Page No. 1 C.C.No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015]
IN THE COURT OF HONBLE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT,
AT KUKATPALLY.
Present:-Sri K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH.,
XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal District at Kukatpally
Thursday, this the 10 th day of August, 2022
C.C No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015]
Between:- State by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police station. …. Complainant
And
A1- Bharat Paul Singh Chowdary, S/o Gaje Singh, Aged 27 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Floor-I, RK Residency, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad.
A3- Punna Ram Manu @ PC Manju, S/o Bikha Ram, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.28, Near Bus Stop, Sumitra Nagar, Kukatpally, R.R.District.
A5- Hukam Singh, S/o Mohd.Singh Rajput, Aged 30 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No.10-5-107, Fathenagar, Balanagar village & Mandal, R.R.District.
(The case against A2 & A4 was split up and numbered as
CC.No.5239/2021 on the file of the then VIII AMM, Kukatpally)
...Accused 1, 3 & 5
Offence Under I P C.:U/ Sec 324 r/w 34 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found Not Guilty Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused A1, A3 & A5 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.324 r/w of IPC are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
This case is coming before me on 29.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of state and Sri.Dharmeshwar, Advocate for accused A1, A3 & A5 and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following
J U D G M E N T :-
The Sub Inspector of Police, Kukatpally police station filed a charge sheet in Crime number 673/2014 against the accused A1, A3 &
A5 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
Page No. 2 C.C.No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015]
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.09.2014 at about 0045 hrs Lw7 received complaint from Pw1 stating that from past two years Pw1 is doing steel pipe business at Ranigunj, during his business Pw1 supplied steel pipes worth of Rs.1.02 lacs on credit basis to one customer namely Bera Ram/A2 I.e owner of Sai Balaji Steel furniture situated at Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally. It is also stated that on 12.09.2014 out of out standing A2 paid Rs.28,000/- promising that balance amount will be paid on 15.09.2014, but on the said date, A2 called Pw1 to come to A2’s shop to collect balance amount, relying on the same, Pw1 along with his brother-in-law/Lw2 went to A2’s shop where A2 made them to sit for 20 minutes calling other accused A1, A3 to A5 to A2’s shop. Pw1 also stated that all of a sudden, A1, A3 & A5 came to A2’s shop with anti social elements and started beating Pw1 & Lw2 recklessly with wooden sticks, steel chairs, steel pipes dragging them onto the road, on seeing the same general public gathered near the scene as a result accused A1, A3 to A5 fled away from the scene of offence. Hence Pw1 filed complaint to take necessary action against accused person.
3.Basing on the above complaint Lw7 registered a case in Cr.No.
673/2014, U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and handed over CD file to Pw2.
During investigation, Pw2 examined, recorded the statements of Pw1 &
Lw2 and visited scene of offence, where Pw2 conducted scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama by seizing one steel chair frame in the presence of Lws 4 & 5. On 16.09.2014 Pw2 apprehended the accused A2 & A3 who were produced before this court for judicial custody. Later Pw2 examined and recorded the statement of Lw3 and collected medical certificates of injured persons Pw1 Lw2 from Lw6. On completion of investigation Pw2 filed charge sheet against the accused.
4.After due consideration, the case was taken on file against the accused persons under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.
5.On appearance of the accused persons copies of documents are furnished as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The case against
A2 & A4 was split up and numbered as CC.No.5239/2021 on the file of the then VIII AMM, Kukatpally.
6.The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. The substance of accusation
Page No. 3 C.C.No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015] made against them was read over and explained to them in their regional language to which they denied and claimed to be tried.
7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined Two witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P4 & Mo1.
8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence available against the accused A1, A3 & 5 was read over and explained to them as provided under section 313 Cr.P.C. in their regional language to which they denied. The accused persons had reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard both sides.
Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is fruitful in proving the guilt of accused persons A1, A3 & A5 for the offences under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. The learned counsel for the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence given by Pw.1 to establish the guilt of the accused persons
A1, A3 & A5. During chief, Pw1 apart from reiterating the contents of his complaint / Ex.P1, he further testified that when Pw1 & Lw2 were waiting in A2’s shop, A4 & A5 came there, picked up quarrel abusing them in filthy language questioning as to why A2 should pay amount to him. Pw1 also testified that A1 & A3 hold Pw1 & Lw2 with hands and A1 took chain with which A1 beat on Pw1’s head also Lw2, in addition to them A4 & A5 bet with steel pipes causing injuries to Pw1’s left eye.
