SC No.266/2022 1 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANCHERIAL
Present:-Sri D.Rama Mohan Reddy, Addl. Asst.Sessions Judge, Mancherial. Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026
S.C.No.266 of 2022
(old SC No.144/2019) (On being committed by Sri K.Prasad, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli by his order, dated 22-08-2019 in PRC No.10/2019 in Cr.No.87/2019 of Bellampalli-I town Police Station). Name of the ComplainantThe State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bellampalli-I town.
1. Balaram Kumar Chowbey S/o Mittanlal Chowbey, age 45 years, Occ: Name of the Accused Pvt.Job R/o Ward No.19, Beside Balaji Mini function Hall, Ashok nagar, Bellampalli and also R/o H.No.7-1-46, Post office Basthi, Bellampalli.
3. Preetham Takur S/o Jalkan takur, age 22 years, Occ: Akhila Kirana shop worker at Bellampalli R/o Ward No.19, Beside Balaji Mini function Hall, Ashok nagar, Bellampalli (A2: JCL) Offence alleged against the Under Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of : accusedIPC Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found guilty Order of sentence or acquittal In the result, accused No.1 and 3 are found :guilty of the offences punishable under section 307 and Sec.452 r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. MOs.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and accordingly, accused No.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousands only) each and in default of the same, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of four months for the offence punishable under sec.307 r/w.34 IPC.
SC No.266/2022 2 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
Further accused No.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees One thousands only ) each and in default of the same, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of Two months for the offence punishable under Sec.452 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.Remand period of accused No.1 and 3 from 27-05- 2019 to 12-06-2019(17 days), during the proceedings, shall be given set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
This case coming before me on 11-5-2026 f or final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao, Counsel for the accused No.1 and 3, and that matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
Accused No.1 and 3 are facing the allegations in this case, for the offences Under Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.10/2022 of PS Bellampalli I town.
2.Sans unnecessary details material facts for adjudication as culled out from the charge sheet are that, previously, PW2 offered to sell his medical shop to A1 on 27.3.2018 for Rs.35,00,000/- and accordingly, entered into agreement of sale with A1 who paid Rs.25,00,000/- to PW2 as advance agreeing to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 28.8.2018, but later though A1 is ready to pay remaining amount, PW2 neither handed his shop nor returned the amount to A1. Keeping the said grudge in mind, on 25.5.2019 at 2040 hours, accused No.1 and 3 along with one Rahul went to the Ashok medical shop of PW.2 and
SC No.266/2022 3 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
abused them in filthy language and that all of a sudden A3 and Rahul (JCL) jumped over the counter into the shop, attacked on PW.1 and
PW2 with iron rods and wooden stick on head, neck, shoulder and fisted blows on stomach and also beat with legs with an intention to kill them, as per their pre-plan, due to which PW1 received severe head injury and got 13 stitches on his head, his right hand was swollen and
PW2 received severe head injuries and got 16 stitches.
Basing on above report of PW.1, PW.12/Investigating Officer registered a case in Crime No.87 of 2019 for the offences punishable
Under Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, PW.12 recorded the statement of PW.1 and PW2 and referred them to Govt. hospital, Bellampalli for treatment. Later, he visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of Pws.7 and 8 and got photographed the scene of offence with the help of PW6. PW12 also examined PW3 to PW6 and recorded their statements.
Subsequently, on 27-05-2019 at 0700 hours, PW.12 apprehended accused No.1 and 3 and Rahul @ Rohith at Ashoknagar
Bellampalli, who on interrogation voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. In pursuance of his confession, PW.12 secured the presence of mediators i.e., PW9 and PW10, conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized wooden stick from the possession of A1, two iron rods from the possession of A3 and Rahul under cover
SC No.266/2022 4 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
of panchanama, as such, PW.12 effected arrest of accused by following the procedure under the Code and produced them before the court for judicial remand. As Rahul was juvenile (child in conflict with law), he was produced before Juvenile court, Adilabad for judicial custody.
