Page 1 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL
FRIDAY, DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. D.UDAY NAIK,
I-ADDL. JMFC,
FAC. JMFC,
GADWAL
C.C. No. 466 OF 2017
BETWEEN:-
The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, of P.S.Maldakal. … Complainant
AND
A1) Kummari Anjaneyulu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2) Chinna Madhanna @ Kummari Madhanna, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3) Pedda Govindhu @ Govindhu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, A4) Hanumanthu @ Kummari Hanumanthu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Chippadhoddy Village of Maldakal Mandal.
… Accused nos. 1 to 4
This case is coming before me on 25-04-2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Smt.Bhavani, Asst. Public Prosecutor for the com- plainant and Sri.Md. Khaja Moinuddin, Advocate for the Accused nos. 1 to 4 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court de- livered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The State being represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS.
Maldakal laid charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 96 of 2016 for the offence punishable Under Section. 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 2 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
The case of the prosecution in a brief is as follows:
2. The case facts in a capsule are that on 19-09-2016 at 10:00 hours
LW1/Sri. Vadde Ramudu lodged a petition in which he stated that he has land disputes in the edges of subject agriculture land and on 18-09-2016 at about 11:30 hours while LW-1 to 4 were working in their fields, then the accused A1 to A4 were cutting the edges of LW-1 land, immediately LW-1 along with his brother went there and asked the accused persons about the cutting of edges, in the meantime the A1 beat LW-1 with stone on head as such he sustained bleeding injuries. LW-2 to 4 came to rescue LW-1 and the A2 to A4 were bet them with hands and kicked with legs. Then the LW5 rescued from the clutch- es of the accused persons. Hence the petition.
3.Basing the contents of report LW9, registered a case in Cr.No. 96/2016,
U/Sec. 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.
4.During the course of investigation, LW9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW5 and sent LW1 to Govt. Area Hospital at Gadwal for treatment. Further, LW9 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW6 and LW7, conducted the scene of offence pan- chanama in their presence and seized one stone from the spot and drawn rough sketch. On 15-09-2016, the LW9 served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused nos. 1 to 4. On 25-09-2016, LW10 took up the investigation from LW9 and as part of his investigation, he collected the Medical certificate of injured from LW8/Dr.Varalaxmi, who treated the LW1 and in medical certificate she opined that the Injuries of LW1 are “SIMPLE IN NATURE”. After completion of the entire investigation, LW10 has filed charge sheet against the accused per- sons. Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 3 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
5. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court cognizance for the offence U/Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC was taken against the accused persons and on appearance of the accused nos. 1 to 4 copies of documents were fur- nished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and after furnishing copies of documents accused persons were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.324,323 r/w 34 IPC for which the accused persons denied the accusation and on questioning on plea of guilt they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the charge framed against the ac- cused persons and the trial against the accused persons.
6. For proving their case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked exhibits P1 to P4. Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is CDF along with rough sketch, Ex.P3 is said Medical Certificate, Ex.P4 is FIR and MO-1 marked as stone and Ex.D1 is the relevant portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P. C statement of the witness(PW2) and Ex.D2 is the relevant portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of the witness(PW4). The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW7 and LW10 as such, this court closed their evidence.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused persons were exam- ined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused persons denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence on their side.
8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel for the accused persons.
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 4 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 9 . Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution proved its case by proving the substance of
accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against
the accused persons i.e., A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt?”
POINT:
10. PW-1 deposed in his evidence that the accused persons belongs to their village and they are having in land in Sy.No.131 situated at Chippadoddi vil- lage. At around six years back while they were working in their fields A1 An- janeylu was cutting the edges of their filed/land, as such he has asking why he is cutting the edges of their filed, to which A1 Anjaneyulu enraged on him, abused him and beat him with a stone over his head, as such he has received bleeding Injury and fell unconsciously, on seeing the same LW2 to LW4 inter- fered and came there in order to rescue him but A1 to A4 beat them in discrim- inately with their hands and legs as such they have received blunt injuries all over their bodies. The incident was witnessed by LW2 to LW5. There after they went to the Police Station to report the matter, on their instructions they went to Govt. Area Hospital, Gadwal, where they were treated then again they went to Police Station and lodged a report on the next day morning. He identified the stone with which A1 Anjaneyulu beat him.
