1 C.C.No.10 of 2013
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
PULIVENDULA
Present:- Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Dated: Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018
C.C.No. 10 of 2013
State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Simhadripuram Police Station. ….Complainant
Vs.
1. Nallaramannagari Maheswari W/o Late Chennakesawa Reddy, aged about 30 years,
2. Nallaramannagari Nageswari W/o Suryanarayana Reddy , aged about 35 years,
3. Nallaramannagari Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o Chinna Chenna Reddy, aged about 42 years,
4. Vennapusa Vijayakumar REddy@Umamaheswara Reddy S/o Jayarami Reddy, aged about 28 years,
A1 to A3 are R/o Bidinamcherla Village, A4 is native of Chennapalli Village, Kondapuram Mandal, now at Bidinamcherala Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, Kadapa District.
….Accused No.1 to 4
This case coming on 23.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
Complainant and of Sri. V.Thulasiram and A.Prathap Reddy
Advocates for Accused No.1 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Simhadripuram police station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.80/2012 for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that L.W.1/Yammanuru
Shobarani, aged about 38 years, W/o late Madhusudhan Reddy, is
Resident of Bidhinamcherala Village, simhadripuram Mandal, she is a widow and residing in the house of L.W.s2 and 4. there is a cattle shed 2 C.C.No.10 of 2013 situated in front of her house. L.W.1 using the said cattle shed. On 19.12.2012 at about 4.00 PM while L.W.1 driven her buffaloes in the said cattle shed, mean time A1 and A2 and A4 noted in the margin came there with a tractor having load of sticks and place sticks on the buffaloes and manure of L.w.1 and on seeing the same L.W.1 raised objection and questioned about their high handed activity. For that there was some wordy altercation took place between them. Keeping the same in mind on 20.12.2012 at about 5.00 AM, while L.W.1 was cleaning garbage in front of her house, Meantime A1 to A4 noted in the margin came there and made altercation with L.W.1. A1 and A2 caught hold the hands of L.W.1 dragged her, A4 beat L.W.1 with a stick over her head and caused bleeding injury. Then A3 bet L.W.1 with a stick and caused swelling injury over right elbow. Then all the accused beat
L.W.1 with hands and legs indiscriminately. When L.W.2 intervened, A1 and A2 beat her with sticks, hands and legs and caused swelling injury over her left knee and bleeding injury over her back side ear.
Meantime L.w.4 came and informed the same to L.W.3 over phone.
L.W.3 came to scene of offence with a jeep of L.W.8 and while shifting
L.W.1 into the said jeep, all the accused caught hold of his shirt and assaulted with hands and legs. Then L.W.3 shifted L.W.1 to the
Government hospital, Pulivendula and admitted for treatment. Where
L.W.1 gave her oral statement about occurrence before L.W.11. L.W.2 went to police station, she was forwarded to Government Hospital, pulivendula for treatment by L.w.12.
L.W.11 who received hospital intimation and visited
Government hospital, Pulivendula and recorded the statement of L.W.1 and forwarded the same to L.W.12 on the point of jurisdiction.
3 C.C.No.10 of 2013
L.W.12/A.Suresh Reddy S.I of Police Simhadripuram P.S registered a case in Cr.No.80/2012 U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC based on the hospital intimation and statement and investigated into. During the course of investigation L.W.12 inspected the scene of offence seized blood stained jacket (blouse) of L.W.1. on 20.12.2012 at 2.30 PM under a cover of police proceedings seized two sticks at the scene of offence and examined the L.Ws 1 to 8 and prepared rough sketch.
L.W.9/Dr.P.Rabbani CAS government hospital, Pulivendula who examined injuries on L.W.1 and issued wound certificate, has opined that the injuries on L.W.1 is simple in nature.
L.W.10/Dr.Sagara Kumari CAS Government Hospital, Pulivendula who examined injuries on L.W.2 issued wound certificate, has opined that the injuries on L.W.2 simple in nature. On 26.12.2012, L.W.12 arrested the accused A1 to A4 at Gurijala Bus stop, Gurijala Village, and sent them for remand. Hence the charge.