Upon collection of medical certificates of PW.1 & PW2 and after completion of investigation, PW.12 laid charge sheet against accused
No.1 and 3 for the offences punishable Under Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bellampalli took cognizance of the offence punishable Under Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 and 3 and registered the same as
P.R.C.No.10/2019. After following the procedure prescribed by law, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused persons, and committed the same on 22-08- 2019 by an order to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Mancherial. Later, the Hon’ble Sessions Court, in turn, registered it as S.C.No.266/2022 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to Law.
4. After hearing both sides, Accused No.1 and 3 were examined under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable Under
Sec.452, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC framed against them were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
SC No.266/2022 5 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P19 & MO1 and MO2. PW.1 is the
Complainant/Injured. PW.2 is the injured. PW.3 to 5 are eyewitnesses.
PW.6 is the Photographer. PW7 and PW8 are the witnesses for CDF panchanama. PW.9 is the Medical officer. PW.10 and PW11 are witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama. PW.12 is the
Investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW.1. Ex.P2 to 6 are 161 CrPC statements of PW3 to PW6. Exs.P6 and 7 are signatures of
PW7 and PW8 on CDF./ scene of offence panchanama. Exs.P8 and 9 are medical certificates of PW1and PW2. Exs.P10 & 11 are signatures of
PW10 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Exs.P12 & 13 are signatures of PW11 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P14 is the FIR. Ex.P15 is the Scene of offence panchanama. Exs.P16 & 17 are confession panchanamas of A1 and A3. Ex.P18 are 6 photographs along with pendrive. Ex.P19 is the certificate under 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against them, for which they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard both sides. Learned Additional PP. would submit that
PWs.1 & 2 are injured witnesses and contents of Ex.P1 are also corroborated by Ex.P18 and also Exs.P8 & P9, which are medical
SC No.266/2022 6 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
certificates of PWs.1 & 2 and proved through PW.9. He also submitted that no material contradictions or omissions were elicited by the
Learned Defence Counsel during the course of cross-examination, as such, testimonies of PWs.1 & 2 are reliable and in support of his contention, he relied upon judgment of Honorable Apex Court between
Ompal and others Vs. State of UP in Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2011.
On the other hand, learned defence Counsel submitted that as stated by PW.1, he lodged report at 10.00 PM., while Exs.P8 & P9 discloses that PWs.1 and 2 were under treatment from 9.35 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., then how PW.1 could lodge Ex.P1 at 10.00 p.m. before police station. He also would submit that pen drive marked under
Ex.P18 do not disclose of any actual incident of beating or assault and that as stated by I.O., there are civil disputes between accused and
PW.2. He would further submit that except the testimonies of PWs.1 & 2, no independent witness supported the prosecution's case including that of the worker of PWs.1 & 2 and that seizure of weapons is not proved by the prosecution, as the witnesses to seizure panchanama failed to support the case of the prosecution.
He relied upon decision of our Hon’ble High High court for the state of Telangana in a case between Kum.Rupa Vs State of
Telangana in Criminal appeal No.213/2013, but failed to contend as to what is the ratio laid down and in which way it is useful to his
SC No.266/2022 7 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
defence. However in the said case, their lordships disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted the accused persons, as prosecution failed to prove the injuries sustained by the victims, for non examination of doctor, who issued injury certificate and that injury certificate discloses as ‘Road traffic accident’, as such, the same is not applicable to the present case on hand.
8.Perused the record.
9.Now, the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused
No.1 and 3 for the offences punishable Under Sec.452, 307,
324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10.POINT: In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as PWs.1 to 12 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P19 & MO1 and MO2.
11.Gist of prosecution case is that on 25-05-2019 at around 20.40 hours A1, A3 & one Rahul went to Ashok medical stores and abused them in filthy language, meanwhile one Rahul and Preetam jumped from the counter inside the shop and attacked PWs.1 & 2 with iron rods and wooden stick and beat them indiscriminately with an intention to kill both PWs.1 & 2 and caused bleeding injuries.
On the other hand, no separate case is set up by the accused towards his defense but tried to demolish the prosecution case by pointing out the discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
12.Before adverting to the discussion, it is apposite to refer to the well settled principles of law regarding appreciation of evidence. No
SC No.266/2022 8 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
prosecution case is 100% perfect as it is not possible for prosecution to prove its case with cast iron perfection. There would be certain discrepancies, which do not go to root of the prosecution case and hence they should not be considered as fatal to the prosecution case. If the evidence of a sole witness is wholly reliable, it is sufficient to act upon and base conviction U/Sec.134 of Indian Evidence, as evidence is to be weighed and not counted.
13.On the anvil of above principles, it is to be seen whether prosecution is successful in establishing the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In support of prosecution case, the complainant who set law into motion by lodging a report under Ex.P1 and injured i.e.,
PWs.1 & 2 are the star witnesses to the prosecution case. Ocular testimony of PW.1 is to the effect that on 25-05-2019 at 20.40 hours, he and LW.2 were in Ashok medical general store, Bellampalli main road, at which time A1, A3 & one Rahul (JCL) came to their shop and started abusing him and LW2 in filthy language, though he informed them that financial issue between A1 & LW.2 would be sorted out the very next day but A1, A3 & Rahul did not hear them and suddenly A3 & Rahul jumped over the counter and hit him and LW.2 with iron rods on the head, neck and their shoulders, due to which, they sustained bleeding head injuries and when LW.3/Gattaiah tried to rescue them, they pushed LW.3 and threatened him to stay away from the issue. He further deposed that he and LW.2 were rescued from outside and informed the same to one town Bellampalli police station, who came to
SC No.266/2022 9 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
their shop and shifted him and LW.2 to the Government hospital,
Bellampalli and that he got 13 stitches, while LW2 got 16 stitches on the head. He also testified that medical officer referred both of them to government hospital, Mancherial, as such, he and LW.2 both went to
PS. and lodged report under Ex.P1 and on the next day, he went to
Mancherial government hospital for medication, who advised him to undergo CT. scan in the said hospital and found some irregularly in the report. He further alleged that at the time of hitting him and LW.2, A1 uttered that “Katham kardo saleko, sarpe do, jaldi karo, donomese ek bhi nahi bachna” and also that A1, A3 and Rahul pre-planned and attacked him and LW.2 to kill them and on identification, one iron rod is marked as MO.1 and one stick is marked as MO.2.
During the course of cross-examination, learned Defense Counsel mainly attacked PW.1 to establish the selling of medical shop of LW2 to
A1 for Rs.45,00,000/- , payment of advance etc. and is successful in doing so but did not elicit anything during the course of cross- examination regarding the alleged offences narrated by PW.1, aApart from the said civil dispute except that Ex.P1 was lodged around 10.00 p.m. and it takes 2 to 3 minutes to reach police station from their shop and house. No contradictions or omissions were got exhibited through
PW.1 by the learned Defense Counsel.
14.Subsequently, PW.1 is recalled in order to exhibit Exs.P18 and
P19 as the same were not produced by the I.O.
SC No.266/2022 10 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
During the course of further cross-examination, following information is elicited by the learned Defense Counsel.
“It is true that Ex.P18/ photographs and pen drive do not disclose that accused persons were holding deadly weapons or sticks in their hands. It is true that Ex.P8 pen drive do not disclose of accused persons attacking him with sticks or deadly weapons. It is true that the first photograph of Ex.P18 is captured at government hospital. PW1 denied that he got morphed the photographs and got created videography shown in pen drive under Ex.P18 and that he is deposing false.
15. Brother of PW1 who is also injured, is examined as PW.2, who almost deposed in similar lines as that of PW.1 except deviation that
A1, A3 and one Rahul ( sic A1, A2 and one Rahul ) together hit him and
PW.1 with rod on head, chest and stomach.
