday and as such LW3 remained there. On which the accused A1 and A2 have questioned the LW1 that how
Date: 17.04.20253SC.No. 258 of 2022
many days she will stay at their house and on 09-10-2011 afternoon they picked up quarrel with the LW2 caught her tuft and beat her indiscriminately not intention to kill and among them A1 got lifted the LW2 and thrown her, due to which her both legs and hand are not working and also she is unable to speak, the same is witnessed by LW3. Immediately the victim LW2 has been shifted to Rohini Hospital and got her admitted. Hence the charge sheet.
3. After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/s 308 R/W 34 IPC against the accused and the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of
Sessions, Warangal U/s 209 Cr.P.C. In turn, the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Warangal
made over the Case to this Court for disposal according to law. As per orders of
Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal in Dis.no.3087
Dt.28.04.2017 this case is transferred to III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC).
4. On appearance of accused, heard both sides, charge is framed against the accused for the offences U/s 308 R/W 34 IPC and read over contents and explained to them, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At this stage, as per orders of Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda in dis.no.3055 Dt.04.06.2022 this case is transferred to Hon’ble Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad and Hon’ble Principal District Sessions Judge,
Mahabubabad transferred this case to this Court for trial.
Date: 17.04.20254SC.No. 258 of 2022
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined
PW 1 to 7 and Ex.P1 to P6 are marked.
6. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for explaining incriminating material which was available against the accused, for which the accused denied the offence. The Accused reported no evidence on their behalf.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.
8. Now the Point for determination is: whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/s 308 R/W 34 IPC?
Point:
9. It is case of prosecution that on 09-10-2011 at 1.00 p.m. both the accused caught hold tuft of PW2 and beat her and the A1 lifted her and thrown on the ground without intention to kill them. Charge is framed against the accused for the offence under section 308 R/w34 IPC.
10. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove that the accused with intention or knowledge of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder attacked PW2.
Date: 17.04.20255SC.No. 258 of 2022
11. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses as
PW1 to PW7 out of 10 witnesses whose names are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. On filing of death certificate of PW2copy of LW3 Parvatham Kistaiah his evidence is closed. On filing of report by police through learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that LW9/Dr.A.V.Mohan Reddy who issued medical certificate of PW2 is unable to attend the Court as he is suffering with Parkinson’s disease his evidence is closed. On filing of report by Police along with report of panchayath secretary,
Ayodhyapuram that no such person is in the village, the evidence of LW6/Ravinder who is circumstantial witness is closed.
12. PW1/Peddoju Yadagiri Chari deposed that in 2011 his father was died and
LW3/Kistaiah who is his father-in-law invited them to his house as per custom during that year Dussera festival and himself, his wife, his children went to his in-laws house at Ayodhyapuram and on 09-10-2011 at 9.00 a.m. they planned to return from
Ayodhyapuram, but his father-in-law advised them to return on the next day and at that time the A2 started abusing his wife by stating that how many days they stay there and dispute started between A2 and PW2 and A2 started character assassination of PW2 and he tried to convince A2 and PW2 not to dispute and dispute continued till 1.00 pm. and he left home before 1.00 pm. and when he reached the road he heard noise and returned house of LW3/Kistaiah and noticed PW2 fell unconsciousness and he called 108 ambulance and shifted PW2 to Doctor Laxminarayana Hospital, Gudur who provided oxygen and advised to shift her to other hospital and she was shifted to
Date: 17.04.20256SC.No. 258 of 2022
Rohini hospital, Warangal and she got treated as in-patient for 5 days. He further deposed that the neighbours informed that the accused attempted to kill his wife and they caught hold tuft of PW2 and made her to fell down on the ground and they beat her.