During his cross-examination, he testified that he cannot say the specific date of the alleged incident. On the date of alleged incident he went to the Po- lice Station at around 2.30 PM, he went Govt. Area Hospital, Gadwal at around 4.30pm. The Ex.P1 was scribed by one known person on his narration. he cannot say the name of scriber. He admitted that he has not stated in his
Ex.P1 that LW2 to LW4 were came to rescue, also not mentioned that he has
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 5 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 land in Sy.No.131. There were previous land edges disputes in between his family and family of accused. After 15 minutes, he has regained the conscious- ness. He has handed over the his clothes which drenched with full of blood to the investigating officer. His statement was recorded of the next day of the in- cident. He denied the suggestion that accused are no way concerned with this case he himself fell on the road and receive the injury over his head, by keeping the previous grudges he has foisted this false case against the accused in order to harass them.
11. PW-2 and PW-3 deposed in their examination-in-chief in consonance with their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements and the police have examined and recorded their statements. The same is not repeated to avoid the repetition of facts.
During cross-examination of PW2, he testified that Ex.P1 was scribed by one known person to them. Since from 6 years there were no amicable terms as there was disputes pertaining to the edges of the fields. He has stated before the police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that there were disputes pertaining to the edges of the fields. He has not stated before the police as there were previ- ous grudges pertaining to the edges of the fields and he denied the suggestion that the Accused No.1 never beat PW-1 with stone and also they never beat
PW-1, himself and his father as well and they are no way concerned to this case and in order to harass all the Accused they have filed this case with false allegations.
During cross-examination of PW3, he denied the suggestion that he was not present on the date of alleged incident at the scene of offence. He admitted that he has not stated before the police that he was present at the alleged sce-
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 6 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 ne of offence and at the time of occurrence alleged incident. Since from 6 years there were no amicable terms as there was disputes pertaining to the edges of fields. He denied the suggestion that the Accused No.1 never beat PW-1 with stone and also they never beat PW-1, PW-2 and his father as well and they are no way concerned to this case and in order to harass all the Accused they have filed this case with false allegations.
12. PW-4 deposed in his evidence that at around more than four years back on one day PW-1 and A-1 quarreled in their fields with regard to edges of their fields, in the Incident A-1 Anjaneyulu beat with a stone to which PW-1 has re- ceived bleeding injury over his head. On seeing the same, he has rescued PW-1
Ramudu from the hands the Accused. Then they went to the police station to report the matter.
During his cross-examination, he testified that the police examined him on the same day itself in the evening hours. He does not know his land's sur- vey number. He has heard huge and cries while he has attending work in his fields, as such he went to the alleged place of offence. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the date of alleged incident at the scene of offence, he was deposing false in order to help the complainant being their relative.
There were previous disputes in between both the families concerning to the edges of their fields seen from one year prior to the date of alleged offence. He denied the suggestion that he has not stated before police that there were pre- vious disputes since from Two years prior to the date of alleged offence, A-1 never beat PW-1 with stone as he has stated in his chief examination, the PW-1 foisted false case against the Accused to grab their land and at the Instance of
PWs-1 to 3, he was deposing false. Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 7 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
13. PW-5 deposed in his evidence that in the year, 2016 on one day there was a quarrelling in between Accused family and complainant family at their fields in respect of edges of their fields, as such Police, Maldakal has secured him and LW-7/Anjaneyulu, conducted scene of offence panchanama in pres- ence, obtained his signature on it. Police also seized stone with which the Ac- cused No.1 beat PW-1. The boundaries of the scene of offence East Land of
Kummari Anjaneyulu, West. Land of Boya Ramudu, North Land of Kummari
Sri Ramulu, South. Lands of Vadde Anjaneyulu and Ediga Narayana Goud.
