1
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
CHITTOOR
PRESENT: SRI. Ch. Yugandhar,
IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF
I CLASS, CHITTOOR.
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN
CC No.81 of 2015
Between :-
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli PS. (Crime No.8/2015 of Thavanampalle PS)
..Complainant.
And :-
1. I.Shankar Reddy, age 70 years, S/o I.Gangi Reddy,
2. B.Gananayaka Reddy, aged 51 years, S/o B.Narayana Reddy,
3. B.Jayarama Reddy, aged 55 years, S/o I.Venkata Reddy,
4. A.Doraswamy Reddy, aged 44 years, S/o A.Rama Krishna Reddy,
5. J.Vasudeva Reddy, aged 40 years, S/o J.Subramanyam Reddy,
6. I. Nagamma, age 45 years, W/o I.Jayarama Reddy,
All are occupation : Cultivation, caste by Kapu, All are resident of T.Puttur Village, Thavanampalle Mandal.
.. Accused.
This case coming for final hearing before me on this day i.e., on 26-09- 2016 in the presence of Sri N.Kesavulu Reddy, Advocate for A-1 to A-6 and Sri G.Sujatha, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli PS, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.8 of 2015 of Thavanampalli
PS, alleging for the offences U/Sec., 147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 341, 448, 506 IPC r/w 149 IPC of Thavanampalli PS.
2
2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows :-
On 14.1.2015 at about 9:00 AM A-1 to A-4 brought coconut tree trunks and kanuga trees and put across the house of
Chandra Reddy so as to make hurdle to enter into house. When the said Chandra Reddy questioned about their highhanded acts, the accused 1 to 4 replied arrogantly that they will do in same manner until he (Chandra Reddy) agreed to compromise in civil cases and also threatened with dire consequences. Subsequently when the said Chandra Reddy and his family members i.e., one Gajalakshmi,
Venkateswar Reddy, Kiranmayee and Viswanadha Reddy removing the obstruction at about 11:00 am, A-1 to A-6 formed themselves into unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and attacked by A-2 on said Chandra Reddy with sticks, due to that said Chandra Reddy sustained bleeding injury on his fore head. Later A-1 and A-4 beat the said Chandra Reddy on his head and caused bleeding injury on the back side of head. At the same time A-3 beat said Chandra
Reddy with stick on his left hand and caused blunt injury.
Meanwhile Gajalakshmi, Venkateswar Reddy and Kiranmayee intervened in order to rescue said Chandra Reddy from the clutches of accused. Accordingly the said Chandra Reddy was brought into the house. However A-1, A-2, A-6 trespassed into the house and created violence, when the son of Chandra Reddy by name Venkateswar Reddy intervening to rescue his father, A-5 beat him and caused blunt injury. Thereafter the said Chandra Reddy was brought to the hospital for treatment. As the Chandra Reddy forwarded the report through one Viswanadha Reddy, the same was registered a case in Cr.No.8/2015 U/sec.147, 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and took up the investigation by Asst. Sub-
Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli P.S. who examined the witnesses and scene of offence and seized one sickle under cover of police proceedings, dt.15-1-2015. After completion of investigation the Sub Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli P.S. filed the charge sheet by deleting the names of other persons from the 3 list of accused, as there is no offence made out against them. In the same transaction the accused are also sustained injuries and they also lodge a report in Crime No. 7/2015 and charge sheeted against the injured persons and others herein and the same was taken on file in CC No. 83/2015 these both cases tried together as case and counter case. Hence the charge.
3.This case is taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 341, 448, 506 IPC r/w 149 of IPC against A-1 to
A-6 and numbered as CC No.81 of 2015.
On appearance of A-1 to A-6, they were furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
A-1 to A-6 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr P C. Charge
U/Sec.147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 341, 448, 506 IPC r/w 149 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 documents, besides MO-1.
5.After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-6 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr P C with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; accused denied the evidence, pleaded not guilty and reported no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf, but Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked.
6.Heard the arguments of both sides.
7. Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges
U/Sec.147, 148, 326, 324, 323, 341, 448, 506 IPC r/w 149 of
IPC.?