Pw2 the investigating officer had reiterated the contents of his charge sheet about the investigation done by him. Basing on the aforesaid evidence prosecution had prayed that the accused A1, A3 & A5 may be convicted for the offence U/sec 324 r/w 34 of IPC.
11.On the other hand learned counsel for the defense strenuously argued that accused A1, A3 & A5 had never committed any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pws.1 & Pw2.
During cross of Pw1, he categorically admitted that they maintain accounts/ bills for material supplied of all transactions of his business but he did not submit any bills issued to A2, adding that if the purchaser asks for bill, then only they will issue bill. Pw1 admitted that he filed Ex.P1 on next day at around 11.00 am and he mentioned in
Page No. 4 C.C.No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015]
Ex.P1 that he gave Rs.1,02,000/- with a credit period of sixty days and also stated before police that he, Lw2 when went to A2’s shop, where they waited for ½ hr and A2 & A5 came, picked up quarrel. Pw1 specifically admitted that he do not know to read or write English language and he alone went to hospital. Pw2 in his cross admitted that he did not file any document to show that Pw1 was doing steel business or material was supplied to A2. Pw2 admitted in specific that he did not mention in charge sheet that he referred injured to hospital and Pw1 did not mention before him that he is doing steel business since 2005 nor about 60 days credit period. The counsel for the accused argued that as it is evident that the allegations on the accused A1, A3 & A5 were not supported by any independent witnesses nor established beyond doubt as such, accused A1, A3 & A5 entitled for benefit of doubt.
12.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the depositions of Pws.1 & 2, it is noted that the version of Pw1 as to that of his complaint / Ex.P1 found to be an improved version narrating specific overt acts of accused persons, more particularly A1, A4 & A5 against whom the present trail is going on. Further, it is observed that as mentioned by Pw1 himself that he is engaged in operating Steel
Business since 2005 and that he will maintain records of all bills of every transaction pertaining to material dealt in his shop but surprisingly neither Pw1 nor Pw2 ie investigating officer had filed any document to show that Pw1 owns the alleged Steel Business from which, Pw1 had sold Steel Pipes material worth of Rs.1,02,000/- to A2.
As it is specifically admitted by Pws.1 & 2 that no such bill was filed
before this court to show the alleged transaction of supplying material
to A2, which was the main reason for occurrence of this alleged incident of assaulting Pw1 & Lw2 itself casts cloud of suspicion as to the fact of supplying material to A2.
14. It is also observed in specific that there is a delay of one day as admitted by Pw1 himself that he lodged Ex.P1 on next day at about 1100 am and he alone went to the hospital for treatment, but as per the record, Pw1 was treated by Lw6 as per the requisition of Pw2, who also received medical certificates of injured persons Pw1 & Lw2 from Lw6 creates ambiguity. It is pertinent to mention here that the trail in this case was commenced about two years back but till date neither police nor prosecution had evinced any interest to produce all the witnesses,
Page No. 5 C.C.No. 1445 of 2022
[Old C.C.No. 21 of 2015] except filing reports by Police Kukatpally that Lw2 refused to appear
before this court and that the whereabouts of Lws.3 to 6 are not
traceable, basing the said reports this court was constrained to close the evidence of Lws.2 to 7 to curtail undue delay in disposal of this case. In view of the material available on the record and hostile evidence adduced by the sole material witness / Pw1 which suffers with omissions, contradictions, it is cogent that the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to prove their guilt of accused persons. Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I'm of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the result, the accused A1, A3 & A5 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Sec.437-A of
Cr.P.C. The Unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of August, 2022.
XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate
Medchal District at Kukatpally
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution For Defence
PW.1 : Raghunath Ram - None - PW.2 : P.Suresh
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1 : Is Complaint Ex.P2 : Is scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3 : Is medical certificate of Pw1 Ex.P4 : Is medical certificate of Lw2
M.O’s Marked
MO1 : one steel chair frame
XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate
Medchal District at Kukatpally