During his cross-examination, he testified that he was native of Yapad- hinne Village. He has no relation with PWs-1 to 3, but they are his neighboring land owners. He denied the suggestion that he was cultivating the land of PW-2
Police secured him. He has signed one time only, he has signed on written pa- pers. The place of offence took place in Sy.No 131. By the time of the incident, red chilli crop was raised in Sy.No. 131 to his knowledge Police have not cap- tured the scene of offence in his presence. The stone with which Accused has committed the alleged offence is weighing about 1½ Kg to 2 Kg. He has not ob- served any bloodstain marks over the stone/MO-1 the stone is in wheat colour.
Witness adding that the name was "Borusu Rai" There were no much gathering except approximately 9 to 10 members. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing false in order to help the Complaint.
14. PW-6 deposed in his evidence that on 15-09-2016 at about 01.00 PM one
Vadde Ramudu/PW-1 came to the hospital, Gadwal with a complaint of injury, as such he has examined him and found the following injury. Lacerated wound measuring 2 X 1 CM over fore head the same is simple in nature. Accordingly, he has issued medical certificate. Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 8 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
During his cross-examination, he admitted that patient/PW-1 visited hospital without any escort, he has not mention the age of injury in Ex.P3, he has not mentioned the identification marks of patient/PW-1 and the injury mentioned in Ex.P3 may possible if any person fell on any hard surface.
15. In the evidence of PW-7, who is the investigating officer testified the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which has similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.
During the course of the cross-examination, he admitted that there is a delay of about 24 hours from the alleged incident and lodging of Ex.P1, as men- tion in the Ex.D1 is stated to him, as mention in the Ex.D2 is stated to him, the name of PW-4 is not mention in the complaint and PW-1, PW-2, LW-3 are same family members. He has not seized the blood stained cloths of PW-1. He admit- ted that in the rough sketch the land of PW-5 is not drawn. They have not taken any photographs of the alleged damaged boundaries of the scene of offence. The scene of offence was conducted around 02:00 PM on the day of lodging Ex.P1.
The PW-4 has stated about the previous enmity between the Accused persons and the PW-1. He denied the suggestion that the Accused persons have given the survey related copy to him and the same is refused by him, a false case is registered against the Accused persons to avoid the survey, the Accused per- sons has not beaten the PW-1 with any alleged stone and upon the influence exerted by the PW-1 we registered a false case against the Accused persons and the MO-1 is a planted one. As the blood stains was not found on the MO-1 as such, he has not collected any blood stains.
16. It is germane to mention that the essential element for proving the offence
U/s 324 of IPC is that the prosecution must prove that the accused voluntarily
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 9 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 caused hurt and such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in the section. The essential ingredients of the offence U/Sec.324 IPC are:-
(i). The accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the vic- tim.
(ii). The accused must commit hurt with the knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt to the victim.
(iii). It was caused:- (a) by any shooting instruments, (b) by stabbing instru- ments, or (c) by any cutting instruments, or (d) by any instrument, if used as a weapon an offence, likely to cause death, or (e) by means of any poison, or (f) by means of any corrosive substance, or (g) by means of any explosive sub- stance, or (h) by means of any animal.
The essential ingredients of the hurt as defined U/s.319 IPC and also the ingredients of the voluntarily causing hurt as defined U/s 321 IPC are also to be satisfied. The definition of hurt contemplates causing of a bodily pain, dis- ease or infirmity by a person to another. Accused must commit offence of caus- ing hurt with an intention and with the knowledge that thereby he would cause hurt to the victim. U/s 324 IPC causing of injury must be by means of an in- strument. Unless the hurt is caused by means of an instrument, Sec. 324 IPC would not come into play.
17. The prosecution version is that the accused no.1 has beaten PW1 with a stone on his head and caused bleeding injuries to him and the other accused persons has beaten PW2 and PW3 with hands and legs and caused blunt inju- ries and the said act was witnessed by the PW4. Per contra, the version of the accused persons which could be culled from the cross-examination is that
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 10 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 there is previous animosity between the accused persons and the PW1 to PW3 and further there is land boundary disputes between them and upon the said grudge, a false case is registered against them.
18. The PW1 who is the victim deposed before the court and also submitted in the complaint that the accused no.1 has beaten him with a stone on his head. The same version is corroborated by PW2 and PW3 without much disso- nance. On perusal of the Ex.P3 and the evidence of PW6 it reveals clearly that the PW1 has received injury over his forehead and this corroborates with the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and also the PW4 who is the eyewitness.