8.The case of the prosecution is that there are long standing disputes in respect of properties between the families of
A-1 and PW-1. While so, on 14-1-2015 at 9:00 am A-1 to A-3 placed branches of the coconut trees and Kanuga trees infront of the house of PW-1 by causing obstruction for ingress and egress. When 4
PW-1 questioned the accused about their acts, then the accused 1 to 3 proclaimed that unless PW-1 entered into the compromise with regards to the criminal case filed by him against these accused persons they will not spare him. Later at about 11.00 AM, when
PW-1 to 5 are removing the obstructions, all the accused attacked on PW-1 and beat him with stick indiscriminately and caused bleeding injuries despite PW-1 was taken away by his family members into the house, all the accused trespassed into the house and again attacked on PW-1 and other inmates of the house of PW- 1 and create violence. Meanwhile the women folk belongs to the family of accused persons sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of
PW-1. However with great difficulty PW-1 and his family members rescued themselves from the clutches of accused and rushed to the Police Station, Thavanampalli. There the police advised them to go to the hospital, keeping in view of conditions of PW-1. As such they proceeded to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and admitted in hospital. On the same day during evening hours
PW-1 got drafted the report Ex.P-1 through his daughter and the same was handed over to PW-5 and asked him to submit the report
before S.H.O. Thavanampalli P.S. Accordingly PW-5 submitted the
report Ex.P-1 on behalf of PW-1, the same was registered by
Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli in Cr.No.8/2015 for the offence U/sec.147, 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. Later Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.
9.During course of the trial the prosecution examined the witnesses PWs-1 to 8.
10.PW-1 is defacto complainant and injured, deposed that on 14-01-2015 at about 9:00 am the accused 1 to 6 and one
Venugopal Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and one Sasikumar Reddy brought the branches and trunks of the trees in tractor and kept the said branches and trunks and trees infront of their house, so as to obstruct the way to enter into his house. At about 11:00 am himself and his family members tried to clear the obstruction by removing the branches and trunks of the trees. At the time one 5
Kumaraswamy Reddy came to them and thrown chilly powder in to his eyes. Meanwhile A-2 armed with stick and beat him on his head. A-1, A-4 and one Venugopal Reddy beat with sticks on his back side. Due to that he sustained injury on the back side of his head. A-3 Jayarama Reddy attacked on him with a stick in order to kill him by giving a blow on his head, however he defend by putting his left hand across. Due to that the stick blow fell on his hand and he sustained fracture injury at his left wrist. Due to attack made by the accused he sustained bleeding injuries over his entire body. Meanwhile his family members taken him into the house, however the women of the accused family namely
Renukamma, Usharani, Meena, Divya, Prabavathamma and
Nagamma trespassed into his house and beat his wife and him indiscriminately. Later at about 1:30 pm they approached the police Thavanampalli in order to give complaint. But the police advised them to go to the hospital at first. Upon that they reached the hospital by 3:00 pm during the course of the day, while he was undergoing treatment he handed over the complaint to his brother- in-law which was written by his daughter on his instructions and asked him to lodge a report. At about 7:00 pm his brother-in-law
Viswanadha Reddy lodged his report to S.H.O. Thavanampalli under
Ex.P-1.
11.PW-2 who is wife of PW-1 deposed that on 14-1-2015 which is happen to be Bogi festival at about 9:00 am one
Venugopal Reddy, A-1, A-2, A4 one Sasidhar Reddy and one
Kumara Swamy Reddy brought trunks of the coconut tree and other branches of the trees through the tractor of A-2 and kept infront of the door of their house so as to obstruct path way. When her husband PW-1 questioned A-1 about their high handedness acts, the accused replied that they threatened with dire consequences, if they not compromised in a criminal case filed against the accused. Later at about 11:00 am when herself, PW-1 and her children and her brother removing those obstructions, all the accused along with wife of Sankar Reddy, Renukamma and his 6 daughters Usharani, Meenakumari, one Venugopal Reddy and his daughter Divya, wife of A-2 Prabhavathamma, one Someswar
Reddy son of A-5 are attacked on them by sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of her husband PW-1. Mean while A-2 beat with stick on the head of PW-1, at the same time A-1, A-4 and one Venugopal
Reddy beat with stick on PW-1 indiscriminately. When the Jayarami
Reddy tried to attack with stick on the head of her husband PW-1, he tried to defend by putting his left hand across then the blow of the stick made on the left hand and caused fracture injury.
