0
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.
Present: Smt.K.Prathusha Kumari,
IV A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR .
Thursday, the 22 nd day of February, 2018.
CALENDAR CASE NO.334/2012. CALENDAR CASE NO.334/2012.
Between :
State rep., by the Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet PS, Guntur Urban. … COMPLAINANT. AND
1. Meda Srinivasa Rao S/o. Deva Danam, 43 yrs, Erukala, 1st lane, Bavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta, Guntur.
2. Meda Dhanunjaya rao S/o. Devadanam, 52 yrs, Erukala, 1st lane, Bavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta, Guntur.
3. Kumba Suman S/o. Hanumaiah, 35 yrs, Erukala,1stlane, Bavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta, Guntur.
4. Meda Devadanam S/o. Nagaiah, 77 yrs, Erukala,1stlane, Bavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta, Guntur. … ACCUSED
This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Lakshmi Narayana Naik, learned A.P.P, V AMM Court,
Guntur for the State and of P. Raghram & G.Venkateswara Rao,
Advocates for the accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon perusing the record and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/Secs.324, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter will be referred as IPC for brevity).
1
2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet, is that about 10 years ago, the first informant/Pw.1 purchased 5 cents of house site at Bavaji Nagar, Sangadigunta, Guntur from one Kojja Nagaiah, s/o of Koteswara Rao. On 23-04-2012 morning
Pw.1 went to construct a house in the said house site. On the same day evening at about 5.00 p.m, the accused No.1 along with some others went to the said house site claiming that the site belongs to them and asked Pw.1 not to construct a house in it, for which, Pw.1 informed that he purchased the same about 10 years back. On that, the accused No1 grew wild and beat him with a stick on his forehead, the accused No.3 beat him with a stick on his right wrist and the accused No.2 beat him with a stick on his left hand. When Pw.2 went to the rescue of his father/Pw.1, the accused No.3 beat him with a stick on the right side of his head and caused bleeding injury. When, Pw.7, who came as a coolie for the construction of the house of Pw.1, went in rescue of Pws.1 and 7, the accused No.4 beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury. The accused No.2 beat Pw.3 with a stick on the left hand. Further, all the accused abused them in filthy language and beat them with hands and legs. Pws.3 to 5 witnessed the occurrence. Immediately, the injured went to the Government General
Hospital, Guntur for treatment where Pw.1 has given statement about the occurrence towards report to Pw.9. Hence, basing upon the same,
Pw.9 registered a case in Cr.No.221/2012 u/Secs.149, 324 & 506 of IPC at 8.45 p.m on 23-04-2012 and took up investigation. Pw.9 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators/ Pw.8 and another and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter,
Pw.9 arrested the accused No.1 on 24-04-2012 and produced him
before the court and the accused Nos.2 to 4 were surrendered before
2 the court on the respective dates and enlarged on bail. The Medical
Officers who treated Pws.1 and 2, issued wound certificates opining that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Pw.6 who treated Pw.7, issued certificate stating that he has not given opinion since the patient left the hospital against medical advise. Thus, after completion of the investigation, the accused were charge sheeted for the offences u/secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
3. Cognizance of the case was taken on file against the accused
Nos.1 to 4 for the offences u/Secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused Nos.1 to 4.
4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the necessary copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused as required under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied the substance of accusation and hence, charges for the offences u/Secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused Nos.1 to 4, read over and explained the same in Telugu, to which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and Mos.1 to 5.
7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused
Nos.1 to 4 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the every incriminating evidence appearing against the accused from the 3 prosecution evidence in Telugu to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.
But, during the cross examination of Pw.1, Exs.D1 to D6 and during the cross examination of Pw.3 Ex.D7 were got marked.
8.Arguments heard from both sides and perused the entire material brought on record.
9. Now the POINTS for determination are:-
1. Whether Pw.1 is the rightful owner and possession of the disputed property by 23-04-2012 ?
2. Whether the accused Nos.1 to 4 in furtherance of
their common intention, voluntarily caused simple
hurt to Pws.1, 2 and 7 and threatended them with
dire consequences ?
3. Whether the evidence of Pws.1 to 9 let in before the
court on behalf of the prosecution can be held as
sufficient and substantive to believe the case
leveled against the accused ?
4. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges
leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt ? and
5. To what relief ?
10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution learned APP has chosen to examin 9 witnesses out of 12 cited in the charge sheet as
Pws.1 to 9. Pw.1 is said said to be the owner of the disputed property, first informant and one of the injured persons. Pws.2 and 7 are said to be direct witnesses for the occurrence of the incident and other injured persons. Pws.3 to 5 are said to be the direct eye witnesses for the occurrence of the incident. Pw.8 is one of the mediators for the scene observation report. Pw.6 is the Medical Officer who treated Pws.2 and 7 and issued Exs.P2 and P3 wound certificates. Pw.9 is the Sub Inspector 4 of Police, who registered the crime, investigated the case and filed charge sheet. Learned APP, on behalf of the State, has given up the evidence of Lw.7 S.Shakeela. The evidence of Lw.8 K.Satyanarayana
Reddy was closed basing on the death certificate filed by the prosecution.
11.Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution the following documents and material objects are marked. Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw.1 on the statement. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of
Pw.1. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Lw.3 / Kiran. Ex.P4 is the 161
Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the scene observation report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P8 is the wound certificate. Mo.1 is the two Babbo sticks. Mo.2 is the five casuarina sticks (Sarvi sticks). Mo.3 is the stick warper one. Mos.4 and 5 are the two towels colouring white, read and blue mixing.
12.In order to disprove the case of the prosecution on behalf of the defence no oral evidence has adduced, but during the cross examination of Pw.1 Exs.D1 to D6 and during the cross examination of
Pw.3 Ex.D7 are marked. Ex.D1 is the served copy of the legal notice.
Ex.D2 is the letter pad. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the registration form identified by Pw.1 containing name Ekalavya Girijana Seva
Sangam. Ex.D4 is the Narasaraoept Division Ikya Girijana Seva Sangam run with same register number. Ex.D5 is the society run in the name of guntu Zilla Ekalavya Girijana Seva Sangam with same register number.
Ex.D6 is the Girijaja Sanskehma Seva Sangam with same register number & Ex.D7 is the relevant portion in the 161 statement of Pw.3.
5
13.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, learned APP submitted that since the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked
Pws.1 to 7 with sticks and caused injuries, since Pws.1 to 5 and 7 have narrated and supported the case of the prosecution and since the circumstantial witnesses Pws.6, 8 and 9 also supported the case of the prosecution, the charges leveled against the accused are established beyond all reasonable doubt. With these submissions learned APP sought to convict the accused.
14.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submitted that even according to the evidence of Pw.1, two incidents have occurred and Pw.1 lodged two reports, but only the 2nd report got into existence and if the first report is placed before the court then the truth will come out. The next contention of the defence counsel is that there are major discrepancies and inconsistencies elicited among the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the specific over-tacts made against the accused and the injuries sustained by Pws.1, 2 and 7, hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses can not be believed.
The another contention of the defence counsel is that Pws.1, 2, 4 and 5 are related and interested witnesses and hence their evidence can not be believed. The further contention of the defence counsel is that though Pw.1 stated that he has taken treatment after the first incident, no medical evidence is placed to prove the same.
15.The next contention of the defence counsel is that when the accused Nos.4 herein and two other injured in CC.332/2012 were left the scene of offence by 4.30 p.m, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses about the incident said to have been occurred at 5.00 p.m is 6 highly doubtful. It is the further contention of the defence counsel that the Investigating Officer simply registered the crime, prepared statements of the witnesses and filed charge sheet without deciding the aggressor in the present case and in C.C.No. 332/2012 & hence the investigation of Pw.9 is totally defective in nature. It is the further argument of the defence counsel that since the first report of Pw.1 is suppressed which is hit by Sec.162 of Cr.P.C, and since the Medical
Officer who treated Pw.1 and issued wound certificate is not examined, the prosecution is failed to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by
Pw.1. The last contention of the defence counsel is that there is a serious dispute about the title of the parties over the disputed property and other matrimonial & financial disputes between both families, the case of the prosecution can not be believed. With these submissions, learned defence counsel sought to acquit the accused.