During the course of cross-examination of PW2 also learned defense counsel mainly attacked PW2 to establish the selling of his shop for Rs.45,00,000/-, payment of earnest amount and is successful in establishing the same and also about civil dispute between him and
A1. That apart he also elicited admissions during the course of cross- examination which are as follows:
“I am suffering with loss of memory (amnesia). It is true that due to loss of memory, I would remember only some of the events and transactions. He volunteered that since the date of incident, he was attacked from loss of memory disease. He denied the suggestion that
SC No.266/2022 11 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
A1, A3 never attacked him and PW1 with iron rods, wooden stick and that he is deposing false.”
Thus, the minor discrepancy in the testimony of PW.2, is apparently for the loss of memory, as PW.2 is suffering with amnesia since the date of incident, as such, the same do not have any serious impact on the trustworthiness of PW.2.
16. PWs.3 to 5 who are eyewitnesses to the incident, PW.6 who is a photographer, PWs.7 and 8 who are witnesses to scene of offence panchanama/CDF, PWs.10 and 11, who are witnesses to confession of accused persons altogether failed to support the prosecution case in toto and despite cross-examination of said witnesses with the permission of the court, nothing material could be elicited by the learned Additional PP.
17.PW.9 is the medical officer, who rendered treatment to PW's.1 and 2. According to him, on 25-5-2019 at 9.15 pm, injured PWs.1 and 2 on their own accord came to hospital and on examination of injured
Suresh kumar (PW1), he found the following injuries:
1) Laceration (3x2) over left front temporal region.
2) Laceration size (7x1 cm, 1x0.5 cm, 1x0.5 cm) left parietal region.
He further testified that the said injuries are simple in nature and caused by blunt object and also that he suggested him to undergo
CT scan and basing on scanned report, he endorsed in the medical certificate as extra cranial soft tissue swelling noted in posterior high parietal region and brain pachyderm normal attenuation and that at
SC No.266/2022 12 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
around 11.00 pm on the same day, he has discharged injured and again on 26-5-2019 at around 2.30 AM, got admitted and by 4.00 AM, he was discharged.
He further testified that he also examined PW.2 and found following injuries:
1) Laceration (3x1) over the behind left ear.
2) Laceration size (5x1 cm) over occipital region.
3) Laceration size (2x1 cm) over occipital region.
The above said injuries are simple in nature, caused with blunt object and that the age of injuries is 1 to 2 hours prior to the incident and as per CT scan, there was normal studying parenchyma and that
PW2 was discharged at 11.00 pm on same day. He clarified that on both PW's.1 and 2 suturing was done.
During the course of cross examination, it is got elicited that, injured persons from 9.35 to 11.00 pm were at hospital and as there is no history, I cannot say whether Exs.P8 and P9 are either self-inflicted, due to attack or the injured contacted with any rough surface. He denied that injuries as per Exs.P8 and P9 would cause only with sharp object but not blunt object.
18.PW.12 is the investigating officer, whose testimony in the examination in chief is to the extent of investigation done by him and through him, Exs.P14 to 17 were exhibited.
During the course of cross examination, it is got elicited that
Blue colt police got admitted PWs.1 and 2 in the hospital. He
SC No.266/2022 13 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
volunteered that later PW1 came to police station and lodged a report at about 10.00 PM. I got knowledge of the incident at about 10.00 pm on 25-5-2019 as I went to police station by 10.00 PM. only. On confrontation of Ex.P8, he admitted that PW1 was admitted on 25-5- 2019 at 9.15 PM. and discharged at 11.00 PM. Prior to my tenure, one case was registered against A1 and A3 and another case was registered against PW.1, PW.2 and wife of PW2. It is true that there are civil disputes between A1, A3 and PW1 and PW2 regarding selling of the medical shop of PW2 to A1.
19.On analyzing the above evidence produced by the prosecution, it is patent that, PWs.1 and 2 are crucial witnesses to the prosecution case being complainant and injured witnesses and during the course of cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, nothing material could be elicited, so as to impeach their testimonies, but for establishing civil dispute about purchasing of medical shop of PW.2 by A1. Both their testi- monies are also corroborated by videos recorded in the pen drive under
Ex.P18, which clearly depicts accused No.1, 3 and another (Rahul/JCL) entering into Ashok Medical shop, ferociously arguing and all of a sud- den disruption in the recording and finally PW.1 sitting on the floor with inflicted injuries and weeping, though not actual assault. Ex.P19 is proved through PW.1 being author.
20.Information elicited during the course of cross examination of
PWs.1 and 2, also goes to patently disclose that PW.2 was the original owner and possessor of Ashok Medical shop, into which accused per-
SC No.266/2022 14 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
sons trespassed to assault PWs.1 and 2, since accused No.1 entered into agreement of sale with PW.2 in order to purchase the said medical shop.
21.It is true that, Ex.P18 video recordings do not disclose accused
No.1, 3 and another (Rahul/JCL.) holding deadly weapons in their hands, but it is pertinent to take into consideration that said video clip- ping is not depicting the entire incident of assault upon trespass and is only a piece of incident recorded, with disruption due to shaking of camera, which might be due to jumping of A3 and Rahul over the counter, which discloses the presence of accused No.1, 3 and Rahul at the Ashok Medical shop on the alleged date of incident and PW.1 sitting on floor with bleeding injuries on his head along with scattered articles in the shop, after the incident. The said video clipping under Ex.P18 discloses the cause and effect of the incident. Accused persons might have attacked PWs.1 and 2 with weapons hidden under their cloths.
Merely because Ex.P18 do not disclose holding of weapons by accused persons, perse, cannot be a ground to doubt the otherwise reliable and trustworthy testimonies of PWs.1 and 2. Both PWs.1 and 2 clearly identified the iron rod and stick marked as MOs.1 and 2, whose seizure is proved through the testimony of PW.12/I.O, as he is the one who seized MOs.1 and 2, as such, non supporting of witnesses to seizure panchanama is not of any consequence. A feeble attempt was made by attributing that said video recordings and photographs under Ex.P18
SC No.266/2022 15 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
was morphed, without demonstrating as to at which frame of recording or the mode of morphing.
22.Testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 are convincing and consistent, as such, are trustworthy, reliable. In addition to that, their testimonies are also corroborated by the independent testimony of PW.9, who examined
PWs.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P7 and P8. From the suggestions posed to
PW.9 it is also apparent that sustenance of injuries by PWs.1 and 2 is not dispute. In such circumstances, it is highly improbable that injured persons/ PWs.1 and 2 would screen the real offenders in order to impli- cate the accused persons falsely, particularly when Ex.P1 is promptly lodged on the very same day within hours of incident giving full details of offence with time, place of incident, names of the victim, motive, name of the accused persons, weapons used and manner of assault and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 and 2 were recorded immedi- ately. PWs.1 and 2 underwent medical examination on the same night, which leads to seal of assurance of prosecution case, as held by
Hon’ble Apex court in a case between Brahm Swaroop v. State of
U.P., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288 :
“23. The prompt lodging of the FIR is proved from the chik report and the statement of the complainant un- der Section 161 CrPC, which was recorded immediately after lodging the FIR. Any defect in the preparation of the inquest report by the investigating officer cannot lead to an inference that the FIR was not registered at the alleged time. The FIR contains all the essential features of the
SC No.266/2022 16 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
prosecution's case including names of eyewitnesses, time and place of incident, names of the victim, motive, name of the accused persons, weapons in their hands and manner of assault. Thus, all these things lend a seal of assurance not only to the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of the incident, but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime. Courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of FIR and prompt interrogation of a witness under Section 161 CrPC as the same substan- tially eliminates the chances of embellishment and con- coction creeping into the account contained therein.”
23.PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated that accused persons with an intention to kill/murder, entered into their shop (trespassed) attacked them and also PWs.1 and 2 categorically stated the specific language used by A1 during the occurrence of the incident, by clearly narrating the details of incident of assault by accused persons and their intention to murder PWs.1 and 2, though not successful in their attempt. There is coherence between the testimonies of PWs.1, 2 and 9 and also they have clearly stated about the place of occurrence of the incident. Their testimonies provide clear picture of the attack carried on by the accused persons over PWs.1 and 2 and are consistent and thereby inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disbelieve their testimonies.
