1
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEDDAPURAM.
Calendar Case No.923/2017
Date of Offence: 19.05.2017 Date of Report of Complaint: 19.05.2017 Date of Apprehension of accused: 21.06.2017 Date of Release on Bail: 21.06.2017 Date of Commencement of trial: 25.10.2019 Date of Closure of trial: 07.04.2022 Date of Sentence of Order: 13.04.2022 Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution
Name of the Complainant: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station
Name of the Accused:
1.Thalari Nageswararao, S/o.Appalaraju, aged 47 years, R/o.Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.
2.Thalari Sateesh, S/o.Nageswararao, aged 19 years, R/o.Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.
(Case against A1 abated)
Offence : U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC
Plea of accused: Not Guilty
Finding: Found guilty for the offence U/Sec.323 IPC instead of offence U/Sec.324 IPC
Result: In the result, the accused No.2 found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC instead of offence U/Sec.324 of IPC, accordingly, he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.900/ for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period of Accused No.2 if any shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 two iron rods shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.2/convict is explained about his right of appeal to the
Hon’ble Sessions Court and free Legal Aid if required. The copy of the
judgment is ordered to be supplied to the Accused No.2/convict forthwith. Sd/ Ch.Sunandamma Prl. Jr. Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram.
Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Senior
Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.
2
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PEDDAPURAM.
Present : Smt.Ch.Sunandamma, Prl. Junior Civil Judge – cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram
Wednesday, this the 13th day of April, 2022
C.C.923/2017 Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station
..Complainant
And
1.Thalari Nageswararao, S/o.Appalaraju, aged 47 years, R/o.Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.
2.Thalari Sateesh, S/o.Nageswararao, aged 19 years, R/o.Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.
(Case against A1 abated) … Accused
This case coming up before me for final hearing on 11.04.2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and Sri.P.M.Jaya Rao and Sri.V.Subrahmanyam, learned Advocates for accused and upon perusing the material on record and upon having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused alleging the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC in
Cr.No.75/2017.
2.The brief allegation of the charge sheet is that L.W.1 Nakka
Narasanna @ Pedakapu is residing near Electrical Sub Station, Sanjeev
Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal. A1 is neighbour to the house of L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu and the A2 is son of the A1. L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu is living by running a welding shop in front of his house, there are some disputes in between both parties regarding way to their houses. On the morning of 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 AM, the L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu and the
3
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 accused disputed with each other and in the dispute the A1 and A2 took iron rods from the shop of the L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu, beat the L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu with the rods and caused bleeding and contusion injuries. The workers of the shop of the L.W.1
Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu controlled the dispute and the accused went away from there. The L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu turned up to the Police Station and the L.W.7 A.Nookaraju, Head Constable, Jaggampeta
P.S. recorded his statement.
3.Basing on the receipt of the statement of L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @
Pedakapu, on 19.05.2017 at 11.30 AM, L.W.7 A.Nookaraju, Head
Constable, Jaggampeta P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.75/2017, U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC. During the course of investigation, he sent the L.W.1 Nakka
Narasanna @ Pedakapu to Area Hospital, Peddapuram with hospital memo and escort, visited the scene of offence, examined it, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. During the time of examination, L.W.2 Nakka Varalakshmi took the two iron rods and handed over the same to him and he seized the iron rods for the purpose of investigation. L.W.8 Md.M.R.Alikhan, Sub Inspector of Police, Jaggampeta
P.S. took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by him. On 21.06.2017 at 11.30 AM he arrested the accused at their house in
Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta and sent them for judicial custody. L.W.6 Dr.Varma, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital,
Peddapuram treated the L.W.1 Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu and issued wound certificate in which he opined that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
4.On perusal of charge sheet and other documents filed by the police under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, this case was taken on file
4
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC. The copies of this case documents are furnished to Accused Nos.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code.
5.Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 of Criminal
Procedure Code and charges were framed for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34
IPC and read over and explained the contents of charge to the accused in
Telugu language. After understood, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial of this case, the prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and M.Os.1 and 2.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through the prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard both sides.
9.Now, the point arises for determination is that, whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC?