16. Points Nos.1 to 4 ;- Since the points Nos.1 to 4 are interrelated other they are taken up together.
Admittedly the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of the accused
No.4, Pws.2 and 5 are the children of Pw.1 and Pws.1, 2 and three others (who are not shown as witnesses in this case) are the accused in
CC.332/2012 which was existed basing on the statement recorded
towards report from the accused No.4 herein. As per the contents of
Ex.P1 statement and Ex.P5 FIR, the incident said to have been occurred from 5.00 p.m on 23-04-2012 and the criminal law was set into motion basing on the statement which was recorded towards report from Pw.1 in this case from 08.00 p.m to 08.30 p.m on 23-04-2012.
7
17.Now, it is required to extract the contents of Ex.P1 statement which read as follows ; “The first informant is the resident of employees colony,
Bavaji Nagar, Guntur and working as Supervisor in civil
Engineering Department, Railways. About 10 years back, he purchased 5 cents of house site at Bavaji Nagar from Kojja
Nagaiah S/o. Koteswara Rao. On 23-04-2012 they are constructing the house in the said site and commenced the work on that day morning. In the evening at about 5.00 p.m one
Meda Srinivasa Rao S/o. Devadanam, Meda Dhanujaya rao,
Suman, some others and Devadanam came to there, claimed that the said site belongs to them, asked him not to construct house in it. On that, he informed them that it was purchased by him about 10 years back. On that Meda Srinivasa Rao grew wild, beat with a stick on his fore head, Suman beat him with a stick on his right wrist, Danujaya Rao beat him with a stick on his left hand. When his son Katta Vijaya Kumar came to his rescue Suman beat him with a stick on the right side of his head and caused bleeding injury. One Kiran who came as a coolie for construction of the house, when came to their rescue,
Devadanam beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury. Dhanunjaya Rao also beat the said Kiran with a stick on his left hand. About 10 persons also came along with
Meda Srinivasa Rao, demanded him not to construct house in the said site, abused them in filthy language and beat them with hands & legs. One Bade Padmavathi witnessed the occurrence.
After the said persons who beat them, went away, they went to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment.“
On perusal of the entire contents of Ex.P1 statement, it
came to light that there is no whisper about the incident said
to have been in the morning on 23.4.2012 at 11.00 a.m.
8
18.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.1 who claimed that on 23-04- 2012 at about 11.00 a.m while he was constructed a house in his house site at Sangadigunta, the accused No.1 threatened him and beat him.
When he reported the matter to Lalapet PS, the police referred him to the hospital for treatment. On the same day evening at 4.00 p.m, he returned to the house and when went to construction place with a view to pay labour charges, the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with their followers nearly 10 members, attacked him and the accused No.1 beat him with a stick on his forehead, that the accused No.3 beat him with a stick on his right wrist and caused fracture injury. The accused No.2 beat him with a stick on his left and the accused No.3 kicked him with legs.
Which resulted he was fallen on ground and received bleeding injury.
Pw.2 intervened and tried to rescue him the accused No.3 beat his son on his forehead and caused stricture injury. The accused also beat the one of labours. Pws.3 to 5 who witnessed the incident shifted him the police station and on that the police referred him to the hospital.
19.It is the further evidence of Pw.1 that about 10 years ago, he purchased the disputed site from one K Nagaiah and the said property belongs to society. Since the accused are claiming the right over the disputed property the disputes arose between himself and the accused.
20.As stated supra, it is the specific evidence of Pw.1 that the accused No.1 threatened him and beat him at 11.00 a.m on 23-04- 2012 and on that, he reported the matter to Lalapet PS and the police referred him to the hospital for treatment, that on the same day evening at 4.00 p.m, he returned to the house and on coming to know about the construction, he went to the scene of offence. Though, it is 9 the specific evidence of Pw.1 that he approached Lalapet Police Statioin after the incident said to have been occurred at 11.00 a.m on 23-04- 2012 and police referred him to the hospital for treatment, no evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove the same. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer/Pw.9 categorically admitted, in the cross examination of the defence, that he did not refer the injured to the hospital either in the morning or in the evening on the date of the alleged incident and Pw.1 did not mention in Ex.P1 about the altercation took place in the morning on 23-04-2012 at 11.00 a.m.