13. PW2/Peddoju Nirmala who is the injured deposed that on 09-10-2011 while she was present at her parental home on the eve of Bathukamma festival and on that day they planned to return but at the request of her father they postponed to the next day and on 09-10-2011 at about 10.00 a.m. A2 started disputing with her by stating that how many days they stay there and the accused were separately residing from her parents in the same house and both the accused beat her and made her to fell down on the ground and kicked her and caught hold her tuft with hands and beat her on her back by bending her with intention to kill her and the reason of accused beat her is that they asked the accused to look after the welfare of her parents as A1 is only son of her parents. She further deposed that she sustained paralysis stroke to her hands and legs and she fell unconscious and she went into “Coma” and she regained her consciousness after 4 days of incident and she got treated as in-patient for 7 days.
14. PW3, PW4/who are mediators for drafting of Crime details form turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that no crime details form is prepared in their presence. PW5 Narayana who is circumstantial witness turned hostile to the case of
Date: 17.04.20257SC.No. 258 of 2022
prosecution and deposed that he does not know any thing about this case and no incident was occurred in his presence.
15. PW6/Parvatham Brahmachary deposed that at about 13 years ago on one day the
PW2 visited her parents house on the eve of Dussera and when the PW2, her husband and her son wanted to return their home, her father asked them to stay there for one more day and on the next day a dispute arose between PW2 and A2 and on that both the accused assaulted PW2 by caught holding her tuft and dragged her into house and due to which the tongue of PW2 came out and she suffered paralysis and thereafter
PW2 was shifted to hospital. He further deposed that the dispute arose between PW2 and A2 with regard to a small galata occurred between children in the house.
16. PW7/the Investigation Officer deposed that on 10-10-2011 at 8.00 a.m. PW1 lodged a report and basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.195/2011 under section 308 r/w 34 IPC and during his investigation he examined and recorded statement of PW1 and he visited scene of offence where he examined and recorded statements of PW2, 5 and 6, LW3/Kistaiah, and LW6/Ravinder and he prepared a crime details form along with rough sketch of scene of offence in presence of PW3 and PW4 and on 15-10-2011 he arrested A1 and produced him before Hon’ble Court and A2 surrendered before Court and is enlarged on bail and after completion of investigation and after collection of wound certificate of PW2 he filed charge sheet.
Date: 17.04.20258SC.No. 258 of 2022
17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that oral evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with documentary evidence clearly shows that the accused committed the offence and therefore, prays this Court to punish the accused according to law. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused submits that the accused did not commit any offence and due to family dispute and the keeping in the mind that PW2 thought that the accused were not looking after welfare of parents of
PW2 this false case is foisted and the PW2 sustained injury when she fell down from a chair. He further submits that there is no eye witness supported the case of prosecution and PW1 is not eye witness to the alleged incident and there is a delay in lodging report. He further deposed that even though the PW6 supported the case of prosecution he is not an eye witness to the alleged incident and due to previous disputes between his family and family of accused he supported the case of prosecution. There are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and no weapon is used by accused in this case and the accused have no intention to kill PW2 and the injuries said to have been caused to PW2 are not tallied with Ex.P2. Hence, he prays this court to acquit the accused.
18. On perusal of evidence let in by prosecution, it transpires that the PW1 the informant, PW2 the injured supported the case of prosecution. PW6 also supported the case of prosecution. In cross-examination the PW6 deposed that “It is true we have no talking terms with the family of accused for the past 10 to 15 years”. He further deposed that the father of A1 is his brother and he did not attend the last rites
Date: 17.04.20259SC.No. 258 of 2022
of his brother Kistaiah. He further deposed that PW2 is a tailor and she can move
around. He further deposed in his chief examination that the dispute arose
between accused No.2 and PW2 with regard to a small galata occurred between
children in the house. He also deposed that on the next day LW3 asked the
PW1,2 to stay one more day the incident was occurred.PW1 in his cross- examination deposed that “prior to alleged offence A1 was not present at the scene of offence”. He further deposed that on the date of alleged offence LW3/Kistaiah, and the accused cooked food separately and celebrated festival separately and after marriage the accused are living separately from the LW3/Kistaiah. He further admitted that “ it is true I did not mention in my report nor stated in my 161
Cr.P.C. statement that A2 started abusing my wife in the name of my children
and the dispute continued from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. It is true I did not mention that A2 made character assassination of my wife”.