19. For better appreciation of the factual matrix of case, each essential ingre- dient would be discussed hereafter.
Firstly, Intention to cause hurt or knowledge that an act is likely to cause hurt, is the most decisive factor to decide whether a person can be held guilty of voluntarily causing hurt. If we gather the intention and the knowledge of the accused and more particularly A1 from the surrounding background facts of the case at hand, it would unveil to us that, at first A1 has beaten the
PW1 with a stone on his head and thereby caused lacerated wound measuring 2X1 cm over his forehead. Then, PW2, PW3 and LW4 who are the family mem- bers of the PW1 were present at the scene and witnessed the act of A1 towards
PW1 and thereafter, the PW4 has also witnessed the same. The root cause or the intention for the beating of PW-1 is that the PW1 to PW3 and also LW4 has questioned the accused persons while they were destroying the bund of their agriculture field. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that the Explanation 1 to the Section.14 of the Indian Evidence Act would depict that a fact becomes relevant which is showing the existence of a relevant state of mind, which must Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 11 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the partic- ular matter in question. The matter in question in the present case at hand could be deduce from the suggestions put forth in the cross-examination is that there is previous animosity as stated supra between the accused persons and PW1 to PW3 which shows the existence of a relevant state of mind which was existing to A1, not generally but in reference to the grudge in respect of the disputed bund between their agricultural fields.
20. The Hon’ble apex court has observed and held in catena of decisions and same is reiterated in Sadakat Kotwar Vs State Of Jharkhand | LL 2021 Sc 643 that “...nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for as- sault and the nature of the injury caused”. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the stone was used by A1, it resulted laceration over the forehead of PW1 as reflected in the medical certificate. Even though the injuries are simple in nature, it has the probability of impact on PW-1. The
Hon’ble High Court For The State Of Kerala in Revision vs Ramatharakan
opined that “...even where the injury caused is simple, if it was caused with a dangerous weapon, it would make the section. 324 of IPC applicable. The MO-1 i.e., stone seized in the case at hand would fall under the category of serious weapon.
21. Secondly, the causative weapon alleged to have been used for the com- mission of the offence was stone, and the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 would show that the PW1 was hit with a stone and moreover, the PW5 who is the witness for crime detail form has also deposed before the court that police seized the stone in his presence and he even further testified the details of the MO-1 i.e.,
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 12 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 weighting about 1½ kg to 2kg and that the stone was in wheat colour in his cross-examination. The said evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 is consistent, cogent and reliable in respect of the causative weapon i.e., Stone. Furthermore, the culpability of the accused has to be determined with reference to the act committed and to substantiate the same the police could seize the causative weapon used in the commission of the offence and the Medical officer i.e., PW-6 who issued Ex.P-3 in his evidence testified that PW-1 sustained laceration wound measuring 2X1 cm over his forehead. The Ex.P3 corroborates with PW- 1 version and even PW-2 and PW-3 testified the same and nothing significant could be elicited by the learned counsel for the accused persons in respect of the causative weapon during cross-examination of the witnesses so as to im- peach their creditworthiness as under Sec.155 of Evidence act. The PW-1 has correctly identified the weapon with which he was beaten by the Accused no.1.
22. During the oral arguments the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the PW-2 and PW-3 are the interested witnesses as such their evidence cannot be relied upon. It is pertinent to mention here that credibility and rela- tionship have to be tested with reference to the way they fared in cross- examination and the nature of impression created in the mind of the court. If the presence of the witnesses at the scene at the time of occurrence is proved or considered to be natural and their evidence is found to be true in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case, it can provide a good basis for conviction. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be given much weight as the testimony of the injured witness is accord- ed a special status in law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Balu Sudam Khalde
And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra 2023 Live law (SC) 279 has
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 13 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 categorically held that“…the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be dis- carded lightly”. In the case at hand, even though the PW-2 and PW-3 are the related witnesses of PW-1, but the complaint and the version of PW-1 shows that the PW-2 and PW-3 were present at the scene of offence and the same could be well taken into consideration by this court as their presence during the very root cause of Galata occurred in the field is corroborating.