10.POINT:
The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is residing near Electrical
Sub Station, Sanjeev Colony, Sriram Nagar, Jaggampeta Village,
Jaggampeta Mandal. A1 is neighbour to the house of P.W.1 and the A2 is son of the A1. P.W.1 is living by running a welding shop in front of his house, there are some disputes in between both parties regarding way to their houses. On the morning of 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 AM, P.W.1 and the accused disputed each other and in the dispute the A1 and A2 took iron rods from the shop of the P.W.1, beat the P.W.1 with the rods and caused bleeding and contusion injuries. The workers of the shop of the P.W.1
5
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 controlled the dispute and the accused went away from there. Thereafter the P.W.1 gave report to the police as in Ex.P1.
11.In order to establish the same, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 respectively.
12.To prove the offence U/Sec.324 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
13.P.W.1 is the injured, P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 5 are the eye witnesses, P.W.4 is the Medical Officer, P.Ws.6 and 7 are the investigating officers.
14.According to P.W.1, he deposed that he is having the path way in front of his house, the accused used the said pathway, the dispute arose when he refused to use the pathway by the accused. On 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 A.M. when he was at his welding shop, in the mean while A1 and A2 came to him and beat him with iron rods, initially the A2 beat him with iron rod on his head and left hand, he sustained bleeding injury on his head and also on his left form and he also sustained swelling injury on his left arm, the A1 also beat him with iron rod on his head, in the mean while the P.W.3 and L.W.3 Vijayratnam @ Peddi who were present nearby his shop rushed to the spot and separated them by saying killing him.
Immediately they shifted him to the police station where police recorded his statement and referred him to Government Hospital, Peddapuram, where
6
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 the doctors gave treatment and sutured five stitches to his head and four stitches to his palm, Ex.P1 is the statement, he identified the signature on
Ex.P1, he identified the A2, he filed the photographs and the same are marked as Exs.P2 to P7 along with C.D.
During cross examination, he admitted that his house situated near current office at Jaggampeta, the current office situated the road which leads from Jaggampeta to Eleswaram road, the distance between his house and Jaggampeta P.S. is 1/4 kilometers, he did not got issue any legal notice nor gave complaint to the police prior to the date of alleged incident against the accused stating that they are having the way. He further admitted that the P.W.3, The L.W.3 Vijayaratnam, L.W.5 Apparao and his wife P.W.2 came to rescue him from the hands of the accused, he did not state to the police the P.W.3, the L.W.3 Vijayaratnam, L.W.5 Apparao were working in his shop and came and rescue him, immediately after the incident he proceeded to police station with bleeding injury on two wheeler, where police recorded his statement and send him to the Area Hospital,
Peddapuram by Auto, Ex.P2 to P7 photographs at his house through C.C.
cameras, he did not get treatment at his house, the face of the accused
No.1 is visible under Ex.P5, Ex.P2 does not disclose the band to his head.
Apart from he added that he went to the G.G.H., Kakinada, where the doctor gave treatment, so the band was removed thereafter he photograph under Ex.P5. He denied the suggestion that along with accused there is the way for Y.Suryakumari, Somaraju and others to reach main road and that the houses of Suryakumari, Somaraju on his southern side, the Exs.P2 to
P7 created after the incident, nothing was happened as deposed by him and he is deposing false and that in view of the case filed by him the A1 died, he is responsible for the death of the A1 and that he filed a false case against the accused for not permitting them to use the way and deposing false.
7
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022
15.P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. According to her, the A.1 is neighbour to their house and the A.2 is the son of A.1, he along with P.W.1 are living by running a welding shop in front of their house, there are some disputes between them and the Accused regarding the way to their houses. On 19.05.2017 at 9.30 PM, P.W.1 along with accused disputed with each other, at that time he was with the P.W.1, in that dispute the A.1 and A.2 took iron rods from their shop and beat the P.W.1 with the rods, the A.2 beat the
P.W.1 on his head and caused bleeding injury and also beat on legs, so the
P.W.1 sustained contusion injury, the A.1 beat the P.W.1 on the left hand palm and wrist and caused bleeding injury on the palm and swelling injury to the wrist, then he along with L.W.4 Srinu and L.W.3 Vijayaratnam interfered and separated them and shifted the P.W.1 to the Police station, from there Peddapuram Area Hospital.