3. The case was taken by one of my predecessors on file for the offence U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused No.1 to 4.
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations levelled against them by explaining them the contents of Charge Sheet in Telugu, for which they denied the same. Charges U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of
I.P.C. were framed against the accused No.1 to 4 and explained in
Telugu and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.11. Material objects No.1 and 2 are marked. Inspite of several adjournments L.W.11 4 C.C.No.10 of 2013 did not appear before this Court, hence the evidence of L.W.11 is closed by the Court.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against them by the prosecution witness and they denied the same. They did not adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.
07. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.
08. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/sec.
324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.” ?
POINT:-
09. To prove its contention the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. P.W.1/Y.Shobarani who is the complainant and injured in this case has deposed that All the accused are residing in the same vicinity. She is residing in her parental home in Bindincharla since 14 years. On 19.12.2012 at about 4.00 pm, while she was present near her home, in front of their house there is cattle shed. By that time she was sending her cattle into the shed, in cattle shed there was manure. Then all the accused A.1 to A4 came there along with wooden logs in a tractor and they were putting the logs on the manure. She instructed A1 to A4 after removing that manure A1 to
A4 can unload the wooden logs. Then all the accused refused to unload and threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter went from that place and also the accused were also left the place. On the next day that is 20.12.2012 at about 5.00 am, while she was cleaning 5 C.C.No.10 of 2013 in front of her house, all the accused No.1 to 4 came there meantime
A1 and A2 caught hold her hands and dragged her to some distance.
And also A1 and A2 bet with sticks all over her body. Thereafter A4 armed with stick came there and bet her on her head and she got bleeding injury. And also A3 came there with stick and bet her on right arm and she got swelling injury. Meantime L.w.2 came there to rescue her. A1 and A2 bet L.W.2 also with sticks. By that time L.W.4 who is coming from fields by seeing them came there to rescue her, then A.1 to A4 fled away from that place. Thereafter L.W.4 telephoned to L.w.3 who is brother of P.W.1 informed about the incident. After some time
L.W.3 came to Bidincharla in a jeep, all the accused No.1 to 4 are gathered and restrained L.W.3 by surrounding him dragged him by holding shirt and bet him with hands and legs. Thereafter they went to
Pulivendula Government Hospital for treatment. Police recorded her statement on her dictation and after read over the contents she signed on the statement. At the time of incident one of the accused snatched her gold chain and took her gold chain. Ex.P1 is her signature on the statement on 20.12.2012 at about 7.40 am to 8.20 am. Police examined her and recorded statement.
10. P.W.2/Venkatamma who is the mother of the injured/Complainant and she is also one of the injured in this case has deposed that P.W.1 her daughter is living along with her since 14 years. On 19.12.2012 at about 4.00 PM while she is at her house the accused brought wooden logs in a tractor and A1 to A4 are intended to unload the logs on manure in the cattle shed. Herself and P.W.1 restrained A1 to A4 and advised after removing of manure the wooden logs may be unload. The accused No.1 to 4 refused the same and 6 C.C.No.10 of 2013 threatened them. On 20.12.2012 at about 5.00 am, while she was present at her house, P.W.1 was cleaning out side of their house, all the accused No.1 to 4 came there, A1 and A2 caught hold of the hands of P.W.1 and dragged P.W.1 to some distance. Then A.4 bet P.W.1 with a stick on her head resulting which P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on her head. A3 also bet P.W.1 with a stick on P.W.1 right hand fore arm,
P.W.1 sustained swelling injury. Then she intervened, A1 and A2 bet her with a stick on her right side of her head, above right ear. she sustained bleeding injuries. Meantime her husband L.W.4 came there from the fields and upon seeing him the accused No.1 to 4 fled away from that place. Thereafter L.W.4 telephoned to her son/L.W.3 and informed the incident. Immediately L.W.3 came from Simhadripuram, while they shifting to P.W.1 to the hospital all the accused No.1 to 4 surrounded them and restrained them and caught hold the shirt of
L.W.3 bet him with hands. Thereafter all accused No.1 to 4 are went away from that place. Then they shifted P.W.1 Pulivendula Government
Hospital for treatment. Police examined her and recorded statement in
Pulivendla Government Hospital.