12.She further deposed that when they took her husband into the house and got washed his eyes, then the wife and children of A-1 and other women folk entered into their house and beat her with hands. While her son tried to intervene in order to rescue her one Kumaraswamy Reddy and A-5 beat him indiscriminately. Then herself, Venkateswar Reddy ran away from the spot to the Police
Station. Later they went to the Police Station, on seeing the condition of her husband PW-1 the police asked them to took him to the hospital at first. Immediately they shifted PW-1 to the hospital. Herself and PW-1 admitted in Government Head Quarters
Hospital, Chittoor. PW-1 got drafted the report through their elder daughter and the same was submitted to the police through her brother Viswanadha Reddy.
13.PW-3 who is daughter of PW-1 deposed that on 14-1- 2015 at about 9:00 am A-1, A-2, A-4 Venugopal Reddy, I.Jayarama
Reddy,I.RamachandraReddy,B.SasiKumarReddy,
N.Kumaraswamy Reddy came in a tractor of A-2 by carrying trunks of the trees and branches of the coconut trees and placed before their house. Upon that when her father questioned them they asked her father compelled to enter into the compromise in relation to the criminal and civil cases and they have also threatened that they will kill her father. When herself, her father, her mother, her brother and her maternal uncle removing the obstruction of the branches of trees in front of their house, A-1,
I.Venugopal Reddy, I.Jayaram Reddy, I.Ramachandra Reddy, A-2, 7
B.Sasi Kumar Reddy, A-4, N.Kumaraswamy Reddy, I.Someswar
Reddy, A-5, Renukamma, Usharani, Meenakumari, Divya,
Prabhavathamma, A-6 all are join together and armed with sticks and attacked on her father. One Kumaraswamy Reddy sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of her father, at the first instance, A-2 beat with stick her father on his fore head and A-1 I.Venugopal
Reddy, A.Doraswamy Reddy attacked with sticks and beat on the back side of her father, due to that her father sustained severe bleeding injury over his head. A-3 twisted the hand of her father.
14.She further deposed that as her father fell down, then herself, her mother, her elder brother and her maternal uncle intervened and rescued her father and brought him into the house.
She further deposed that then Renukamma, Prabhavathamma,
Divya, Meenakumar, Usharani, Nagamma trespassed into her house and beat her and her mother with their hands indiscriminately. In mean while Kumaraswamy Reddy and A-5 also entered into her house and beat her brother Venkateswar Reddy, inspite of her brother ran away, but they chased him and beat with stick on his back side, on his legs and hands. Due to that he sustained contusion injuries. At about 1:30 pm they took her father to Thavanampalli P.S. On seeing the condition of her father, the police asked them to took him to the hospital first. As such they went to the hospital. Her father and mother admitted in
Government Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor. At about 4:30 pm her father became normal and she drafted complaint on the dictation of her father and her father signed on the complaint which was send to the P.S. through her maternal uncle Viswanadha
Reddy, on the same day at about 7:00 pm who lodged complaint
before the police.
15.PW-4 who is son of PW-1 he has also deposed in the similar lines of PW.3.