During cross examination, she admitted that the area which they are residing is Sanjeev Nagar, the Sanjeev Tiles and Bricks factory sold away the factory after demolishing the same and sold the plots, she does not know Goda Somarajulu purchased the sites of Sanjeev Tiles and Bricks factory, there are disputes between them and accused with regard to the path way, the accused and themselves used the way for their ingress and egress. Apart from he added that previously there is a pathway, so, all the persons used the same, now there is no pathway for ingress and egress of any one, L.W.3 Vijaya Ratnam did not present on the date of incident, but he is working in their shop, on the date of incident the L.W.3 Vijaya
Ratnam and L.W.4 Sangireddi Srinu came to their shop to unload the iron material, L.W.5 Gangumalla Apparao was working at the time of incident in their shop, he along with L.W.3 Vijaya Ratnam @ Pedda shifted the P.W.1 on two wheeler to the police station, later hospital, the house of accused situated on the western side of their house. She denied the suggestion that
8
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 when the said Sanjeev Tiles and Bricks factory sold away the sites to the purchasers, at that time, the northern side of their property left for
Rajaveedhi to all the purchasers and that they erected sunshades on the western side of the house, at that time the disputes arose between them and accused, at that time the accused placed the matter before elders and that they are having welding shop, their iron rods used to place the same in front of their shop and causing interference to the accused and public, at that time, the accused questioned them for placing the iron material in front of shop, at that time, they gave a complaint to harass them and that as they interfered for the ingress and egress of the accused in front of their shop, if they obstructed the accused, they will sell away the house and they are with intention to purchase their house, for that reason they implicated the accused and filed a false case and that since they are filed the cases against the accused and harassed them and that when they harassed the accused, A1 died due to their harassment and that they are the main cause for the death of A1 and that accused never beat her husband and deposing false.
16.P.W.3 is the eye witness. According to him, on 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 AM he along with some persons unloaded the cement sheet Lorry beside the welding shop of P.W.1, at that time he noticed the A.2 beat the
P.W.1 on his head with iron rod, resulting he sustained bleeding injury on his head, in the meanwhile the A.1 also beat the P.W.1 with iron rod on left hand fore arm and two legs, then, the P.W.1 shifted to Hospital, on the same day the police recorded his statement at 11.30 AM, he identified the accused.
During cross examination, he admitted that till date he has been working in the shop of P.Ws.1 and 2 since three years prior to the alleged date of incident, the accused purchased site from Sanjeev Tiles factory and
9
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 constructed the house and they have to go infront of the shop of complainant, he does not know the disputes between the complainant party and accused party. He denied the suggestion that since there is disputes with regard to pathway between the A.1 and P.W.1, for that reason they used to quarrel since he has been working in the shop of P.W.1, to support him he is deposing false and that the Accused never beat the P.W.1 as deposed by him and that he is deposing false.
17.P.W.4 is the Medical Officer. According to him, on 19.05.2017 at about 2.00 P.M, in furtherance to the requisition received from P.C.1292,
Jaggampeta Police Station to examine P.W.1, after examination found the injuries of 1). Laceration on palmar aspect, 2). Laceration on frontal region, 3). Swelling of left forearm. No bony injury. He opined that the above injuries are simple injuries, he issued the Wound certificate and it is marked as Ex.P.8.
During cross examination, he admitted that the injuries under Ex.P.8 would cause if, a person fell on the hard surface, he did not mention the names of the persons who beat the injured.
18.P.W.5 is another eye witness. According to him, at about five years back while he was working in the shop of P.W.1, at that time A.2 beat the
P.W.1 on his head with iron rod, resulting he sustained bleeding injury on his head, in the meanwhile the A.1 also beat the P.W.1 with iron rod on hands and legs, except that he does not know remaining facts, on the same day the police recorded his statement, he identified the Accused.
During cross examination, he admitted that he does not know from whom the accused and defacto complainants purchased the site, he does not know the pathways to both parties to which side they have the access to reach their property, except the alleged date of incident he did not work in the shop of P.Ws.1 and 2. He further admitted that he does not know
10
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 who is his owner. He denied the suggestion that since he has been working in the shop of P.W.1, to support him he is deposing false and that the accused never beat the P.W.1 as deposed by him and that he is deposing false.
19.P.W.6 is the investigating officer, deposed the chronological manner of investigation. Through his evidence Exs.P9 and P10 are marked.
