Sri.J.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy

C.C.No.12/2018 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-X ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU.

Present: Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vuyyuru.

Tuesday, this the 06th day of April, 2021.

C.C.No.12/2018

Between:

The State rep. by Sub Inspector of police, Pamidimukkala P.S

..Complainant

And

1.Veerabathina Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavulu, 40 years, Mala, D.No.9-136, West Harijanawada, Kapileswarapuram Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal.

2.Veerabathina Indira, W/o.Panduranga Rao, 34 years, Mala, D.No.9- 136, West Harijanawada, Kapileswarapuram Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal.

..Accused

This case has come up before me on 30.03.2021 in the presence of learned APP and of Sri Ka.Gopi Chandu, counsel for A1 and A2 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Pamidimukkala Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.No.104/2017 for the offence

U/sec.324 R/w 34 IPC alleging as follows:

2.A1 and A2 are the husband and wife. A1 is elder brother of PW1.

Earlier, A1 borrowed an amount of Rs.7,000/- by mortgaging the documents of land and he failed to repay the amount for an extent of Rs.30,000/- together with interest and then the creditor filed a suit in the Court. Later on, PW1 discharged the debt amount and redeemed the original documents from the creditor. While so, A1 and A2 developed grudge on PW1. On 02.11.2017 at about 07:00 a.m., A1 and A2 abused PW1 in filthy language and further A1 picked up a cart peg and beat PW1 on her head twice, right hand. A2 instigated A1 to beat PW1 not to bear any visible injuries. On hearing the cries, PW2 to PW4 rushed there and rescued PW1 from the hands

C.C.No.12/2018 2 of the accused. Later on, PW1 presented a written report to the Police.

Basing upon the written report, the S.I. of Police registered a case, sent the injured to the Hospital for treatment, obtained Wound Certificate of the injured, investigated into the case, served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

to the accused and filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/s.324 R/w 34 IPC was taken.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of records were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. When examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C, A1 and A2 denied the substance of accusation. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, a charge U/s.324 IPC was framed, read over and explained its contents to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove it’s case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating against them for which they denied. They did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 being an injured, she categorically deposed about the injuries sustained by her at the hands of the accused and considering her evidence in support of an evidence from eye witness (PW2) and in support of the wound certificate, the accused may be convicted for the charge levelled against them.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that

PW1 and PW2 are related as aunt and nephew and whereas the independent

C.C.No.12/2018 3 witnesses PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile and further there are discrepancies between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and moreover, due to family disputes,

PW1 filed a false case against her brother and sister in law and as such, the accused may be acquitted.

11.The points for determination are : -

1. Whether PW1 sustained injuries at the hands of A1 and A2 ?

2. “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for offence punishable u/sec.324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT NO.1:

12. 12.1As per the case of prosecution, PW1 is an injured and PW2 is her nephew. It is an admitted fact that PW1 is the sister of A1 and A2 is the wife of A1. Admittedly, PWs.3 and 4 being independent witnesses, they completely turned hostile by stating that they did not witness any incident.

Though, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor treated them hostile and after seeking permission from the Court, she cross-examined and got marked their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statements as Ex.P3 and P4 but nothing could be drawn in favour of the prosecution.

12.2PW1 being injured at the hands of the accused, she categorically stated that on 02.11.2017 at about 07:00 a.m., A1 and A2 abused her and both of them came upstairs of the house, where she was residing. Though she stated that the incident occurred at the upstairs of her house, but she did not speak where her house was situated.

12.3PW1 categorically stated that A1 bet her with a stick on her thighs, wrist and on her back. PW5 being a Medical Officer, who examined

PW1 and issued Wound Certificate (Ex.P2), which does not disclose the injuries stated by PW1.

C.C.No.12/2018 4 12.4As per Ex.P2, PW1 sustained injuries on her right parietal region of scalp and left parietal region of scalp. So that,it is clear that the injuries stated by PW1 are not identical with the Wound Certificate (Ex.P2) as well as the evidence deposed by PW5.

12.5As per the case of the prosecution and even according to the report (Ex.P1) given by PW1, the incident occurred by 07:00 a.m. But, whereas the Investigating Officer (PW6) deposed that he received Ex.P1 from

PW1 at 03:00 p.m.

12.6On receipt of Ex.P1 and after registering crime (Ex.P5),

PW6 sent PW1 to the Government Hospital, Vuyyuru, for treatment. Quite surprisingly, the wound certificate (Ex.P2) shows that the Investigating

Officer sent the injured before 02:20 p.m. and even Ex.P2 shows that at about 02:20 p.m., the duty doctor noticed the injured and he started treatment by 02:25 p.m. How is it possible before registering crime, PW6 sent PW1 to Government Hospital, Vuyyuru for treatment ? In such lines, no explanation was offered by the prosecution.

12.7Though, PW1 stated about motive for occurrence, but it is so ambiguity and it is not connected to the present case. Whereas, PW2 being nephew of PW1., he stated that at about 07:00 a.m. on that, while he was sleeping, he heard sounds and noticed A1 and A2 were beating PW1 and took the sticks from their hands and threw away the sticks and he pushed them.

12.8As per the case of the prosecution and even as per Ex.P1,

A1 alone bet PW1 and A2 instigated A1. But, contradictorily to the said version, PW2 deposed that he witnessed that A1 and A2 were beating PW1.

Further, he stated a new version that he took away sticks from their hands and threw away and he pushed them aside.

C.C.No.12/2018 5 12.9Thus, the evidence of PW2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW1 in respect of the occurrence. Due to family disputes might be the reason that PW2 supported the version of PW1 in a contrary manner.

12.10PW6 being an Investigating Officer in a routine manner, he deposed about registrering crime, issuing FIR (Ex.P5) visiting scene of offence, preparing rough sketch of scene of offence (Ex.P6), service notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and filing charge sheet.

12.11As per the evidence of PW6, one can reach the police station from the scene of offence within 15 to 30 minutes. Here in this case, there is a delay in lodging the report. But, no reason was assigned by PW6 in

Ex.P5. Further, PW6 did not choose to seize the crime weapon from the scene of offence.

12.12One way, I can say that PW6 mechanically investigated into case and filed charge sheet. Further, the evidence of PW1 does not prove that she sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and as such, I can say that prosecution has miserably failed to prove that PW1 sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT NO.2:

13.In view of my finding under Point No.1, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, this point is answered.

14.In the result, I find the accused 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 IPC and acquit them U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 with that of their sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment, as per sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

C.C.No.12/2018 6

No property was produced before this Court, hence no property orders are passed.

Typed to my dictation, typed by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me on the 06 th day of April, 2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-X ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution:

PW1: V.Padmavathi PW2: V.Dhana Koteswara Rao PW3: G.Sareen PW4: Kaki Nagaiah PW5: Dr.K.Hanumatha Rao, Civil Assistant Surgeon PW6: S.Ramesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police

For defence:None

Documents marked for prosecution:-

Ex.P1 is the Report given by PW1 to the Police Ex.P2 is the Wound Certificate Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P5 is Original F.I.R. Ex.P6 is Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

For defence : Nil

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-X ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU

C.C.No.12/2018 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by Junior Civil Judge cum X Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada at Vuyyuru.

C.C.No. 12/2018 ______________________________________________________________________________

Date of Offence: 02.11.2017

Date of report or complaint: : 02.11.2017

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date release on bail, if any: --

Date of commencement of trial: 25.01.2019

Close of trial: 26.02.2021

Date of sentence or other order: 06.04.2021

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to lockdown

Between:

The State rep. by Sub Inspector of police, Pamidimukkala P.S.

..Complainant

And

1.Veerabathina Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o.Veera Raghavulu, 40 years, Mala, D.No.9-136, West Harijanawada, Kapileswarapuram Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal.

2.Veerabathina Indira, W/o.Panduranga Rao, 34 years, Mala, D.No.9- 136, West Harijanawada, Kapileswarapuram Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal.

..Accused

______________________________________________________________________________

Offence:Sec.324 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, I find the accused 1 and 2 not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.324 IPC and acquit them U/sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 with that of their sureties shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment, as per sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

No property was produced before this Court, hence no property orders are passed.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-X ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA AT VUYYURU.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.