24.Even otherwise also, as stated above, PWs.1 and 2 both are injured persons. The testimonies of injured witnesses have high probative value and that they stand on higher pedestal, which cannot
SC No.266/2022 17 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
be jettisoned, unless there are material contradictions in their testimonies, since injured persons would not implicate the other innocent persons so as to shield the real offenders. Honorable Apex court also reiterated the above principle in the recent decision relied upon by the prosecution in a case between Ompal and others Vs.
State of UP in Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2011.
Above view of mine is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Apex court in a case between Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of
Karnataka reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 wherein their
Lordships held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies.
25.Also Honorable Apex court in a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 between State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Others, held that “27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely
SC No.266/2022 18 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul
Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1262]).
26.It is also held by their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex court in a case between Brahm Swarup Vs. State of UP. reported in AIR 2011 SC 280 :
28. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.” (Vide State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7
SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021] , Krishan v. State of
Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ,
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] , Vishnu v.
State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.
[(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630 : AIR 2009
SC 2661] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6
SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .
SC No.266/2022 19 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
27.In yet another case between State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Mansingh and others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 414), their
Lordships held that the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
28.In another case between B.K. Channappa v. State of
Karnataka, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 57, though their Lordships found certain contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses, but have placed heavy reliance on the testimony of injured witnesses despite some improvements, contradictions and omissions therein.
29.It is true that PW.1 admitted clearly that he lodged a report on the date of incident at about 10.00 PM., but as stated by PW.9 and under Exs.P8 and P9, PW.1 was admitted at 9.30 PM. and discharged at 11.00 PM., as such, there is a discrepancy regarding the time of lodging report by PW.1. Here, what is to be considered here is that,
PW.9 and Exs.P8 and P9 being medical evidence is in the nature of corroborative evidence. In case of any discrepancy between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, ocular testimony of witness, prevail over medical evidence, since primacy would be given to ocular testimonies particularly when the testimonies of both injured/PWs.1 and 2 are credible and trustworthy and at coherence. Time of registration of Ex.P1 is also very well corroborated by the testimony of
PW.12. My view is also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex court
SC No.266/2022 20 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
between Mohan Singh and another v. State of M.P., (1999) 2 SCC 428 wherein their Lordships held:
“The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it is with some variance with the medical evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion, inevitably to reject the prosecution story...
Further their Lordships held that :
"So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created."
30.In case of any discrepancy of ocular evidence with that of medical evidence, due prominence should be given to ocular evidence, as held by Hon’ble Apex court in a case between State of U.P. Vs.
Krishna Gopal and Another reported in (1988) 4 SCC 302, "Where the eye witnesses" account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive.
Importance and primacy should be given to the orality of the trial process.
31.Also Hon’ble Apex court in Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2003) 12 SCC 155 also held as follows:
“8. It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter. Unless medical evidence in its
SC No.266/2022 21 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out.”
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, when the evidence of witnesses particularly injured witnesses ie., PWs.1 and 2 which are coherent with is each other and credible, their testimonies cannot be brushed aside because of minor discrepancy with the medical evidence, regarding the time of lodging of report under Ex.P1.
Likewise, a trivial discrepancy between PW.12 and PW.9 about admitting PWs.1 and 2 in the hospital by blue colts police also do not assume much prominence.
32.Next crucial ingredient of the offence to be proved is intention of accused persons to murder PWs.1 and 2. Before dwelling into the said aspect, it is apt to consider what are the factors necessary to arrive at such an intention. Hon’ble Apex court in a case between Hari Singh v.
Sukhbir Singh,reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551 observed as follows:
7.Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention….
SC No.266/2022 22 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
33.Also Hon’ble Apex court in a case between Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 31 held that :
10. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.
34.Apex court in a case between S.K. Khaja Versus State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 1183/2011 Decided on August 23, 2023 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1093
8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant - Mohammad
Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC.