16.PW-5 who is brother-in-law of PW.1 deposed that on 14- 1-2015 at about 9:00 am A-1 to A-5 along with some other persons namely Venugopal Reddy, Kumaraswamy Reddy, Someswar Reddy 8 were brought some of coconut trees trunks and branches of the trees through the tractor of A-2 and put infront of their house, so as to causing obstruction for them. Upon that when PW-1 questioned the accused as to why they are making such obstruction. Upon that
A-1, A-2, Kumaraswamy Reddy, Venugopal Reddy, A-4 threatened
PW-1 with dire consequences in view of not entering into compromise in criminal case by PW-1 and also they proclaimed that they will not remove those obstructions and asked PW-1 what ever he want to do let him to do. Thereafter all the accused went away. While so, at about 11:30 am when he along with PW-1 to 4 removing those obstructions, then all the accused along with ten other persons namely Venugopal Reddy, Sasidar Reddy,
Kumaraswamy Reddy, Doraswamy Reddy, Jayarami Reddy,
Ramachandra Reddy, Someswar Reddy, Prabhavathamma, Divya
Mennakumari, Usha, Renukamma all formed in unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and attacked on them. Kumaraswamy Reddy sprinkled chilly powder in the eyes of PW-1, meanwhile A-2 beat with a stick on the head of PW-1. Due to that PW-1 sustained bleeding injury on the left side of his head and fell down. A-1, A-4 and Venugopal Reddy beat with a stick on the back side of head of
PW-1, due to that PW-1 sustained bleeding injury over his head.
Mean while A-3 Jayaramai Reddy beat with stick on left hand of PW-
1. Due to that he sustained fracture injury. Then himself and PW-2 took PW-1 to inside of house in order to rescue him, but A-6 and other some of women namely Renukamma, Meenakshmma,
Prabhavathamma, Divya and Usharani trespassed into their house and beat his sister PW-2. When PW-4 was at infront of their house
A-5 and one Kumaraswamy Reddy armed with sticks and chased
PW-4 and beat him indiscriminately. Due to that he sustained dumb injuries. PW-2 has also sustained dumb injuries. Then he took PW-1 and 2 to the hospital on the way to the hospital at first they went to Police Station at about 1:30 pm, there one constable informed that to take PW-1 to the hospital at first in view of is condition, upon that they took PW-1 to the hospital and admitted him in the 9 hospital. They reached Government Head Quarters Hospital,
Chittoor at about 3:00 pm. PW-1 got prepared Ex.P-1 report through PW-3 and the same was handed over to him with an instruction to submit the same before Thavanampalli police.
Accordingly he submitted the report under Ex.P-1 on the same day at about 7:00 pm.
17.PW-6 Civil Asst. Surgeon deposed that on 14-01-2016 he examined the injured persons namely I.Chandra Reddy (PW-1) and
I.Gajalakshmi Reddy (PW-2). During his examination he found the injuries over the body of injured I.Chandra Reddy (PW-1) are as follows.
1. Laceration of size 6 X 1 cm present in the frontal region.
2. Swelling on the occipital region.
3. Swelling on left fore ulna.As per radiologist opinion there is a bony injury (fracture) as per X-ray of left fore arm AP and lateral view vide X-ray No.339/31/14-1-2015. The other X-rays does not shows bony injury in respect of left leg and scull. He examined the above injured person I.Chandra Reddy at 3:15 pm. The date of admission of injured is 14-1-2015, but he left against medical advice on 6-2-2015. The above mentioned injuries are grevious in nature and the age of injuries are 1 hour 45 minutes to 2 hours prior to his examination. To that effect he issued wound certificate under Ex.P-2. Ex.P-3 is radiologist report of PW-1.Duringhis examination PW-2 Gajalakshmi Reddy complained pain in the back and no external injuries are found. I referred her for radiologist opinion. As per radiologist opinion there is no bony injury. He examined the above injured person Gajalakshmi Reddy at 3:30 pm.
The date of admission of injured is 14-1-2015 and discharged on 16-1-2015. The above mentioned injury is simple in nature and the age of injury is 2 to 3 hours prior to my examination. To that effect he issued wound certificate under Ex.P-4. The radiologist report of
PW-2 is marked as Ex.P-5.
18.PW-7 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 15-1-2015 at 11:00 am PW-5 submitted a report Ex.P-1, basing on 10 its contents he registered a case in crime No. 8/2015 U/sec.147, 148, 324, 341, 506 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. to all concerned under Ex.P-6. Then he proceeded to Government Head
Quarters Hospital, Chittoor, there he examined and recorded the statements of injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4. On the same day at about 2:00 pm he visited the scene of offence which is situating in front of house of PW-5. He observed the scene of offence prepared a rough sketch. Ex.P-7 is rough sketch. At the scene he seized one stick under police proceedings. Ex.P-8 is police proceedings. The stick which is marked as MO-1. At the scene he examined and recorded the statements of PW-3, 5, LW-6 Rupa, LW-7
Meenakshamma and LW-8 Siddamma. Later he handed over the
C.D. file to Sub Inspector of Police for further investigation.
19.PW-8 Sub Inspector of Police deposed that he received
C.D. file from PW-7 Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police and verified the investigation done by him which found on correct lines. Then he took up further investigation. During course of his investigation he served U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to the accused and filed charge sheet after collecting wound certificates.
20. The Learned Defence Counsel argued that PWs. 1to 5 are all inter related and other independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. Further keeping in view of disputes between the both parties the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 alone not sufficient to implicate the accused as they are inimical towards accused. It is further submitted that in this case the only PW.1 alone were sustained injuries and no other injured persons, but whereas in the main case in CC No. 83/2015 there are four injured persons and they sustained head injuries. In view of severity of injuries sustained by the accused herein has to be explained by the prosecution, but the prosecution kept silent. It is further submitted that the scene of offence in both the cases are one and the same that too the scene of offence has been pointing in front of path way of A.1 herein and in the case of the accused herein in CC No.
83/2015. As per the case of PWs. 1 to 5 they lodge a report on the 11 same day of incident at 7.00 PM, but the record disclosing that the report was taken by SHO at 11.30 AM on the next day of the incident. It is further submitted that if the court comes to a conclusion that there is free fight between the both parties there must be finding who is aggressor.
21. To support his contentions, the Learned Defence counsel relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case between
Ganesh Datt V. State of U Uttarakhand 2014 AIAR
(Criminal) 741, in the case between Bhawan Sahai and
another V. State of Rajastan 2016 AIAR (Criminal) 683,in
case between State of Gujarath V. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai
Varu 2016 AIAR (Criminal) 695, in case between
Channala Ram Reddy and others V. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1997 (1) ALT (Criminal) 423 A.P, in the case
between Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude V State of
Maharastra, in the case between State of Rajasthan V Shri
Teja Singh and others 2001(1) ALD (Crl.) 441 SC, in the
case between Sohan and another V State of Harayana and
another 2001 (1) ALD Crl. 657 SC, in the case between Ram
kumar and another V State of Harayana 1998 (2) ALD (Crl.)
40 (SC), in the case between Padam Singh V Sate of UP
2000 (1) (Crimes) 41 (SC), in case between State of Andhra
Pradesh V Ramancha Laxma Reddy 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 847
(A.P), in case between P.T.Antony V State of Kerala and
others 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 276 (SC), in case between
Dumpala Muralidhar Reddy V State of A.P 2006 (2) ALD
(Crl.) 413 (A.P), in case between Nadimuthu and others V.
State by Public Prosecutor 1992 M.W.N. (Crl.) Madras 145
and contending that non-examination the persons residing near and around the scene of offence and neighbours of the victim and accused throws a cloud on the case of prosecution and suppression of earlier complaint held throws a shadow of doubt has to whether the prosecution has come up with true version and therefore a circumstances in favour of the accused and the only earliest report 12 has to be registered has a first information report and no further information in respect of the same incident and for the same offence can be recorded has another FIR and there is a discrepancies with regard to the time of alleged incident, in view of medical report and shifting of scene of offence by the witnesses which is contrary to the record certainly it will go against them and the conviction cannot be based on the evidence of the eye witnesses who were not only interested and also inimical to the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the person of the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
22.Admittedly PW.1 sustained injuries over his body and he sustained a fracture injury the same was also observed by the doctor-PW.10 who had issued wound certificates to that effect.
Therefore, the evidence of injured witnesses has been amply corroborated by the medical evidence. The other witnesses who may be the family members of PW.1, but their evidence cannot be brushed aside on the pretext that they are interested witnesses.
23.Curiously the investigating officer- PW.7 categorically stated that the scene of offence is situating beside the house of PW5 and on the right side entrance of the path way leading to the house of
Sankar Reddy (A.1) and he has also categorically stated that the scene of offence in crime No.7/2015 (in CC No. 83/2015) is one and the same. Therefore it shows that the said garbages or brambles or branches of the trees whatever it may be found in one place only i.e. front of the path way of house of A.1, as the said path way is adjacent to the house of PW.5. Therefore, under misconception they both the parties making attributions against each other that the said obstruction caused by one against other.
24. In view of the nature of incident and root cause for the happening of incident, in addition to that the background of disputes between the family of accused and injured person it is an apparent on the record that there is frequent quarrels took place between both the parties. The both parties hurling allegations each 13 other and finding fault each other by stating that the obstructions made by one against other. Admittedly, in this case the garbage was found in front of path way of A.1 in view of evidence of investigating officer PWs-7 and 8. Infact, the version of the accused is that Pws.1 to 5 brought all the garbage and kept in front of their house and blaming these accused persons as if, those were kept by themselves. The accused has taken an independent plea, that the injured witnesses actually brought those garbage or and kept in front of the path way of their house and when they questioned these witnesses, A.1 to A.4 herein beat indiscriminately and caused injuries.
25.Here it is relevant to note that the date of incident is 14.1.2015 which happened to be Bogi Festival. It is one of the main festival is to celebrated by the Hindu Religion and there is a custom of lit bonfire with branches of trees and firewood. There is a chance and likelihood that the accused persons and injured witnesses are being the villagers they might have brought those firewood for the purpose of campfire or bonfire, that cannot be ruled out. Although, the both parties may not be pleaded the same and it is not out of the context to say that the both parties suppressed the material fact with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident. Be that as it may, there is a long standing disputes between both the parties with regard to the land disputes and several criminal and civil cases filed each other. Therefore, there is a strong animosity between the both parties. Hence, certainly the both parties are at logger heads to each other and they will always look forward to get an advantage of any trivial act to take revenge.
Further A.1 to A.4 were also get hurt due to the acts of these witnesses PWs. 1 to 5 it seems that both parties who are rivalry to each other and fought together. In this case, there is no necessity to ascertain who are the aggressor and at whose instance the said incident was happened. The manner of the incident would suggest that the both parties are waiting for an opportunity to revolt against each other. Further the accused had also not taken a plea 14 of private defence. Hence, in the circumstances, it can be said that voluntarily they both parties fight each other and the both parties are responsible for the said incident and no one are excuses for the said offence. Though A.1 sustained grievous injury in the incident, but the Ex.P.1 report was given on the next day of incident which shows that after due deliberations and after knowing that (Pws.2 to 5 in CC No.83/2015) got registered the crime against them. So, in view of these circumstances, it can be said that the accused.
26. As regard to the over tacts of each accused that the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses including the defacto complainant PW.1 categorically stated that when they questioned the accused as to why they putting obstructions to their path way all the accused attacked on him. Meanwhile, one Kumaraswamy
Reddy sprinkled chilly powder into his eyes and other accused beat him with stick indiscriminately. In meanwhile, A.3 beat him with stick, when he put his left hand to defend himself he sustained fracture injury on his left hand.
27.These witnesses Pws. 1 to 5 has also been attacked on A.1 to
A.5 and caused injuries. Upon that they filed a criminal case against these witnesses Pws. 1 to 5 in Crime No.7/2015 and that case has also been tried along with this case. As found in above the both parties fought each other and in that scuffle PW.1 sustained injuries, except fracture injury all other injuries found on
PW.1 are simple in nature. Even PW.2 was also not found with external injuries, except complying pains. If the accused really beat in such a manner as alleged these witnesses PW.1 and both certainly received severe injuries. As regard to the offence U/sec.
326 of IPC it was not found the intention on the part of accused to cause grievous injury on PW.1.
28. Pws. 1 to 5 who are belongs to same family members stating in the similar version, but the independent witnesses of that village who are cited in the charge sheet were not examined by prosecution which shows that those independent witnesses did not come forward to support these witnesses. Admittedly, Pws. 1 to 5 15 are inimical towards the accused and they both fought each other for the same reasons with regard to keeping the branches of the trees in front of their respective houses. Therefore in these circumstances, when the element of voluntariness was not found on the part of accused in causing grievous injury to PW.1, they cannot be held liable for the offence U/sec. 326 of IPC. Moreover, the radiologist was not examined in this case, although the civil
Asst. Surgeon who deposed that he obtained opinion from
Radiologist under Ex.P.3. Non examination of Radiologist in that particular aspect the nature of the injury is grievous one cannot be proved sufficiently. Even if it is otherwise considered the said act falls within the ambit of section 335 of Indian Penal Code instead of offence U/sec. 326 of IPC. Since the accused persons revolted in the provocation as they were also attacked by these witnesses i.e.