During cross examination, he admitted that the P.Ws.1 and 2 informed him that the incident happened due to path way between accused and complainant party, he did not enquire the complainant party as well as accused party with regard to documents of path way, the P.W.1 came to the police station with bleeding injuries, after recording the statement, he sent the P.Ws.1 and 2 and L.W.3 Vijaya Ratnam to the hospital, he did not seize the cloths of P.W.1, the P.W.2 herself brought the M.Os.1 and 2 and handed over to him at the police station, he did not seize the M.Os.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators, he did not observe blood stains over M.Os.1 and 2 at the time of producing the same, he did not got photographed the
P.W.1 when he approached to the police station, likewise he did not got photographed the scene, P.W.1 never handed over the photos to him at any point of time, he shown one Singamsetti Raja at the scene of offence, but he did not examine him, he did not examine the neighbours to the scene of offence, the L.W.3 Vijaya Ratnam and P.Ws.3 and 4 are the workers of the
P.W.1 shop, he did not enquire any person about the path way.
He denied the suggestion that P.W.2 never handed over M.Os.1 and 2 to him, he himself created M.O.1 after thought and that the accused never beat the P.W.1 with iron rods and that he never seized the same from the
P.W.2 and that to support the prosecution case, he is deposing false and that accused never beat P.W.1 as deposed by him and that when the accused passing on the path way in front of the shop of P.W.1, to obstruct
11
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 them for not passing through the path way, the complainant party created a story and filed a false case against the accused and to support them he is giving evidence falsely.
20.P.W.7 is investigating officer, deposed that on 20.05.2017 he received
C.D. file from P.W.6 and he verified the investigation done by him and found it on proper lines. On 21.06.2017 they arrested the Accused, after completion of formalities, he got remanded them for Judicial Custody and after receipt of the Wound Certificate and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.
During Cross Examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not conduct proper investigation, by sitting in the police station he prepared entire investigation and that he is deposing false.
21.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record. In this case, the admitted facts are that the house of the P.Ws.1 and 2 and the accused are situated side by side. During the pendency of this crime, the A1 died. So, the case against A1 abated. The dispute arose between complainant party and accused party with regard to the path way the incident occurred in front of the welding shop of the P.W.1. The P.Ws.3 and 5 are the workers of welding shop of P.W.1.
22.As seen from the Ex.P1, on the morning of 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 AM, P.W.1 and the accused disputed each other and in the dispute the
A1 and A2 took iron rods from the shop of the P.W.1, beat the P.W.1 with the rods and caused bleeding and contusion injuries. The workers of the shop of the P.W.1 controlled the dispute and the accused went away from there. Then he went to the Police Station, from there, the police referred him to the Government Hospital, Peddapuram. Though the learned counsel cross examined the P.W.1, nothing was elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution.
12
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022
In the cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he did not get treatment at his house, the face of the A1 is visible under Ex.P5 photograph, the Ex.P2 photograph does not disclose the bandage to the head. A suggestion was given to the P.W.1 that the Exs.P2 to P7 created after the incident, nothing was happened as deposed by him and he is deposing false and that in view of the case filed by him, the A1 died he is responsible for the death of the A1 and that he filed a false case against the accused for not permitting them to use the way and deposing false, but he denied.
So, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, nothing was elicited in favour of the accused.
23.P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. Though she deposed before the court that she witnessed the incident, but Ex.P1 and 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 does not reflect the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of offence and witnessed the incident. Though her evidence supported the case of the prosecution, but cannot be looked into.
24.P.Ws.3 and 5 are the eye witnesses, they supported the case of the
P.W.1, nothing was elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution.
As seen from the evidence of P.W.4 who issued Ex.P8, he is under opinion the injuries under Ex.P8 are simple in nature. So, the evidence of
P.W.4 corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 in all material aspects.
25.P.Ws.6 and 7 are investigating officers, their evidence corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.
In the cross examination, P.W.6 admitted that P.W.2 herself brought
M.Os.1 and 2 and handed over to him at Police Station, he did not seize the
M.Os.1 and 2 in the presence of mediators. So, as seen from the evidence of P.W.6 he did not follow the procedure at the time of seizure of M.Os.1
13
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 and 2 at police station brought by P.W.2. So, the court presumes that the
M.Os.1 and 2 created for the purpose of the case to support the case of the prosecution as alleged by the counsel for accused. P.W.7 evidence also supported the case of the prosecution.