19. PW2 the injured in her cross-examination deposed that “It is true there are
plastic chairs in the house of my parents. It is true one Kusuma Gopamma,
Molagani Ramaswamy and one Bathula Ilaiah are neighbours of her parents.
She denied the suggestion that she sustained injury when she fell down from the chair but the accused did not commit any offence and by thinking that the accused are nor looking after welfare of her parents this false case is foisted.
Date: 17.04.202510SC.No. 258 of 2022
20. On perusal of Ex.P4 FIR it shows that alleged offence was occurred on 09-10- 2011 at 1.00 p.m. and the Ex.P1 was lodged on 10-10-2011 at 8.00 p.m. with delay of about 30 hours. The reason for delay mentioned in the Ex.P4 that “undergoing treatment”. Admittedly there is a correction at the place of alleged time of offence.
PW7 the Investigation officer admitted that there is delay of 30 hours in lodging report and the distance between police station and scene of offence is about 4 kilometers and the scene of offence is nearby hospital and there is a government hospital at Gudur. He admitted that there is an over writing at date column in page no.2 of Crime Details Form and there is a medical facility at Gudur hospital for 24 hours. It is settled law that delay of 30hrs in lodging report is not total to case of prosecution as PW2 deposed that she was admitted in hospital.
21. As per evidence of PW2 the injured she sustained paralysis to her hands and legs.
Ex.P6 medical certificate shows that the PW2 sustained simple injury on LS Spine and caused with blunt injury. The prosecution did not examine the Doctor who treated the injured as police filed a report along with medical certificate which shows that “Mr.A.V.Mohan Reddy, has been diagnosed with CVA and PARKINSON’S disease, now complaining of generalized weakness and tremors and he is unable to attend the
Court”.
22. It is contention of learned counsel for accused that the PW2 did not sustain injuries as deposed by her as she is working as tailor and when she is suffering with
Date: 17.04.202511SC.No. 258 of 2022
Paralysis stroke as deposed by her is correct she cannot work as a tailor. The PW2 deposed before this court that she is doing “Tailoring Work”. PW6 also deposed that the PW2 is tailor. There is no record to show that the PW2 got treated as in-patient for 7 days and she regained consciousness after 4 days. PW1 deposed that PW2 got treated as in patient for 7days Ex.P6 Medical certificate along with requisition shows that size of injury is bluntly LSSPine, in weapon column it is mentioned as blunt and it is simple injury. Ex.P6 does not contain the date of examination of PW2 and identify marks of PW2. Admittedly the Doctor who issued Ex.P6 is not examined by prosecution. In view of the above the contention of learned counsel for accused that the prosecution has failed to prove that the PW2 is suffering with paralysis stroke to her legs and hands has considerable force. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 308 IPC. The PW1 deposed that the accused assaulted the PW2 with their hands. The
PW2 deposed that the accused beat her by making her to fell down on the ground and kicked her and caught hold her tuft with hands and beat her on her back with intention to kill her. Admittedly no weapon is used by accused in commission of this offence. There is no record to show that the accused have pre-plan to attack PW2.
23. Section 319 IPC reads as follows:
Hurt:- Whoever caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Date: 17.04.202512SC.No. 258 of 2022
24. Section 323 IPC reads as follows: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
25. Section 222 Cr.P.C reads as follows:
222. When offence proved included in offence charged.
(1)When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
(3)When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
(4)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
26. In this case also the allegation against the accused is that the accused with no intention to kill the PW2 beat her and due to which she sustained injuries and got treated for 7 days as in-patient and after 4 days of incident she regained her consciousness. PW1 deposed that PW2 got treated as in patient for 5 days. But there is no record to show that she got treated 7 days and she lost her consciousness for 4
Date: 17.04.202513SC.No. 258 of 2022
days. On evaluation of the entire evidence and documents on record, in our considered view, the accused are clearly guilty of the offence under Sections 323 IPC.