Pws. 1 to 5. Hence, they are not excepted to keep clam when they were being attacked by Pws. 1 to 5. So in that scuffle out of provocation the accused might have beat PW.1 who received grievous injury. As they both offences are cognate to each other and the offence U/sec. 335 of IPC is a minor to the offence U/sec.
326 of IPC, hence the offence U/sec.335 of IPC can be connected to the accused even if it is not charged specifically against the accused and in event of convicting the accused U/sec. 335 of IPC instead of U/sec.326 of IPC no prejudices will be caused to the accused. Further the common object was also missing in this case.
As there is no element of common object was found on the part of the accused in the said incident. Therefore the offences U/sec. 147, 148 r/w 149 of IPC will not attract in the given set of facts. In the same manner the offence U/sec. 341 and 506 are also not attracted in this case. Therefore the accused are found guilty for the offence U/sec. 324, 323, 448 and 335 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused are not found guilty for the offence U/sec. 147, 148, 326, 341, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
29.In the result, the A.1 to A.6 are found guilty for the offence
U/sec. 324, 323, 448 and 335 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted 16
U/sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C and A.1 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.147, 148, 326, 341, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and they acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-Ch.Yugandhar
IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
CHITTOOR.
Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence.
A.1 stating that he is suffering from old age ailment and he got old aged wife, there is no other persons to look after his family, except him and he prayed to take lenient view. A.2 stating that he is suffering from blood pressure and diabetic. Hence prayed to take lenient view. A.3 stating that he is having mother age of 90 years there is no other person to look after her. Hence prayed to take lenient view. A.4 stating that he is having minor children. Hence prayed to take lenient view. A.5 stating that he is having minor children and also old aged parents. Hence prayed to take lenient view. A.6 stating that there is no person to look after her. Hence prayed to take lenient view.
Having heard of accused, considering the background of case and the positions of accused persons and admittedly, the accused persons does not have any criminal antecedents and both parties are inter related and living in same village, so this court is of the considered opinion the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be extended to the accused in order to provide an opportunity
for the accused to correct themselves, hence instead of sentencing
the accused, they are released on probation of good conduct under section of 4 the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year.
In the result, A.1 to A.6 released on probation of good conduct
U/sec. 4 of PO Act instead of sentencing them and A.1 to A.6 are directed to be released on execution of bond to appear and receive sentence when called upon during one year of period and in the meantime the accused shall keep the piece and be of good 17 behaviour in addition to that the accused person are kept under supervision of District Probation Officer till one year from the date of this judgment.
MO-1- Stick as entered in CPR No.44 of 2015 is destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30 th day of September, 2016.
Sd/-Ch.Yugandhar
IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
CHITTOOR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION :- ACCUSED :-
PW1 : I.Chandra ReddyNIL PW2 :I.Gajalakshmi PW3 : I.Kiranmai PW4 :I.Sri Venkatesh Reddy PW5 : N.Viswanadha Reddy PW6 : P.Durga Prasad PW7 :M.Narasimhulu PW8 : P.Dharanidhara.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION :- Ex.P-1 : Report. Ex.P-2 : Wound Certificate of PW-1. Ex.P-3 : Radiologist report of PW.1. Ex.P-4 : Wound certificate of PW.2. Ex.P-5 : Radiologist Report of PW.2. Ex.P-6 :First Information Report. Ex.P-7:Rough sketch. Ex.P-8:Police Proceedings. ACCUSED : Ex.D.1 : Under line portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.D.2 : Photos with CD (compact Disk)
Material Objects marked
MO1 : Stick.
Sd/-Ch.Yugandhar
IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
CHITTOOR.