11. P.W.3/Somasekhar Reddy has deposed On 20.12.2012 at about 6.00 am while he present in Simhadripuram,L.W.4 telephoned him and informed that the accused bet P.W.1 requested him to come to
Bidenamcherla for shifting P.W.1 to hospital for treatment. Immediately he went to Bidenamcharla village by a jeep and noticed that his sister
P.W.1 got injuries on her. L.W.4 informed that on 19.12.2012 an altercation took place between accused No.1 to 4 and P.W.1, then on 20.12.2012 accused No.1 to 4 bet P.W.1. While they started t o hospital, the accused No.1 to 4 were surrounded him and 7 C.C.No.10 of 2013 obstructed him and caught hold of his shirt dragged from the jeep and also bet him. After that they went to Government Hospital Pulivendual.
He was examined by the police in the Government Hospital. From the
Government Hospital Pulivendual P.W.1 shifted to RIMS hospital Kadapa for better treatment.
12. P.W.4/Samba Siva Reddy who is the father of the complainant has deposed that On 19.12.2012 at about 3.00 pm he went to his fields, and he came back at about 7.00 P.M to his house.
P.W.1 informed him that A1 to A4 picked up quarrel with P.W.1 on issue of cattle shed, then he advised P.W.1 do not quarrel with anybody and pacified the matter for that time. On the same day at 8.00 PM after having dinner, he again went to his fields and came back at about 6.00
AM on 20.12.2012. He noticed that P.W.1 fell down infront of his house with bleeding injuries. Immediately he take P.W.1 into their house, and telephoned to P.W.3 and informed the matter and requested P.W.3 to come. After 20 minutes P.W.3 came there by jeep, while P.W.3 trying to shifted the injured to Government Hospital, the A1 to A4 came there caught hold of shirt of P.W.3 and bet P.W.3 with hands and legs, mean while he intervened A1 to A4 pushed him away. Then they shifted injured to Government Hospital pulivendula for treatment. Thereafter he enquired the incident with P.W.1, she stated that A3 and A4 bet
P.W.1 with a stick, A1 and A2 bet P.W.1 with their hands and legs. All are bet P.W.1 with sticks then instantly P.W.1 fell down.
13.P.W.5/KeshavaReddy,P.W.6/RajasekharReddy,
P.W.7/V.Venkata Ramudu, P.W.8/Krishna Reddy have categorically deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case.
Police never examined them and recorded their statements.
8 C.C.No.10 of 2013
14. P.W.9/Dr.Sagara Kumari has deposed that on 20.12.2012 at about 1.10 PM she examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries:
1. A lacerated wound of Skin Deep present on the left side of oxipital region of 2X1 cm
2. Pain and tenderness present over left knee joint.
She opined that above injuries are simple in nature and she issued wound certificate under Ex.P6 is belongs to P.W.2. The wound certificate shown to her of P.W.1 was issued by one doctor Rabbani.
The signature shown to her on the wound certificate of P.W.1 belongs to the said Rabbani i.e., L.W.9. they worked together as colleagues in
Pulivendula Government hospital, so she is having acquaintance with the signature of the said Rabbani i.e., L.W.9. Presently he is not working in Pulivendula and she has no idea where he is. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate is belongs to P.W.1 issued by L.W.9/Rabbani.
15. P.W.10/Dr.Shaik Rabbani has deposed that on 20.12.2012 at about 7.30 AM he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries.
1. Swelling over Right hand
2. Cut over center of head of size 7x1 cm.. After that the The patient was referred to radiology department and X- ray was taken and as per X-Ray the radiologist opined that there is no fracture injury. Accordingly he issued wound certificate under Ex.P7 which is already marked through PW9.