What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant -
Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and that too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on
SC No.266/2022 23 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
35.Conspectus of the above decisions is that, intention to kill/murder is to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances of the assault, nature of weapon used, nature of injury sustained and part of body where such injuries were inflicted. It is not necessary that the injuries inflicted must be such that they would cause death or that they must be grievous. Coming to the case on hand, injuries ie., laceration of size 3 x 1 cm., inflicted by accused No.3 and Rahul on
PW.1 is on left front temporal region and Laceration of 7x1 cm, 1x0.5 cm, 1x0.5 cm. is on left parietal region ie, vital parts of head. Similarly, injuries ie., Laceration of size (3x1) cm., Laceration of size (5x1 cm)., and Laceration size (2x1 cm) inflicted by accused No.3 and Rahul on
PW.2 is behind left ear, over occipital region, over occipital region respectively and that too with iron rod, having beaten indiscriminately, which are very vital part of the body. In addition to that accused No.1 openly yelled and encouraged accused No.3 and Rahul by saying ““Katham kardo saleko, sarpe do, jaldi karo, donomese ek bhi nahi bachna”, from which the intention of accused No.1, 3 and Rahul, in order to eliminate PWs.1 and 2 is apparent, though not successful in
SC No.266/2022 24 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
murdering them and do not raise any ambiguity in that aspect.
Corollary is that, prosecution is successful in establishing the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2, upon assault by accused persons by tresspasing into scene of offence shop, though not grievous and the intention of accused persons in inflicting such injuries.
36.Video recording clippings under Ex.P18 also depicts that
Accused No.1 was ferociously and vibrantly exchanging words with
PW.1 though PW.1 was trying to pacify him and other accused persons.
Further, as stated by both PWs.1 and 2, accused No.1 yelled out by saying “Katham kardo saleko, sarpe do, jaldi karo, donomese ek bhi nahi bachna” while accused No.3 and Rahul were attacking PWs.1 and 2, goes to clarify that accused No.1, 3 and Rahul have the common intention and that they are in concert with each other in order to commit the offence.
37.Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the “common intention” to commit the offence. The phrase “common intention” implies a prearranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time. The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case
SC No.266/2022 25 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
and circumstances existing thereto, as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 174)
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court, accused No.1 is also liable to be convicted under section 452 and 307 of IPC. r/w Sec.34 of IPC, as he shared common intention with accused
No.3 and Rahul, for trespassing into the shop of PW.2 and inflicting injuries on PWs.1 and 2 with an intention to murder them.
38.With regard to the charge under Sec.324 of IPC., it is crucial to take note that, the act of causing hurt using a weapon is the very 'act' that constitutes the 'Attempt to Murder' under Section 307 Part II of
IPC. Since Section 307 Part II of IPC. specifically prescribes punishment for an attempt to murder where 'hurt is caused, the ingredients of Section 324 of IPC. are fully consumed by Section 307. of
IPC. of causing hurt, which is the essence and already an integral component of the Section 307 of IPC. To convict accused persons for
Sec.324 of IPC. separately for the same injuries against same victims, is to convict the person twice for the same "hurt. Therefore, a simultaneous conviction under Section 324 violates the spirit of Section 71 IPC., as such, accused persons cannot be convicted for the alleged offence of Sec.324 of IPC.
39.Likewise, in respect of alleged offence of Sec.506 of IPC. also, neither PW.1 nor PW.2 have whispered that accused persons have threatened them or caused alarm in their mind to do any act which
SC No.266/2022 26 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
they are not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which they are legally entitled to do, in order to attract the said charge, that too for the same acts of accused persons, in causing injuries to them. Hence, accused persons cannot be convicted for the charge under Sec.506 of
IPC.
40.Synthesis of the supra discussion is that, prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused No.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections.307 and Sec.452 r/w.34 of IPC. beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused No.1 and 3 are therefore, liable for conviction. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused No.1 and 3.
41.In the result, accused No.1 and 3 are found guilty of the offences punishable under section 307 and Sec.452 r/w.34 of IPC. Accordingly they are convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.
Accused No.1 and 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 324 and Sec.506 r/w.34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. MOs.1 and MO.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.
ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE
MANCHERIAL
SC No.266/2022 27 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
Heard accused No.1 and 3 on sentence. Accused No.1 submitted that he is suffering with B.P. and that his mother is bedridden.
Accused No.3 did not submit anything on sentencing. Submitting thus, accused No.1 and 3 pleaded mercy of this court in sentencing them by taking lenient view. No special circumstances are stated by the both accused to take a lenient view. Accused No.1 and 3 with common intention to kill, attacked PWs.1 and 2 on vital parts and caused bleeding injuries, with iron rod by trespassing in their shop.
Further Hon'ble Apex court observed that undue sympathy in imposing sentence would be more harm to the justice system in a case between Hazara Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Ors., reported in 2013 9 SCC 516.
..We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
Also, in another decision in between State of Punjab Vs. Bawa
Singh reported in 2015 3 SCC 441 Hon'ble Apex court remanded the matter to Hon'ble High Court to impose befitting sentence since reducing the sentence to period already undergone for a period of 4 months is not proportionate for the offence U/s.323 of IPC. The offence proved by the prosecution in the present case being an offences
SC No.266/2022 28 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
U/Sec.307 and 452 R/w.Sec.34 of IPC. are more grave, as such, this court is not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act. However, considering the health condition of mother of accused No.1, some lenient view could be taken though offence under
Sec.307 of IPC. attracts imprisonment for life, in case of causing hurt.
Heard both sides on the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the accused No.1 and 3. Learned Addl.PP submitted that there are no mitigating factors and submitted to punish the accused No.1 and 3 as per law sternly, while learned counsel for accused submitted to take lenient view. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, taking the nature of offence and nature of injuries and the submission of both the accused into consideration, this court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding imprisonment as under.
In the result, accused No.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of FIVE YEARS and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousands only) each and in default of the same, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of four months for the offence punishable under sec.307 r/w.34 IPC.
Further accused No.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only ) each and in default of the same, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of Two months
SC No.266/2022 29 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
for the offence punishable under Sec.452 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently.
Remand period of accused No.1 and 3 from 27-05-2019 to 12-06- 2019(17 days), during the proceedings, shall be given set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
Accused No.1 and 3 are appraised of their right to prefer appeal against the Judgment and sentence passed by this court. They are also informed that they are at liberty to approach the District Legal Services
Authority, Mancherial to seek legal aid to prefer Appeal, if they intends, in case they have no means to engage an Advocate in the Appellate
Court.
Office is directed to furnish true copy of judgment to Accused
No.1 and 3 forthwith.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.
ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE
MANCHERIAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1/LW.1Suresh kumar sharmaComplainant/Injured PW.2/LW.2Subhash Chandra Sharmainjured PW.3/LW.3P.GattaiahEyewitness PW.4/LW.4Md Shakeeleyewitness PW.5/LW.5T.ThirupathiEyewitness PW.6/LW.6K.Anil KumarPhotographer PW.7/LW.7K.MahenderWitnessforCDF panchanama
SC No.266/2022 30 of 30 Dt:18.05.2026
PW.8/LW.8Md.WazeedWitnessforCDF panchanama PW.9/LW.11 Dr.Ch.SakaramMedical officer PW.10/LW.9G.DarmenderWitness for confession cum seizure panchanama PW.11/E.RavinderWitness for confession cum LW.10seizure panchanama PW.12/M.Rajendra PrasadInvestigating officer LW.12
FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P3161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P4161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P5161 CrPC statement of PW6 Ex.P6Signature of PW7 on CDF panchanama Ex.P7 Signature of PW8 on CDF panchanama Ex.P8Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P9Medical certificate of PW2 Exs.P10Signatures of PW10 on confession cum seizure panchanama & 11 Exs.P12Signatures of PW11 on confession cum seizure panchanama & 13 Ex.P14FIR Ex.P15Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P16 Confession panchanamas of A1 and A3 & 17 Ex.P186 photographs along with pendrive Ex.P19Certificate under 65B of Indian Evidence Act
FOR DEFENCE: Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:: MO.1: rod MO.2: Stick
ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE
MANCHERIAL