23. Moreover, there Is no single suggestion put forth to PW-1 in his cross- examination that he was not beaten by the A1 with the MO-1. Though the sug- gestions have “no evidentiary value”, But Hon’ble apex court in Balu Sudam
Khalde And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra2023 Live Law (SC) 279 opined that Suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to deter- mine the guilt of the accused. But putting the suggestions about the land dis- pute with regard to the incident in question, nothing could be elicited by the accused so as to disbelieve the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses.
24. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there are land dis- putes between the PW-1 to PW-3 and the accused persons. In their cross- examinations, stress was laid on them by way of suggesting that there are land disputes between them. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that as per Sec- tion 106 of the Indian evidence act, the burden of proving things that are with- in an individual’s special knowledge is on the individual. It is pertinent to men- tion here that the above stated provision in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, rather it merely
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 14 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 prescribes that after prosecution discharging its burden then they come into picture. In the case on hand the prosecution has discharged it’s burden to bring home the guilt of the accused person no.1 beating the PW-1.
25. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there was delay of about 24 hours in lodging the complaint. On perusal of the Ex.P3, it reveals that on 18-09-2016 he was examined by the PW6. Moreover, the PW1 to PW3 deposed before the court that they went to hospital and after treatment, the complaint was lodged. The same is self explanatory for the delay caused in reg- istering the FIR. The non-mentioning of PW3 witnessing the case incident in his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement is non fatal to the case of prosecution as it is not mandatory and also humanely not possible to mention each and every fact in their statement to the police as the evidence on record is explicitly showcasing the presence of PW3 at the spot during the case incident.
26. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that there are con- tradiction, omissions, and improvements in the evidence of Prosecution wit- nesses and also the Ex.D1 and D2 does not corroborate the version of the eye- witnesses. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that in a criminal case, the witnesses cannot depose the facts which were entirely occurred but may vary due to lapse of time with some minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core case of the prosecution as Held by Hon’ble supreme court in
Shahaja Ismail Mohd Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra(2022 L.L SC: 596).
27. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused per- sons is that the complaint is silent about the LW2 to LW5 witnessing the case incident as such, their evidence cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the com- plaint it clearly reflects that the PW2, PW3 and LW3 were present along with Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 15 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
PW1 at the spot, so the specific mentioning of they being eyewitness to the case incident is not necessary. Moreover, even though, the complaint is silent about the PW4 witnessing the case incident, the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 is clearly mentioning about the presence of PW4 at the spot and witnessing the case incident. Hence, the evidence of PW4 could be relied upon as his evidence is consistent about the A1 beating the PW1 with a stone.
28. The learned prosecution by way of petition U/s. 242 of Cr.P.C has brought into record the 1-B ROR Namuna, dt: 24-07-2023 and Dharani Spec- imen copy in order to show that the PW1 has land in the Sy.No.
131/AA/1/1/1. It is pertinent to state that the said documents are marked as
Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, but their relevancy has no significance in proving the charged offences. The Ex.P5 and P6 are issued in the year 2023 and the case incident has occurred in the year 2016, so the particulars of land details as re- flected in the above exhibits in co-relating to the subject land issue is irrelevant for proving the charged bodily offences.
The failure of the prosecution to prove the case against accused nos.2 to
4 is as follows:
29. The PW1 deposed before the court after he received bleeding injury he fell unconsciously. Even in his cross-examination, he testified that after 15 minutes he has regained the consciousness. So, it is explicit that the prospect of PW1 witnessing the act of all the accused persons in beating PW2, PW3 and
LW4 is very minimal for the reason that he was unconscious after he was hit with stone. Moreover, the PW4 who is the eyewitness and also who has rescued from the clutches of the accused persons has not deposed about witnessing the beating of PW2, PW3 and LW4 by the accused persons. Hence, there is no cred- Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 16 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017 ible and cogent evidence to prove the role of A2 to A4 in causing blunt injuries for PW2, PW3 and LW4. Moreover, the PW1 has also not deposed any single in- criminating evidence as against the A2 to A4. Hence, the charged offences are not proved against the A2 to A4.