But not of the offence U/s 308 r/w 34IPC. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be subserved by convicting the accused under Section323
IPC.
27. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case this court holds that the accused are found not guilty for the offence under section 308 r/w 34
IPC. But the accused are found guilty for the offence under section 323 IPC. The point is answered accordingly.
28. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under section 308
R/W 34 IPC. They are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused are found guilty for the offence under section 323 IPC. They are convicted under section 235 (2) R/W 222 Cr.P.C.
29. On questioning the quantum of the sentence, the accused pleaded mercy by stating that they are suffering with diabetic problems, considering the nature and gravity of the offence this Court is of opinion that the accused are not entitled for benefit under section 360 Cr.P.C. or under provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.
But considering the fact and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the A1 is brother of PW2 the injured and the A2 is wife of A1 and the accused did not
Date: 17.04.202514SC.No. 258 of 2022
use any weapon in this case, this Court holds that imposing fine would meet the ends of justice.
SC 258 of 2022
30. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court In MAN SINGH & ORS. Versus STATE N.C.T
OF DELHI in CRL.A.No.844/2002 and in SURENDER & ORS. Versus STATE
N.C.T. OF DELHI in CRL.A. No.872/2002 dated 22-02-2016 it was observed that:
60. Now, the facts of the instant case have to be considered in the aforementioned legal guidelines. Admittedly, there was no pre-meditation and no planning to commit this offence, the injuries though opined to be grievous on the person of the three injured named above but caused by blunt object and the doctor, in the present case, has not stated that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. The occurrence took place on the spur of the moment and all these facts gave rise to only one inference that there was no intention or knowledge of the appellants to cause death or to cause such injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 325 IPC and not under Section 308 IPC. The learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect correctly.
31. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in State vs Kamlesh Bahadur CRL.L.P. 515/2019 on 12 September, 2023 it was observed in para no.11 that:
11. In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely because an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to commit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this
Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was required to
Date: 17.04.202515SC.No. 258 of 2022
prove that the injury was caused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of
Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and another V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015, this Court altered the conviction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowledge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. ........ In this case, no previous enmity or dispute between the appellants and the complainant could be proved. There was no premeditation. The quarrel had taken place on a trivial issue.
The nature of injuries suffered by the complainant was opined to be simple caused by blunt object. Apparently, the injuries were not caused with the avowed object or knowledge to cause his death.
In para no.13 it was observed that: After considering all facts as mentioned here in above, the prosecution/petitioner/State is able to prove the case against the respondent for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC. Accordingly, the respondent is convicted for the offences punishable under section 323 IPC.
32. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offence under section 308
R/W 34 IPC. They are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused are found guilty for the offence under section 323 IPC. They are convicted under section 235
Date: 17.04.202516SC.No. 258 of 2022
(2) R/W 222 Cr.P.C. A fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) is imposed on accused for the offence under section 323 IPC. In default, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one week. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated under section 437 A Cr.P.C. There is no property as to order.
(Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the17th day of April, 2025. )
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(WITNESSES EXAMINED)
FOR Prosecution :
PW1/LW1: Peddoju Yadagiri Chari
PW2/LW2: Peddoju Nirmala
PW3/LW3: bheemagani Yadagiri
PW4/LW8: Mogalagani Bixapathi
PW5/LW4: Bommagani Narayana
PW6/LW5: Parvatham Brahmachary
PW7/LW10: B.Balaji
FOR Defence: - -Nil-
Date: 17.04.202517SC.No. 258 of 2022
EXHIBITS MARKED::
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report Dt: 10.10.2011. Ex.P2: Signature of PW4 on Crime Details From Ex.P3: Statement of PW5 recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.P4: Original FIR.No.195/2011 of PS.Gudur. Ex.P5: Crime Details Form along with rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6: Wound Certificate of PW2.
For Defense: -NIL-
Material Objects Marked
For Prosecution: -NIL-
For Defense: -NIL-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.