APSR070003922017
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
RAJAM
Present : - Ms.KEMBURU NYMISHA
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajam.
Tuesday, the 9th day of December, 2025.
C.C. No. 34/2017
BETWEEN:
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station. … Complainant
A n d
1. Ponnada Thaviti Naidu, S/o late Swami Naidu, aged 60 years,
2. Ponnada Durgarao, S/o Thaviti Naidu, aged 40 years
3. Banana Ramu, S/o late Jogulu, aged 35 years,
4. Batna Tirupathi, S/o late Suryanarayana, aged 42 years
5. Banana Ramalaxmi, W/o Ramu, age 28 years All the accused are Velama by caste, residents of Garrajucheepurpalli village, Rajam mandal. … Accused
This case is coming on 24.10.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and of Sri N.Muralidhararao, Ld. Counsel, for the accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, Rajam P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.253/2016 on its file for the offence punishable under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (which is hereinafter referred as IPC).
2
This is a case and counter to Cr.No.252/2016 for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.
2.The contents of the charge sheet in nutshell are that
P.W.1/Ponnada Dalinaidu is the de-facto complainant herein.
Accused 1 and the de-facto complainant are father and son, and A2 to A5 are brother, brother-in-laws and sister of the de facto complainant. Some ill feelings existed in between them for a long time regarding partition of agricultural lands and house site. A1 erected a fencing around Ac.0.02 cents around the house site. While things stood thus, on 10.12.2016 at about 9.00
AM, while P.W.'s 1 to 4 by name Ponnada Dalinaidu, Ponnada Hemalatha,
Ponnada Dalinaidu @ Swami Naidu and Ponnada Santosh Kumar were loading paddy in gunny bags at their thrashing floor, by that time, all the accused went there, tried to remove the fence which was erected around the site by P.W.1, also quarreled with P.W.s 1 to 4 by name Ponnada Dalinaidu,
Ponnada Hemalatha, Ponnada Dalinaidu @ Swami Naidu and Ponnada
Santosh Kumar by claiming the said land. Due to which, some heated altercation took place among them. While things stood thus, A1 and A2 beat the de-facto complainant with crowbar and hoe (kattuva) over his chest and right jaw while A3 and A4 beat with hands and kicked with legs to P.W.s 3 and 4 Ponnada Dalinaidu @ Swami Naidu and Ponnada Santosh Kumar while A5 beat P.W.2 with a wooden rafter and caused injuries, P.W.3 informed to 108 ambulance, they are admitted in Area Hospital, Rajam for treatment.
On strengthening of the report of the de-facto complainant, P.W,.9/
Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.253/2016 and investigated into.
Accordingly, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, got drafted observation report, seized the crime weapon, drew a rough sketch and recorded the statements of witnesses and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C 3 notice against the accused and took undertaking bond from them. Later the
Inspector of Police, Rajam P.S. took up further investigation from P.W.9/Head
Constable after due verification and after completion of the entire investigation, filed a charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.
During the dispute, P.W.1 also bit over the left ring finger and beat A3 and A4 with a stick and caused injuries, which led to a case and pertained to
Cr.No.252/2016 u/s 324 of Indian penal code of Rajam P.S.
3.This case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.
4.On appearance of Accused A1 to A5, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.Accused A1 to A5 examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. After hearing and on consideration, charges for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34
IPC against the accused/A1 to A5 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.In support of the case of the prosecution, PW s 1 to 9 are examined and Ex. P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant. P.Ws 2 to 4 are the wife and sons of P.W.1, who also sustained injuries in the hands of accused P.W.5 and 6 are the known persons of A1. P.W.7 is the mediator for scene observation P.W.8 is the Medical Officer and P.W.9 is the
Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on statement; Ex.P2 is the signature of P.W.7 on scene observation report; Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Dalinaidu; Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of Ponnada 4
Santhoshkumar. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Hemalatha; Ex.P6 is the wound certificate of Ponnada swaminaidu; Ex.P7 is the original First
Information Report. Ex.P8 is the scene observation Report and Ex.P9 is the
Rough sketch of the scene of offence. M.O.1 is the crow bar, M.O.2is the wooden rupture (chakka duddi) and M.O.3 is iron kattuva.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined Under
Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the same. The accused did not choose to examine any defense witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.
8.Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
9.Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused/A1 to A5 for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt” ?
10.POINT :
The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC.
11.To Prove the guilt of the accused under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, prosecution has to establish —
1. There is bodily pain, disease or infirmity, which leads to an injury to a person.
2. Such bodily pain, disease or infirmity must be caused by the accused.
3. The hurt must have been caused intentionally or knowingly.
5
4. The hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon i.e., an instrument used for shooting, stabbing or cutting.
5. Accused A1 to A5 has common intention to cause hurt by dangerous weapons.
12. To Prove the guilt of the accused under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC, prosecution has to establish —
1. There shall be hurt which involves bodily pain,disease or infirmity leading to injury to a person.
2. Such bodily pain,disease or infirmity must be caused by an act or omission by the accused person.
3. Such an act or omission must be caused with an intention to cause hurt, or with the knowledge that his act or omission will likely cause hurt.
4. Accused A1 to A5 has common intention to cause hurt.
13.The brief evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
a)P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant deposed in his evidence that at about six years back, at the thrashing floor of Royyela Raminaidu, they were rolling paddy bags, then all the accused came and removed the fence. He further deposed that when he questioned their acts, A1 and A2 beat him with a crowbar and also slapped him on his cheek and A4 beat him with iron kattuva and he sustained bleeding injury on his mouth. A1 and A3 beat P.W.3, A1 and
A2 beat P.W.4. He further deposed that A3 and A5 beat his wife with a wooden rupture. His son called an ambulance and they went to the government hospital for treatment. He further deposed that he can identify the weapons with which the accused beat them.
P.W.1, in his cross examination admitted the fact as to the existing civil disputes between him and his father, brother and sister’s family.
6
b) P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1, deposed that on 10.12.2016 while they were loading paddy bags in the thrashing floor of Moyyela Ramulu, then all the accused came and removed the fencing which was opposite to their house. Then on seeing the same, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 questioned them and asked as to why they were removing the fence, then all the accused brought sticks and crowbar and then, A2 beat P.W.1 with kattuva and A1 beat
P.W.1 with crowbar on his mouth and sustained bleeding injury. She further deposed that her husband's eyes also became red in colour due to injuries sustained by him. She further deposed that her sons were also beaten by A3 and A4 with hands and legs indiscriminately. She further deposed that she was beaten by A5 with wooden rapture. P.W.2 further deposed that after beating them, all the accused left the weapons at the site and went away and then her son called an ambulance and they went for treatment to hospital. She deposed that she and her husband gave statement to the police and police examined them.
P.W.2 in her cross examination deposed that they went to the hospital at about 11 or 11.15 AM.
c) P.W.3 who is the son of both P.W.s 1 and 2 deposed in the same lines as of P.W.s 2 and he further deposed that A1 beat P.W.1 with a crowbar and A2 attacked P.W.1 with kattuva and on that P.W.1 sustained injury on right side of the chest and also sustained bleeding injury on his mouth and A5 beat P.W.2 with a wooden rapture and P.W.3 was beaten by A3 with his hands and legs and A4 beat P.W.4 with hands and legs. He further deposed that when all of them fell down, the accused left the weapons and went away.
P.W.3 deposed that he called the ambulance and they went to hospital.
P.W.3 in his cross examination deposed that they went to hospital at about 10.30 AM.
7
d)P.W.4 who is the other son of P.W.1 and 2 deposed that in the month of December, 2016 near his house a dispute took place between their family and the accused family with regard to land. He further deposed that then all the accused beat him and his father and also P.W.2 and P.W.3 and they sustained swelling injuries in the hands of the accused.
P.W.4 in his cross examination deposed that some one called the ambulance and the ambulance came at about 12 PM to 01 PM.
(e) P.W.5 who is the villager of P.W.s 1 and 2 deposed that they heard some cries and intervened both P.W.1 and accused and they noticed some persons are present at the scene of offence.
P.W.6 only deposed that while he was going to his work, he noticed a public mob gathered at the house of P.W.1 and A1.
(f)P.W.7 who acted as a mediator to the scene of offence deposed that in the year 2016 Rajam Police called him to act as a mediator, on that he along with one village elder went to scene of offence i.e Garraju Cheepurupalli and there observed the boundaries of disputed site and police seized one stick in their presence and one head constable prepared scene observation report and he signed on it.
P.W.7 in his cross examination deposed that they went to the scene of offence at about 11.00 AM along with one Apparao and one ASI. He further stated that
Police seized one stick and one crow bar but however he doesn't know to which case the stick belongs to and to which case crow bar belongs to as this is case and counter.
8
(g) P.W.8, who is the Medical Officer deposed that on 10.12.2016, he examined P.W.s 1 to 4 and found injuries on their respective bodies
He deposed that upon examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 he found some injuries and deposed that as P.W.1's complained pain he referred him to R.I.M.S,
Srikakulam, but however no bone injuries were found and hence he opined that they are simple in nature and issued Ex.s P3 to P6 wound certificates to them and he opined that the injuries sustained by the P.W.s 1 to 4 are simple in nature.
P.W.8 in his cross examination deposed that he issued wound certificate to
P.W.2 and P.W.3 on 15/12/2016, issued wound certificate to P.W.4 on 21/12/2016 and issued wound certificate to P.W.1 on 10/01/2017.
(h)P.W.9 who is the Head Constable deposed that on 10.12.2016 while he was present at police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a report, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.253/2016 for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and later he examined P.W.s 2 to 4 and recorded their statements at hospital and later he went to scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and further deposed that later, he examined some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He further deposed that he issued section 41-A notice to the accused and later after verification of the entire case record, the Inspector of
Police, filed a charge sheet against the accused.
P.W.9 in his cross examination agreed to the suggestion as to existing civil disputes between the Accused and P.W.1 to P.W.4. He denied the suggestion as to A1 giving a complaint to them first, but however due to political influence, they set up this false case.
14.Upon evaluating the evidence of P.W.1, there appears a contradiction in his evidence with that of P.W.2 and P.W.3's evidence, wherein P.W.1 in his 9 evidence stated the fact that the A1 and A2 beat him with a crow bar, also slapped him and A4 beat him kattuva Boriga, whereas P.W.2 and P.W.3 in their evidence stated that A1 beat P.W.1 with crowbar and A2 beat P.W.1 with kattuva Boriga but they never mentioned about the accused slapping cheek of
P.W.1 or A4 beating P.W.1. Further P.W.1 in his evidence stated that A1 and
A3 beat P.W.3 and A1, A2 beat P.W.4, and A3, A5 beat his wife i,e, P.W.2, however the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 shows that A3beat P.W.3, A4 beat
P.W.4 and A5 beat P.W.2 with wooden rupture.
P.W.4's evidence shows a completely inconsistent version to that of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3's evidence, wherein P.W.4 stated that all the accused together beat all of them. However P.W. 2 and P.W.3's evidence shows that Accused
A1 beat P.W.1 with a crowbar, Accused A2 beat P.W.1 with Kathua Boriga. A3 beat P.W.3 with hands and legs, A4 beat P.W.4 with hands and legs and A5 beat P.W.2 with a wooden rupture.
15.The evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 only shows that an altercation took place between both the parties and they intervened and tried to stop the dispute between A1 to A5 and P.W.1 to 4. Since P.W.5 and P.W.6 failed to depose anything other than altercation between A1 to A5 and P.W.1 to P.W.4, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused.
16.P.W.7, who acted as mediator to the scene observation report deposed in similar lines as per Ex.P.8. His evidence shows that police seized one stick, one crow bar from the scene but he does not know particularly to which crime the stick belongs to and to which crime crow bar belongs to.
17.P.W.8, who used to work as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,
Rajam deposed in similar lines as per Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. His 10 evidence shows that injuries caused were simple in nature. P.W.8 in his cross examination categorically admitted that he issued wound certificates to the injured on different days and perusal of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 shows that Ex.P3, the wound certificate of Ponnada Dalinaidu/P.W.1 was issued on 10.01.2017,
Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Santhoshkumar/P.W.4 was issued on 21/12/16. Ex.P5, the wound certificate of Ponnada Hemalatha/ P.W.2 was issued on 15/12/16. Ex.P6 the wound certificate of Ponnada Dalinaidu/
SwamiNaidu/ P.W.3 was issued on 15/12/2016, however P.W.8 failed to give any explanation as to why they issued wound certificates to the P.W.1 to
P.W.4 with some delay..The evidence of P.W.8 shows that as P.W.1 complained of pain, they referred him to RIMS, Srikakulam and upon receiving
X-ray and finding no bone injuries, they issued wound certificate to P.W.1, hence the delay in issuing P.W.1’s wound certificate can be attributed by this, however, P.W.8 failed to give any explanation as to why there is a delay in issuing wound certificates to the P.W.2 to P.W.4 and why they were issued on different days as it is an admitted fact that all of them joined in the hospital together. P.W.8 himself categorically admitted that he examined each injured for about 10 to 15 minutes and opined that injuries are simple in nature. Now the question is, if the examination of each injured completed in 10 to 15 minutes and injuries were opined to be simple and no further examination required, then what prevented P.W.8 to issue wound certificates to P.W.2 to
P.W.4 on the same day or next day and the delay of 5 to 6 days in issuing
Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 raises a slight concern over their credibility, however the same cannot be completely disregarded if it corroborates with the ocular evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4. .
18.Coming to the evidence of P.W.9, who is the Investigating officer, he deposed his evidence in the similar lines as per his record. However, it appears from his evidence that he registered both the crimes and investigated 11 and filed charge sheet in both the case and counter. But P.W.9 failed to depose whether the accused is the aggressor and committed offence u/s 324 of IPC.
On going through the entire evidence of prosecution, there appears some contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, as P.W.4 said that all the accused together beat them, whereas P.W.1 says A1, A2 and A4 beat him but however P.W.2 and 3 stated that only A1 and A2 beat P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is also silent with regard to injury caused to his right side of chest, which shows a contradiction between the ocular evidence and documentary evidence as to one of the injury sustained by P.W,1, as Ex.P.3 shows that P.W.1 suffered an injury over his right chest along with other injuries, but such a minor contradiction will not entirely affect the prosecution case.
Further, it is pertinent to note that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are all injured persons, however in their evidence except mentioning that Accused 1 to 5 beat each person and stating as to the injuries sustained by P.W.1, they failed to mention in their evidence, any injuries which are sustained by P.W.2 to P.W.4, in the altercation/dispute as shown in Ex.P.4 to
Ex.P.6/, which leads to contradictions in their ocular evidence and
Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6/Wound Certificates of P.W.2 to P.W.4. As P.W.2 to 4 are injured and eye witnesess they are required to state any injuries sustained by them but failure to state the injuries suffered by them leads to contradiction In this case, there are some contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 as to injuries suffered by P.W.2 TO, as they are injured and eye witnesses, contradictions on their part raises a doubt over their case as to the part that P.W.2 to P.W.4 being suffered with injuries due to A3 to A5. Hence, it raises a doubt over the case of 12 the prosecution that A3 beat P.W.3, A4 beat P.W.4 and A5 beat P.W.2.
Hence, it can be said that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the
Accused A3 to A5 for the offence under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 of
IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Now, the question is whether the prosecution established the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC ?
Although P.W.1 to 4's evidence shows contradictions in some material parts in the ocular evidence of witnesses but when there is documentary evidence which establishes the acts of the accused, they are to be considered and the entire evidence of prosecution cannot be disregarded only due to minor contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to and 4. Although P.W.1, 2 and 4 did not state about the chest injury suffered by P.W.1 but P.W.1 to P.W.4, corroborated with the fact that
P.W.1 suffered injury at his mouth and eyes due to the acts of A1 to A2.
Further, the evidence of P.W.3 who is an injured eye witness
Completely corroborated with that of Ex.P.3/ Wound certificate of P.W.1 as to injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the same can be considered.
Ex.P.3/ wound certificate of P.W.1 along with evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.4 shows that the hurt was caused to the P.W.1 and further the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 also establishes that the P.W.1 was beaten by Accused A1 to A2 using M.O.1/crow bar and M.O.2/kathua boriga. As
P.W.2 failed to mention injuries sustained by them, their evidence over that part is disregarded but their evidence as to the hurt caused to
P.W.1 and injuries sustained by him can be considered, which shows and establishes that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 by the accused
A1 to A2. Hence, the prosecution is successful in establishing that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 and they are caused by the Accused A1 to A2.
13 However, as it can be seen in this case, it is a very well known fact that this is a case and counter to C.C. 33/2017 pertaining to Cr.No.
252/2016, where both the parties filed counter cases against each other accusing the other party. As it can be seen from the evidence of P.W.9/
Investigating Officer, the IO has failed to mention in his evidence as to who is the aggregator/ initiator in pursuant to this case. In such a case, it is difficult to establish the intention of the accused. In a case and counter, it is the duty of the investigation officer, to know upon the truth as to who is the initial aggressor to the altercation/ dispute and the failure on the part of investigating officer to state as to who is the initial aggressor affects the prosecution fatally as such a failure leads to non establishing the fact that accused person had caused hurt voluntarily but not as a defence or heat of the moment. In the absence of any conclusive indication from the prosecution as to the role played by each person at the inception of the occurrence, it becomes extremely difficult to establish the specific intention or knowledge of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
19.It is also the duty of the prosecution to explain any injuries on the accused, if it were sustained at the same occurrence. It can be seen from the evidence of P.W.7 that during the seizure of crime weapons in this case such as M.O.1 To M.O.3, police also seized crime weapon i.e, stick pertaining to the counter case.
20.The Honorable Supreme Court of India in Lakshmi Singh v. State of
Bihar (1976) AIR 1976 SC 2263, held that omission by prosecution to explain injuries of the accused assumes greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses, or where defense gives a version competing in probability with prosecution's case.
14
In this case, it can be seen that a counter case is also pending on P.W.1 to
P.W.4 given by the Accused. However, prosecution has failed to explain any injuries found on the accused from which it can be said that prosecution has failed to establish the initial genesis of the acts between the P.W.1 to P.W.4 and accused. The investigating officer also failed to mention in his evidence as to who is the initial aggressor which leads to the non establishment of voluntariness of the accused A1 to A5 while causing such hurt.
21.P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are the Independent witnesses and who have been examined are silent as to origin of the quarrel and just deposed that both the parties altercated with each other, and the evidence brought on record does not provide any narrative so as to identify any distinct overt act by the accused, which can be attributed to the accused so that it could demonstrate his premeditation to cause hurt.
22.Hence, upon considering the evidence of prosecution, it appears to the court is although prosecution has established partly as to the hurt caused to
P.W.1 by the accused but however the prosecution has failed to establish all the ingredients required for establishing the offence under section 323, 324 r/w
IPC, as the failure on part of I.O to state the accused as an initial aggressor doesn't establish the voluntariness of the accused in causing hurt or any premeditation by accused. In such a case, it raises a serious doubt as to whether the accused has acted voluntarily or just acted in spur of a moment and caused hurt. Hence, this court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under section 324 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond the reasonable doubt.
23.The cardinal principle of the criminal justice system is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
15
Hon’ble Apex Court in Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs.State of Orissa reported
in 1977 AIR 170 discussed three principles of Criminal Jurisprudence which are well settled are as under :
i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from the weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case; ii) that in a criminal trial, the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty ; and iii) that the onus of prosecution never shifts.
24.On evaluating the evidence of prosecution, it failed to establish the guilt of the accused/A1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Above discussion, leads me to conclude that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused/A1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.
25. In the result, the Accused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324,323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure
Code. The bail bonds of the Accused and their sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal
Procedure Code. The M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed by me Personally, Partly typed on my dictation by Stenographer on Computer and prints taken by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on the 09th day of December, 2025.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajam 16
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINE
For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: 25.07.2024: Ponnada Dalinaidu --- NIL --- P.W.2: 25.07.2024: Ponnada Hemalatha P.W.3: 25.07.2024: Ponnada Dalinaidu P.W.4: 01.08.2024: Ponnada Santoshkumar P.W.5: 11.09.2024: Ponnada Umamaheswara Rao P.W.6: 11.09.2024: Dharmana Simmanna P.W.7: 18.09.2024: Rayala Durgarao P.W.8: 05.11.2024: K.Suresh Babu P.W.9: 12.11.2024: B.V.Satyanarayana
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Prosecution:For Defence: -NIL-
Ex.P1 is the signature of P.W.1 on statement Ex.P2 is the signature on scene observation report Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Dalinaidu Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Santhoshkumar Ex.P5 is the wound certificate of Ponnada Hemalatha Ex.P6 is the wound certificate of Ponnada swaminaidu Ex.P7 is the original First Information Report Ex.P8 is the scene observation Report Ex.P9 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Material Objects Marked: M.O.1: Crow bar M.O.2: Wooden rupture(chakka duddi) M.O.3: Iron kattuva
Sd/- K.Nymisha
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajam.
//True copy//
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Rajam.
17
APSR070003922017
Calendar and Judgment
Calendar Cases tried by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)– Cum –
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajam.
CALENDAR CASE No. 34/2017
Date of offence 10.12.2016
Date of Complaint or Report10.12.2016
Apprehension of Accused 12.12.2016
Remand of Accused --
Release on bail of Accused12.12.2016(sec. 41-A Cr.P.C.)
Taken on file28.02.2017
Commencement of trial25.07.2024
Close of Trial12.11.2024
Sentence of order09.12.2025
Explanation for the delayThis case is taken on file for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, accused/A1 to A5 examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, charge has been framed on 24.09.2018, from that onward this case was posted from time to time for trial, the trial had been pending for appointment of A.P.P. On 25.07.2024 P.W.s 1 to 3 examined, after that P.W.s 4 to 9 also examined and got marked Ex.s P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 to 3 and after completion of prosecution evidence, posted for section 313 Cr.P.C examination. on 05.12.2024 accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., reported no defence evidence, posted for arguments. At that stage, the PO was transferred, this case is posted from time to time for arguments. On 24.10.2025 arguments heard and posted for Judgment, the PO is on training, the case is again posted from time to time and finally on 09.12.2025 judgment is pronounced in 18 open court. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajam Police Station.
Name of the Accused:1. Ponnada Thaviti Naidu, S/o late Swami Naidu, aged 60 years,
2. Ponnada Durgarao, S/o Thaviti Naidu, aged 40 years
3. Banana Ramu, S/o late Jogulu, aged 35 years,
4. Batna Tirupathi, S/o late Suryanarayana, aged 42 years
5. Banana Ramalaxmi, W/o Ramu, age 28 years All the accused are Velama by caste, residents of Garrajucheepurpalli village, Rajam mandal.
Crime No. Cr.No.253/2016 Offence: under section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC Finding: Not guilty
Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused/A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused and their sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Sd/-K.NYMISHA
Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Rajam. Copy submitted to the Honourable I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam //True copy//