16. The investigating officer by name Suresh Reddy, who examined as P.W.11 has deposed that he received a statement of P.W.1 recorded by L.W.11. Basing on the state of P.W.1 heregistered Ex.P1 report of P.W.1 as Ex.P8/FIR, went to the government hospital there 9 C.C.No.10 of 2013
P.W.1 produced her blouse under police proceedings, Ex.P9 is the police proceedings. Then he went to the scene of offence of Bidincharla and inspected and seized two sticks, Ex.P10 is the police proceedings.
During the course of investigation P.W.11 seized the M.O.1 is the blouse of P.W.1/injured at Government hospital, Pulivendula and M.O.2 is the two sticks seized at the scene of offence.
17.As seen from the evidence and other material on record, the motive for this alleged offence is dispute with regard to cattle shed.
The counsel for accused also put questions in their cross-examination to the witnesses that to elicit there is ill feelings between the complainant and accused. But the counsel for accused did not try to disprove the relevant facts of this case.
18. The defence counsel further argued that the P.W.5 to 8 who is the alleged eye witness to the occurrence of incident did not depose anything and turned hostile and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.
Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act is an answer to the argument of defence counsel. According to section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact. If, sole evidence is found reliable and trustworthy, it can be relied and conviction can be passed . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P., in
Rajulapadu Rambabu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2011 (1)
ALD (Crl.) 523 (AP), their Lordships observed that “the testimony of single witness if found to be entire reliable and trust worthy, then it requires no support from other evidence”.
But here one has to observe that P.W.8/A.Krishna Reddy who is the driver to a vehicle of P.W3 /Soma Sekhar Reddy turned hostile to the 10 C.C.No.10 of 2013 case of prosecution. The learned APP cross examined him with the permission of the court, and elicited that on the date of incident while they were shifting P.W.1 to Government Hospital some persons gathered there and one of the person caught hold of shirt of P.W.3 and dragged him from the jeep. But he denied the suggestion he do know how P.W.1 got injuries. Hence it can be considered here that P.W.8 who turned hostile to the case of prosecution supported the version of P.W.1 to 4 to some extent.
19.The cross-examination of Investigating Officer as well as the other witnesses was with respect to the civil dispute and other facts, but the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 were not with respect to relevant facts as to whether the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to P.Ws.1 & 2. The cross-examination of witnesses in this case did not yield anything in favour of the defence.
20.The counsel for accused contentions are that the alleged sticks used in this case are total four (4) but investigating officer seized only two(2) sticks. And further contended that in EX.P1/complaint P.W.1 did not stated that her mother came there and rescued her, but in her chief examination she deposed contra statement. Further contention is that in Ex.P1/Complaint there is no mention of theft of P.W.1 Gold chain at the time of incident, but P.W.1 stated in her chief-examination that at the time of incident one of accused the took her gold chain.
Therefore counsel for accused stated that there are material improvements in the evidence of prosecution. Here, the counsel for accused argued that there injuries sustained by P.W.2 not supported by medical evidence. On perusal of evidence of P.W.2 this court observed that she stated A1 and A2 bet her with a stick on her right side of her head above 11 C.C.No.10 of 2013 right ear. P.W.9 who rendered treatment to P.W.2 opined that “A lacerated wound of skin deep present on the left side of the oxipital region of 2*1 cm”.
For this, the learned APP relied on a decision in Abdul AZAD vs State of UP 2017 0 Supreme (All) 729 wherein it was held in para No.32 while referring a case in Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 5 SCC 777, it has been held that “C.Criminal Trial-Appreciation of
Evidence – contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments –
Duty of Courts – Reiterated – Held, it is duty of court to unravel the truth under all circumstances – undue importance not to be given to minor discrepancies which do not shake basic version of prosecution case – Entire evidence must be evaluated by excluding exaggerated version as witnesses keep adding embellishments to their testimony – if a witness is otherwise trustworthy, then his evidence should not be disbelieved – if major portion is found to be deficient and residue is sufficient to establish guilt of accused, then courts must separate grain from chaff – It has to be appraised in each case as to what extent evidence is admissible – If courts consider some portion of evidence as insufficient or unworthy, it does not mean as a matter of law that entire evidence must be disregarded in all respects.