26.The counsel for accused filed a memo along with document, it shows there is a way in front of the house of the P.W.1, except that way, there is no other way to the purchasers of the sites in the said locality. So, there is a proof to show that the disputes arose between the parties with regard to path way and possibility to cause the injury to the P.W.1 when he was obstructing the accused party to use the path way.
27.Admittedly, the accused beat the P.W.1, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 coupled with Ex.P8 reveals that 1). Laceration on palmar aspect, 2). Laceration on frontal region, 3). Swelling of left forearm. No bony injury.
He opined that the above injuries are simple injuries, he issued the Wound certificate and it is marked as Ex.P.8. With regard to the material object is concerned there is no whisper with regard to the iron rods handed over to the police, except the evidence of P.W.6. The prosecution witnesses did not say about the seizure of the material object which are allegedly used in the commission of offence. The prosecution failed to prove the seizure of material object which caused injuries to the P.W.1. Hence, the court is of the finding that the evidence on record proves to the extent that accused caused simple hurt to P.W.1, attracting the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, but not the charge punishable under section 324 of IPC. As the proved offence is minor to the charged offence punishable under section 324 IPC framing of charge afresh for the proved offence is not required as no interest of accused is prejudiced. Therefore, on perusal of entire evidence on record, it is overwhelming that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of acts
14
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022 by the accused attracting the ingredients of the charges leveled against them and they are tried for and commission of acts by accused attracting all the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.323 of IPC, the court is of the finding that the guilt of the Accused No.2 for the charged offence is not proved and the guilt of the Accused No.2 for the offence punishable
U/Sec.323 of IPC is proved. Accordingly, the point is determined.
28. In the result, the accused No.2 found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 of IPC instead of offence U/Sec.324 of IPC, accordingly, he is convicted U/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Typed to dictation to the Stenographer GradeIII, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of April, 2022.
Sd/ Ch.Sunandamma Prl. Jr. Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram.
Hearing on quantum of Sentence:
On hearing the quantum of sentence, Accused No.2 stated that his father/A1 died during pendency of this crime and he sold away the house situated beside the house of the accused due to disputes between their family and the accused family and went away, except himself there is no other person to look after his sisters and mother and requested to take lenient view by imposing fine.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of nature of offence, the benefit of the Provision of P.O.Act cannot be extended to them. Hence, in view of nature of offence, Accused No.2 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.900/ for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused No.2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period of Accused if any shall be set off
U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
15
C.C.No.923/2017, Dt.13.04.2022
M.Os.1 and 2 two iron rods shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Accused No.2/convict is explained about his right of appeal to the
Hon’ble Sessions Court and free Legal Aid if required. The copy of the
judgment is ordered to be supplied to the Accused No.2/convict forthwith.
Typed to dictation to the Stenographer GradeIII, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of April, 2022.
Sd/ Ch.Sunandamma Prl. Jr. Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant:
PW.1: Dt.25.10.2019Nakka Narasanna @ Pedakapu PW.2: Dt.16.12.2021Nakka Varalakshmi PW.3: Dt.04.03.2022Sangireddy Srinu PW.4: Dt.08.03.2022 Dr.P.R.S.G.Varma, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Peddapuram PW.5: Dt.08.03.2022Sankumalla Apparao PW.6: Dt.15.03.2022A.Nookaraju, A.S.I. of Police, Jaggampeta P.S. PW.7: Dt.07.04.2022Md.M.R.Alikhan, the then, S.I. of Police, Jaggampeta P.S. For Defence: – NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.P.1: Dt.19.05.2017 Statement given by P.W.1 to police Ex.P.2: Dt. –One photo Ex.P.3: Dt. –One photo Ex.P.4: Dt. –One photo Ex.P.5: Dt. –One photo Ex.P.6: Dt. –One photo Ex.P.7: Dt. –One photo and C.D. Ex.P.8: Dt.10.06.2017 Wound Certificate Ex.P.9: Dt.19.05.2017F.I.R. Ex.P.10: Dt.19.05.2017 Rough Sketch
For Accused:
– NIL Material Objects: M.Os.1 and 2 – Two Iron rods.
Sd/- Ch.Sunandamma
Prl. Jr. Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram.