CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
1
FORM A
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS :: TUNI::
PRESENT :- Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.
(FAC) Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Tuni.
Thursday, the 18th day of May, 2023
C.C.No.448/2015
Complainant State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondangi P.S.
Represented by Smt. N.Suneetha, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused 1.Boyidi Suribabu, S/o Suryarao, Shringavruksham village of Thondangi Mandal.
2.Boyidi Baburao, S/o Suribabu, Shringavruksham village of Thondangi Mandal.
3.Boyidi Satyavathi, W/o Suribabu, Shringavruksham village of Thondangi Mandal.
Represented by Sri B.V.V. Ramana, Advocate
FORM B
Date of Offence21-08-2015
Date of FIR21-08-2015
Date of Charge Sheet05-11-2015
Date of Framing of Charges 21-01-2019
Date of Commencement of evidence 04-02-2020
Date of which Judgment is reserved10-05-2023
Date of the Judgment18-05-2023
Date of Sentencing order, if any18-05-2023
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
2
Accused Details
Rank ofName of Accused Date of Ar-Date ofOffencesWhetherSentence Imposed Period of the Ac-rest Release onchargedAcquittedDetention cused Bail with orUnder- convicted gone dur- ing Trial for pur- pose of section 428 Cr.P.C --NIL--
1.Boyidi Suribabu09-09-2015Section Convicted
2. Boyhidi Baburao09-09-2015323, 324
3. Boyidi Sathavathi09-09-2015and326 r/w 34 of IPC. ------
In the result, A2 and A3 are found guilty for the charge under Secs.323 IPC and A1 is found guilty for the charge under Sec.323 and 324 of I.P.C., and accordingly they are convicted for the said charges in terms of Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.326 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charge accused No.1 sentenced to undergo SI for ONE DAY i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under Sec.324 of IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment of ONE MONTH and sentenced imprisonment for ONE DAY i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under Sec.323 of I.P.C., and also awarded fine of Rs.1,000/- each for accused No.1 to 3, for the charge. The sentence for ONE DAY is run concurrently to the both offences. Further, this court awarded the compensation of Rs.3,000/- each payable by the accused to the victims. This court converted the fine amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,000/- into compensation under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C., and awarded the same to victims for the injuries sustained by them, in default of payment of compensation and fine, the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH each. Accused are not in judicial custody and thereby they are not entitled to set off in terms of Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. At the stage, the accused have deposited the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and fine of Rs.2,000/- before this court and the accused stood before this court till raising of the day as awarded by this court. The compensation, fine having been paid and sentence also fulfilled by the accused, hence, the litigation to an end. The PW1 is directed to receive the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- and the PW2 and 3 are directed to receive the compensation of Rs.2,500/- each, out of Rs.20,000/- of compensation awarded by this court. The balance fine amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded for the charge to the person to partly defray te prosecution expenses to commensurate with the offence to meet the ends of Justice. The office also hereby directed to furnish the copy of Judgment to the accused, free of cost and the accused are hereby directed to collect the same if they are required.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
3
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondangi Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.158/2015 for the offence under Section 323, 324 and 326 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:
(i) On 21.08.2015, at about 04.00 P.M., while the defacto- complainant/LW1/B. Venkata Ramana keeping the debris in his place, which is situated adjacent to his house. Then accused 1 to 3 altogether had pelted the stones against LW1 to 3. The accused No.1 beat LW1 with a palmolein oil tree leaf over his left hand, right hand and forehead. Thereby, they sustained injuries over their persons.
(ii) Based on the statement of injured/LW1, LW9/S.I., of Police registered a case in Cr.No.158/2015, under Sec.324, 323 and 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C., of Thondangi Police Station against the accused and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined as many as the witnesses, observed the scene and prepared a rough sketch. He served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to the accused and the same was complied by the accused. LW8/Medical Officer, treated
LW1/B. Venkata Ramana, LW2 B. Seetha, LW3 B. Satya and issued wound certificates. After completion of the investigation, S.I., of
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
4
Police, Thondangi filed the charge sheet.
3.The case was taken cognizance on file against A1 to A3 of the offences under Section 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4.A1 to A3 were present before the court, copies of all the documents, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 Criminal Procedure
Code the accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charges under Section of 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code have been framed, read-over, and explained to them in Telugu, for which
A1 to A3 denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to PW.8 were examined and
Exs.P-1 to P-11 were marked.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined
U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which, they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
5
8. Heard the arguments of both sides.
9. Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offences under Section 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?
POINT:
10.To establish the case of the prosecution, I already discussed supra, P.W.1 to 8 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-11 were marked.
11. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the brief facts of the case of prosecution, mainly rests on the testimony of PW.1 to 3, who are said to be injured persons.To test the veracity of the evidence of
PW.1 to 3, it is significant to note that indisputably, there was a dispute between complainant family and accused family about the property by the date of alleged offence.
12. The pertinent defence of accused are that the case has been foisted against them due to previous property disputes, taking advantage of injuries received by them from somewhere else.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
6
13. In this regard, the evidence of of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are injured, gains utmost importance.
14. The evidence of PW1 discloses that on 21.08.2015, at about 04- 00 P.M., he was keeping the debris in his open place which is situated opposite to his house, for which A1 objected the same on the ground that the said open place is belongs to him and that PW1 should not keep debris in his open place. Then accused 1 to 3 pelted stones on him and in that process, PW2 and 3 came to the rescue of PW1, thereby stones hit to the left hand and left side forehead of PW2 and also on the right hand of PW3. Thereby, they sustained injuries.
Accused No.2 beat PW1 with Palmolein oil tree leaf on his right palm and left wrist and thereby he sustained fracture injuries on his little finger of right hand and on his right palm. Further, he also sustained swelling injuries over his left wrist. Immediately, they went to police station, there the police recorded the statement of PW1 and referred them to area hospital, Tuni.
15. During the cross-examination of PW1, admitted as follows:- “There is a lane in between our houses. All the residents of the
said houses should reach the road through those lanes only. It is true
that there is a lane in between my house and accused No.1 house.
There is a dispute between us for the said lane. The present dispute
arose when I kept my debris in the said land.”
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
7
16. The admissions of PW1 go to show that there are previous disputes pending between accused family and complainant’s family in respect of pathway. The above said incident allegedly occurred due to debris was keeping by PW1 in the said lane. Further, his evidence reveals that A1 to A3 beat PW1 to 3, for which they sustained injuries.
17. The evidence of PW2 and 3 are corroborated with the evidence of PW1 about place, time and injuries concern.
18. The learned counsel for the accused nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW1 to 3, except for suggestions and previous disputes in respect of property between them. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 to 3 was unshaken in respect of date, time, place and injuries of PW1 to 3.
19. According to the prosecution, PW4 and 5 are the eye witness of the case, but they came to court and turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. After taking permission of this court by the learned APP he could not elicit anything except suggestions and marking of their statements. Therefore, their evidence is no way useful to the prosecution.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
8
20.The remains testimony of evidence of PW7, who is the
Investigating Officer of this case deposes that he registered the case based on the statement of PW1 and examined as many as witnesses and collected the medical certificate from the medical officer and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet in this case.
21.During the course of cross-examination of PW7 nothing could be elicited by the defence, except for non-seizure of material object. In this context, the leanred Asst. Publuic Prosecutor relied on the
Judgment of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., wherein held as follows:-
29)We do note that the investigation suffers from certian flaws such as non-recovery of the weapon used by the accused appellants and recovery of the blood stained shirt after six days of the date of the incident. However, merely on the basis of these circumstances the entire case of the prosecu- tion cannot be brushed aside when it has been proved by medical evidence corroborated by testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased died a homicidal death. This Court has held in Manjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 746, the when there is ample unimpreachable ocular evidence and the same has received corroboration from medical evidence, non-recovery of blood stained clothes or even the murder weapon does not affect the prosecution case.”
22.By applying the ratio laid down in the above said Judgment to the present case, as I already stated surpa, the remaining evidence of
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
9
PW1 to 3 corroborated with each other about injuries received by them from the hands of accused. Thereby, non-seizure of material object is not a fatal to the prosecution case.
23.Coming to the injuries are concern, the evidence of of P.W.1 to 3 and 6 gains utmost importance.
24.According to PW1, he has been received fracture injuries on his left little finger of right hand and on his right palm. According to
PW2, she received injury on her left hand and left side forehead.
PW3 sustained injury on her right hand.
25.The evidence of PW6, who is Medical officer testified that on 21.08.2015 at about 10.15 P.M., he examined PW1, found the following injuries: 1) swelling right palm,
2) swelling right little finger,
3) swelling soft tissue left forearm,
(i) He advised x-ray and orthopedic surgeon opinion. As per orthopedic surgeon opinion, 1) fracture neck fifth meta carpal bone, 2) fracture proximal phalymgs little finger right hand.
(ii) Accordingly, he issued Ex.P4 wound certificate and opined that the
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
10 injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and No.3 is simple in nature.
Probably caused by blunt object and duration is more than 6 hours prior to his examination.
(iii) On the same day, he examined PW2 at 10.55 P.M., and found the following injuries: 1) Soft tissues swelling measuring swelling 1 x 1 inch on frontal head.
2) Abrasion 0.5 cm., x 0.5 cm., on left forearm.
(iv) Accordingly, he issued Ex.P6 wound certificate and opined that the above injuries are simple in nature, caused by blunt object and duration is more than 6 hours prior to his examination.
(v) On the same day, he examined PW3 at 10.50 P.M., and found the following injuries: 1) Multiple abrasions 3 in number measuring 0.5 cm., x 0.5 cm., on right forearm.
2) Soft tissues swelling and tenderness measuring 1 x 1 inch on right forearm.
(vi) Accordingly, he issued Ex.P5 wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature, caused by blunt object and duration is more than 6 hours prior to his examination.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
11
26. Axiomatically, a glance at Ex.P4 to 6 wound certificates, corroborated the ocular evidence of medical officer. PW6/medical officer was the Civil Assistant Surgeon by then.
27. To establish the case of the prosecution, they filed x-ray and medico legal opinion of radiologist. Those were exhibited as Ex.P9 and
P10, respectively through PW8 who is the then orthopedician of Area hospital Tuni. He deposed that he referred PW1 to outside for taking x-ray due to breakdown of hospital x-ray machine. On examining the x- ray, he found fracture at neck of 5th meta-carpol-bone and proximal phalanx of right little finger of PW1. Though, the prosecution marked
Ex.P9 and P10 through PW8, he is not a competent person to speak about the injuries on behalf of radiologist. In this aspect, the prosecution utterly failed to examine the said specialist in this case.
The reasons best known to them only for non-examination of the specialist medical officer. Even they failed to give proper explanation in this regard.
28.Pointedly, Specialist doctor, who is said to have examined PW.1 as per Ex.P9 and 10 could notice the above said injuries are grievous in nature.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
12
29.Pointedly, the question of examination of PW.8 does arise when the presence of him and specialist doctor, could be secured. In this regard, the prosecution could not explain the reason for choosing PW.8 instead of specialist doctor who is the material witnesses to prove
Ex.P9 and 10.
30.For the reasons highlighted above, it is inevitable to hold that the evidence of PW.8 loses its efficacy and no sanctity can be attached to his evidence. In the absence of non-explanation given by the prosecution in examination of expert doctor, no legal sanctity can be attached to Ex.P9 and P10/wound certificates.
31.However, in this connection, it is expedient to note section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It reads as follows:
“ 222. When offence proved included in offence charged:- (1) When any person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
(2)..... (3)..... (4)..... Illustrations
(a)......
(b)......“
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
13
32.It is discernible from reading the aforementioned provisions that for getting the accused convicted for minor offence, such offence must be a cognate one to a major offence.
33.The penal provisions under sections 323, 324, 325 & 326 IPC are juxtaposed, it is clear that section 324 IPC is a minor offence to major offence punishable under section 326 IPC; so also, 323 IPC is a minor offence to a major offence punishable under section 325 IPC. In other words, if an accused is charged for a major offence under section 326 IPC, he can be convicted for a minor offence punishable under section 324 IPC. Likewise, if an accused is charged for a major offence 325 IPC, he can be convicted for a minor offence punishable under section 323 IPC. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it can be said that 324 IPC is a minor offence to the offence punishable under section 326 IPC.
34.Now I would like to decide how far the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused under Sec.324 of I.P.C.
35.Prior to appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witness it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Section 324 IPC
(i) One must to do the act voluntarily;
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
14
(ii) Such act must be done by means of any instrument or deadly weapon; and
(iii) The other person must suffer any simple hurt.
36.Upon perusal of the prosecution evidence, as already noted prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to establish the motive behind the incident that PW1 keeping the debris in the disputed land then the accused disputed with him and beat PW1 to 3 with palmolein oil tree leaf and stones respectively for which they sustained injuries, as I have discussed earlier, as mentioned under
Ex.P4 to 6.
37.Coming to the next ingredient of the offence, i.e., involvement of accused in the alleged offence is concerned; the learned APP contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborative with each other as to the time, place and injuries sustained by P.W.1 to 3. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent, cogent and corroborative as to the weapons used in the commission of offence and injuries sustained by PW1 to 3.
38.After careful examination of evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the main substratum to the prosecution is remaining unaffected and the portion of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
15 accused beat PW1 with Palmolein oil tree leaf and beat PW2 and 3 with stones, time, place and narration of incident along with injuries sustained by PW1 to 3 remained unshaken.
39.In the other part of the arguments of the defence is that P.W.2 and 3 are relative and interested witnesses in this case and their evidence should not be considered.
40.In B.K. Chennappa, Vs., State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 SC 432, it is held that a witness injured in the same occurrence cannot be regarded as an interested witness.
41.In State of Maharashtra, Vs., Tulsiram Bhanu Das Kamble reported in AIR 2007 SC 3042, it is held that when he was injured in the same incident establishes his presence at the scene at the time of occurrence. Hence, by applying the ratio laid down in the above said
Judgment to the present case, in the present case, as I already stated supra, PWs2 and 3 are also sustained injuries, their ocular evidence is corroborated with the evidence of medical evidence and on that regard nothing was elicited by the defene counsel. Thereby, I obliged to follow the above said judgments and accordingly, the contention of the accused is not considered.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
16
42.Therefore, after foregoiong reasons, this court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 to 3 remained unshaken with regard to the date, time, place and narration of the overt-acts of accused 1 to 3. So also, injuries sustained by PW1 to 3. Thereby, their evidene is corroborative, cogent and trustworthy with the evidence of medical evidence. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution successfully establishes its case against accused No.1 for the offence under
Secs.323 and 324 of I.PC., and against A2 and A3 for the offence under Sec.323 of I.P.C., and further the prosecution has miserably failed to establish their case for the offence under Sec.325 of I.P.C.
43.In the result, A2 and A3 are found guilty for the charge under
Secs.323 of IPC and A1 is found guilty for the charge under Sec.323 and 324 of I.P.C., and accordingly they are convicted for the said charges in terms of Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.326 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charge.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(Gr.I), corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on the 18 th day of May, 2023.
Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, (FAC) Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
17
Hearing on sentence:
44.The Court examined the accused No.1 to 3 in the presence of his counsel. The brief contention of the accused No.1 is that he is aged about 60 years, and suffering with fracture injury and paralysis stroke. Accused No.3 is aged about 45 years and suffering with old age ailments and they are dependents on their children. Accused No.2 is aged about 35 years and he is suffering with Appendicitis. He is only person to look-after their parents and his family. Hence prayed to take a lenient view.
45.The Court perused the material on record and the above state- ments.
46.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad
Vs. State of Maharasthra 2013 (6) SCC 770, observed that the power to award compensation was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India further observed that it is a mandatory duty
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
18 on the Court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case for awarding or refusing the compensation.
47. Sec.357 of Cr.P.C provides that while passing judgment, the
Court may order whole or any part of fine recovered to be applied to- wards compensation in defraying the expenses properly incurred in prosecution and a payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence.
48.The Court is undertaking the below exercise by referring to ‘affray’ to demonstrates what could be the object in imposing a fine in the light of punishment provided in ‘affray’ in 1860. Sec.159 of IPC provides the offence of ‘affray’ and Sec.160 of IPC provides that ‘whoever commits an ‘affray’ shall be punished with imprisonment of ei- ther description for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with both.”
49.It seems that in the year 1860 for the simple offence of ‘affray’, the fine is prescribed up to Rs.100/-, which is very very huge amount in those days and affording Rs.100/- in those days is very difficult one except for few. It seems that the object behind is to collect the fine is also a deterrent, measure apart from imprisonment,
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
19 also to award compensation to the victim, recover the prosecution ex- penses and also income to the State.
50.Thus, the court has given the above judgment and relevant pro- visions of compensation, is of the view that the Court must be borne in mind the payment capacity of the accused, generally, all these amounts to be assessed and recovered from the accused, when the accused has no payment capacity, then it is to be resorted to ordering the State to pay the compensation. That, generally, imposing meager fines or or- dering the State to pay the compensation to victims without ordering may amount to burdening the exchequer of the State and letting away the accused without understanding and following the object of impos- ing fine.
51.During the hearing on sentence the accused stated that they are ready to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the victim. Thereby, considering the above circumstances, holds that, it is a fit case to award compensation to the victim.
52. Looking to the above contentions of the accused and the nature of offence involved in the case, the provisions of the Probation of
Offenders Act is not applicable.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
20
53.Offence U/s.324 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine or with both.
54. Offence U/s.323 of Indian Penal Code is punishable with im-
prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
One year or with which may extend to Rs.1,000/-, or with both.
55.Admittedly, both are relatives and residing adjacent to each other in one village. Admittedly, there is no talking terms between the both the parties from the date of the filing of the report. If the court sent the accused to jail by awarding imprisonment, it may lead to further complications and there is no chance to live together happily.
56.Thus, this court considered the evidence on record, nature of acts of the accused, age, background, and other circumstances, in- clined to award imprisonment for one day i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under Sec.324 of IPC and also award fine of
Rs.10,000/-, to the accused No.1, and awarded imprisonment for one day i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under Sec.323 of I.P.C., and also awarded fine of Rs.1,000/- each for accused No.1 to 3, for
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
21 the charge to person to partly defray the prosecution expenses to commensurate with the offence to meet the ends of justice.
57. Hence, accused No.2 and 3 are found guilty for the charge under
Secs.323 and accused No.1 is found guilty for the charge under
Sec.323 and 324 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are convicted U/s.248 (2) Cr.P.C. and accused No.1 sentenced to undergo Simple Imprison- ment for ONE DAY i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under
Sec.324 of IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment of ONE
MONTH and sentenced imprisonment for ONE DAY i.e., till raising of the court for the charge under Sec.323 of I.P.C., The sentence of
ONE DAY is run concurrently to the both offences and also awarded fine of Rs.1,000/- each for accused No.1 to 3, for the charge. Fur- ther, this court awarded the compensation of Rs.3,000/- each payable by the accused to the victims. This court converted the fine amount i.e., Rs.10,000/- + Rs.1,000/- into compensation under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C., and awarded the same to victims for the injuries sustained by them, in default of payment of compensation and fine, the accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE MONTH each.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
22
58.Accused are not in judicial custody and thereby they are not en- titled to set off in terms of Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
59.At the stage, the accused have deposited the compensation of
Rs.20,000/- and fine of Rs.2,000/- before this court and the accused stood before this court till raising of the day as awarded by this court. The compensation, fine having been paid and sentence also fulfilled by the accused, hence, the litigation to an end. The PW1 is directed to receive the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- and the
PW2 and 3 are directed to receive the compensation of Rs.2,500/- each, out of Rs.20,000/- of compensation awarded by this court.
The balance fine amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded for the charge to the person to partly defray te prosecution expenses to commensurate with the offence to meet the ends of Justice. The office also hereby directed to furnish the copy of Judgment to the accused, free of cost and the accused are hereby directed to collect the same if they are required.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer(Gr.I), corrected, signed, and pronounced by me in open Court on the 18 th day of May, 2023.
Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao
Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tuni,
(FAC) Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tuni.
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
23
FORM C
LIST OF PROSEUCTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution
RANKNAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WIT-
NESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MED-
ICAL WITNESS, PANCH WIT-
NESS, OTHER WITNESS)
PW1Boyidi Venkata RamanaMain witness
PW2Boyidi SeethaEye witness
PW3B. Veera Venkata SatyaEye witness
PW4N. GuravayyaHearsay witness
PW5 I. NaguHearsay witness
PW6Dr.B. Veera badruduMedical witness
PW7B. KrishnamachariPolice Witness
PW8Dr.K. Maheswar RaoMedical witness
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:
RANKNAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
(EYE WITNESS, POLICE WITNESS,
MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WIT-
NESS, OTHER WITNESS)
DW NoneNone
C. Court Witnesses, if any:
RANKNAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE WIT-
NESS, POLICE WITNESS, MEDICAL
WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS,
OTHER WITNESS)
CW None None
CCNo.448-15, Dt.18.05.2023, AJFCMC, TUNI
24
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:-
Ex.P1: Statement of PW1 recorded by police
Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4
Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5
Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW1
Ex.P5: Wound certificate of PW3
Ex.P6: Wound certificate of PW2
Ex.P7: F.I.R.
Ex.P8: Rough sketch
Ex.P9: x-ray of PW1
Ex.P10: x-ray opinion of PW1
Ex.P11: x-ray nominal register entry dt.20-08-2015 and 23-08-2015 (Ex.P9 to 11 are marked subject to objection, relevancy and proof)
For Defence:-
Nil
Material Objects Marked
Nil
Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao
PJCJ, Tuni (FAC)AJFCM, Tuni.