21. Here we have to observe the For appreciation of oral evidence, the aspects generally be kept in mind by a Judge are relevancy of facts, admissibility of the evidence, competency of the witness and credibility of the witness and the evidence deposed by him is ring of truth or requires scrutiny from nature of witness like interested witness, partisan witness, inimical witness, official witness, evidence as to opinion, probability factor, consistency theory, demeanor of witness & then to consider the test of corroboration, unless the sole ocular testimony is ring of truth. It is the settled proposition of law that, the court will not only examine the oral testimony but also the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to decide credibility of a witness and as to from the evidence as to any fact is proved or not. It is because evidence is to be judged 12 C.C.No.10 of 2013 by test of human probabilities vide decisions reported in AIR 1970 SC 1286; AIR 1971 SC 2439 and AIR 1965 SC 354.
22. Further the counsel for accused argued that P.W.1 to 4 are relatives to each other, hence their evidence can not reliable.T he defence counsel argued that P.W.1 and 2 are being daughter and
Mother and they are interested witnesses and their evidence can not be considered. Law does not prohibit to place reliance upon the evidence of closely related persons, rather the requirement is that evidence of such persons must be scrutinized with caution and care. In this case there is no need to see the evidence of P.W.2 who is the mother of P.W1 with caution. Because she is also one of the injured in this case. For this argument, this court relying on a decision in (2008) 16 SCC 73 State of Uttar Pradesh V. Kishanpal & ors At Para
No.18 held that “There is no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the evidence of a witness merely because he/she was related to or interested in the parties to either side. In such cases, if the presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and the evidence tendered by such witness is found in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction of the accused”.
And further in a case our Hon’ble Apex Court State of Rajasthan V.
Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 the following conclusion in para 7 is relevant:
As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a 'highly interested' witness because she 'is the wife of the deceased', and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence.
13 C.C.No.10 of 2013
True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'."
23. In this case also P.W.2 also injured witness. P.W.3 who is the brother of P.W.1, in his evidence he perfectly corroborated the version of P.W.1 and 2. further P.W.4 who is the father of P.W.1 and husband of
P.W.2 though he was not eye witness to the incident but his evidence can be considered and relevant U/s 6 of Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such evidence has to be relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or self-inflicted just to create evidence against the other party. There is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence. Here the presence of P.W.2 cannot be doubted who had received injuries in the hands of accused. In this court opinion the testimony of P.W.1 and 2 was consistent on material points that there were no material improvements or material contradictions which could shake the veracity of their version.
24. Upon perusal of above contentions this court observation is that the contention raised by learned accused counsel is not tenable.
Because they can be considered as minor contradictions and variations. On this aspect, this court also is following the observations of their Lordships, which was reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 303 (SC) in between Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajastan that : “Minor variations are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses when their statements are recorded after considerable lapse from the date of occurrence. This court can also not 14 C.C.No.10 of 2013 ignore the fact that these witnesses are not very educated persons and the truthfulness of the witnesses is also to be demonstrated from the facts.”
25.Ex.P7 is the wound certificate of P.W.1 issued by P.W.9 and
Ex.P6 is the wound certificate of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.9 and
P.W.10/doctors who gave treatment to P.W1 and 2 in conjunction with wound certificates gives a connotation that the some injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 & 2 .
26. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is supported by the medical evidence and the prosecution has established that the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 & 2 in the hands of A1 to A4. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 with that of the medical evidence. Hence, the evidence of injured witnesses as well as the evidence of P.W. 3 and 4 can be taken into consideration and it can safely be concluded that P.Ws.1 & 2 sustained injuries in the hands of
A1 to A4.
27.In the light of the foregoing discussion, this court determines that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 4 with an common intention have voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1 and P.W2 by means of a deadly weapon.