30. The prosecution could make out an offence within the four corners of the
Sec. 323 and 324 of IPC and apart from ocular evidence of the witnesses, the medical evidence is also clear and conclusive supporting the ocular evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, considering the surrounding circumstances, probabil- ities and intrinsic merit of the evidence, this court is of the view that the prose- cution could successfully bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 beyond rea- sonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s.323 and 324 of IPC.
31. In the result, the accused no.1 is Found Guilty for the offence punisha- ble u/sec. 323, 324 of IPC and accused no.2 to 4 are found Not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC accordingly, accused no.1 is convicted u/s 248(2) cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of May, 2024.
I-ADDL.JMFC,
FAC, JMFC,
GADWAL
32. Hearing on sentence
Heard accused no. 1 with regard to the quantum of sentence that can be imposed for the offence U/Sec.323 and 324 of IPC.
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 17 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
The accused no. 1 has submitted that he has not committed any offence and to give exemption and would not repeat the offence and prayed to impose just fine, but not any imprisonment.
The offence U/Sec.323, 324 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of ei- ther description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.
Considering the submissions made by the accused this Court is of the view that there are no compelling reasons to invoke the benevolent provision of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, in order to take lenient view for sentencing the accused. In the result, the accused no.1 is sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two years for the offence
U/sec.324 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence
U/sec.323 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine accused no.1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two months.
The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed U.sec.323 and 324 of IPC shall be given to the PW-1 as compensation U.sec.357(1) of IPC.
Since the accused was not remanded to judicial custody, even for a sin- gle day before or during the trial period, therefore, Sec.428 of Cr.P.C., is not in- voked. A free copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused
U/Sec.363 Cr.P.C. The MO-1 stone shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal pe- riod.
I-ADDL.JMFC,
FAC, JMFC,
GADWAL
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 18 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:
PW-1: Ramudu, -NONE-
PW-2: Shivanna,
PW-3: Vadde Chinna Anjaneyulu, PW-4: Boya Jammanna,
PW-5: Rama Krishna Reddy,
PW-6: Dr. T. Vara Laxmi, PW-7: Keshava Rao/IO
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED PERSONS:
Ex.P1 is report, Ex.D1 is the relevant por- tion in Sec. 161 Cr.P. C Ex.P2 is CDF along with rough sketch, statement of the wit- Ex.P3 is said Medical Certificate, ness(PW2) and Ex.D2 is the relevant portion in Sec. Ex.P4 is FIR 161 Cr.P.C statement of the witness(PW4).
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO-1 :Stone
I-ADDL.JMFC,
FAC, JMFC,
GADWAL
Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal
Page 19 of Total 18 Pages CC No.466 of 2017
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL
C.C. No. 466 OF 2017
1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S. Maldakal.
2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.962016, U/Ss. 324,323 r/w 34 of IPC.
Name of the accused : A1) Kummari Anjaneyulu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture, A2) Chinna Madhanna @ Kummari Madhanna, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ra- manna, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3) Pedda Govindu @ Govindhu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Ramanna, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, A4) Hanumanthu @ Kummari Hanumanthu, S/o. Pedda Ramudu @ Pedda Raman- na, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Chippadhoddy Village of Maldakal Mandal. DATES:
4. OFFENCE 19-09-2016
5. COMPLAINT 19-09-2016 Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notices
6. APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED served to the accused persons
7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 12-05-2022
8. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 13-07-2023
9. JUDGMENT 24-05-2024
10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not Guilty Accused no.1 Found Guilty U.sec.324,323 of
11. FINDING OF THE COURT IPC. Accused no.2 to 4 are found Not Guilty for the charged offences.
12. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result,the accused no.1 is Found Guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec’s. 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accused no.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec’s. 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC accordingly, accused no.1 is convicted U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. The property MO-1 deposited vide CPR No. 495 of 2016 dated: 28-09-2016 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
13. REMARKS : -Nil-
I-ADDL.JMFC,
FAC, JMFC,
GADWAL To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, Dis. No. Sri. D Uday Naik, I-Addl. JMFC, FAC, JMFC, Gadwal