28. In the result, this court find accused No.1 to 4 are guilty for the offence Punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted
U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 and M.O.2 vdie C.P.R.No.21/2013 and 22/2013 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula
15 C.C.No.10 of 2013
29. Accused No.1 to 4 present and questioned them in respect of quantum of sentence and they are submitted thatA1 reported that she has no husband and she has to maintain her two children and she is used to go to coolie works if she imprisoned her family will put great loss. A2 and A3 reported that they are husband and wife, A3 suffering with heart disease and he has to undergo Heart surgery at Bangalore and A2 also suffering with diseases. A4 also reported that he has to maintain his poor family and their family members are dependents on him, And further submitted that he has to looking after his old aged parents. Hence prayed the Court to take lenient view. In view of nature of offence and facts of the case this court feels that they are not entitled for the benefit of Provisions of 3 and 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act. Hence, this court feels that a lenient view can be taken to some extent and imposing fine will meet the ends of justice.
30. Considering the plea made by the accused No.1 to 4 they are sentenced to pay fineof Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand Rupees) each for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC, In default payment of fine, the accused shall suffer Imprisonment for Six months each.
31. The accused No.1 to 4 are Remanded on 26.12.2012 and they are released on same day i.e., on 26.12.2012.
32. The accused No1 to 4 are appraised of their right of appeal and of free Legal Aid. The accused No.1 to 4 are stated that they have means to engage counsel on their behalf to prefer appeal.
Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula
16 C.C.No.10 of 2013
MEMO OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence:Nil
P.W.1: Y.Shobarani
P.W.2: Venkatamma
P.W.3: Somasekhar Reddy
P.W.4: Samba Siva Reddy
P.W.5: Keshava Reddy
P.W.6: Rajasekhar REddy
P.W.7: V.Venkata Ramudu
P.W.8: A.Krishna Reddy
P.W.9: Sagara Kumari
P.W.10: Shaik Rabbani
P.W.11: Suresh Reddy
Exhibits marked for prosecution: For Defence: Nil
Ex.P1: Signature on the statement of P.W.1
Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5
Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6
Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7
Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.8
Ex.P6: Wound Certificate of P.W.2
Ex.P7: Wound Certificate of P.W.1
Ex.P.8: Original FIR in Cr.No.80/2012
Ex.P9: Police proceedings.
Ex.P10: Police Proceedings
Ex.P11: Rough Sketch.
Material Objects Marked:
M.O.1: Blouse M.O.2: Two sticks.
// True Copy //
Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, J.F.C.M
Pulivendula Pulivendula
17 C.C.No.10 of 2013
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula . _____________________________________________ Date of Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment offence Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial ______ 20.12.2012 20.12.2012 26.12.201226.12.201224.07.2017 23.04.2018 26.04.2018
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.10/2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula .
Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Simhadripuram Police Station in Cr.No.80/2012. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence with Father’s name
1. Nallaramannagari Maheswari W/o Late Chennakesawa Reddy, aged about 30 years,
2. Nallaramannagari Nageswari W/o Suryanarayana Reddy , aged about 35 years,
3. Nallaramannagari Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o Chinna Chenna Reddy, aged about 42 years,
4. Vennapusa Vijayakumar R e ddy@Umamaheswara Reddy S/o Jayarami Reddy, aged about 28 years,
A1 to A3 are R/o Bidinamcherla Village, A4 is native of Chennapalli
Village, Kondapuram Mandal, now at bidinamcherala Village,
Simhadripuram Mandal, Kadapa District.
Offence: U/sec. 324, r/w 34 of IPC
Finding: The Accused No.1 to 4 are guilty for the offences U/sec.324, r/w 34 of
IPC.
Sentence: In the result, this court find accused No.1 to 4 are guilty for the offence Punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. the M.O.1 and M.O.2 Vide C.P.R.No.21/2013 and 22/2013 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula
30. Considering the plea made by the accused No.1 to 4 they are sentenced to pay fineof Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand Rupees) each for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC, In default payment of fine, the accused shall suffer Imprisonment for Six months each.
18 C.C.No.10 of 2013
31. The accused No.1 to 4 are Remanded on 26.12.2012 and they are released on same day i.e., on 26.12.2012.
32. The accused No1 to 4 are appraised of their right of appeal and of free Legal Aid. The accused No.1 to 4 are stated that they have means to engage counsel on their behalf to prefer appeal.
Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula
To
The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa. Dis No: Dated:
// True Copy //
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Pulivendula