21. Even according to the evidence of Pw.6/the Medical Officer, she examined Pws.2 and 7 at 5.30 p.m on 23-04-2012. Further, there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.1 about the nature of the injury sustained by him in the altercation said to have been taken place at 11.00 a.m on 23-04-2012. Moreover, Pw.1 stated in the cross examination of the defence that he went to the police station at about 11.00 a.m and lodged report and on that the police referred him to the hospital for treatment. It is the specific evidence of Pw.1 that he was discharged from the hospital at 4.00 p.m. If really Pw.1 was referred to the hospital for treatment after 11.00 a.m on 23-04-2012, definitely there is some oral and documentary evidence in the hospital to establish the same.
But, no such evidence either oral or documentary is placed before the court to prove that Pw.1 had taken treatment in the hospital between 11.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m on 23-04-2012.
22. More so, Pw.1 categorically admitted, in the cross examination of the defence, that his daughter/Pw.5 was on duty at the time of the incident. If the said admission of Pw.1 is taken into consideration, 10 the very presence of Pw.5 and Pw.5's version in respect of the witnessing the occurrence of the incident can not be believed.
23.Coming to the evidence of Pw.2 who claimed that he is practicing as an Advocate at Guntur Bar Association. On 23-04-2012 after finishing of his work at court, he reached his house at Sangadigunta and by then his father was talking with coolies and house construction was going on. Then, all the accused along with other people came to the site, created a galata, they objected Pw.1 not to construct house and the accused Nos.1 to 3 beat Pw.1 with sticks, that the accused No.1 beat Pw.1 on his hand with a stick. On observing the same he jumped the wall and intervened to which the accused Nos.3 and 4 beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury which resulted he underwent for 12 stitches on his head.
24.It is the further evidence of Pw.2 that his father sustained fracture injury on the right hand and iron rod inserted in the hand of Pw.1.
Then, he along with Pw.1 and some persons together went to the police station, police referred him and his father to the hospital for treatment.
25.Though, Pw.2 claimed that the accused Nos.3 and 4 beat him with sticks on the head, according to the evidence of Pw.1, the accused No.3 alone beat Pw.2 on his forehead. Further, though, Pw.1 stated that the accused also beat one of labours, there is no whisper about the same in the evidence of Pw.1. Furthermore, though it is the specific version of
Pws.1 and 2 that soon after the incident after 5 .00 p.m on 23-04-2012 they along with some other persons together went to the police station and police referred them to hospital for treatment, the same is not 11 accepted by the Investigating Officer/Pw.9. According to the evidence of Pw.9, he received hospital intimation about the admission of the injured in the hospital on 23-04-2012 at 7.45 p.m and then only he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of Pw.1 from 8.00 p.m to 8.30 p.m.
26. Further, though, Pw.2 claimed in the evidence before the court that he had recorded the incident in his cell phone, such cell phone video is not placed before the court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. As per the specific evidence of Pw.2, he was not present at the time of the first incident said to have been occurred at 11.00 a.m on 23-04-2012. Though, Pw.2 claimed that M.Srinivasa Rao (A1 herein) beat his father in the morning on 23.4.2012, then, his father went to
Lalapet PS, presented the report and then police referred his father to the hospital for treatment, the same can not be believed & considered since it is hearsay. Furthermore, though, the present case is existed for the incident said to have been occurred at 5.00 p.m on 23.4.2012 (2nd incident as per the version of Pws.1 and 2), Pw.2 stated in the evidence that police have not conducted proper investigation and not covered the evening incident.
27.Admittedly, Pw.2 is a practicing Advocate in Guntur Bar
Association. If the version of Pw.2 in respect of the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation properly. Pw.2 can take an appropriate step to conduct proper investigation by approaching the court even after filing the charge sheet. But no such steps have taken by Pw.2 till this day as per the material available on record. Further, Pw.2 categorically admitted, in the cross examination of the defence, that 12 the disputed site is not registered in the name of his father and no document is executed in his father's name.
28.As far as the evidence of Pw.3 is concerned who deposed that she knows Pws.1 and 2. On 23-04-2012 she came to Guntur to her brother's house and Pw.1's house is situated by the side of her brother's house. At about 5-00 p.m she visited the house of Pw.1 to see the wife of Pw.1, then the wife of Pw.1 informed her that Pw.1 was in the disputed site. Then, she found 10 persons armed with sticks and in drunken state and they abused and beat Pw.1, in the meanwhile Pw.2 came to the scene of offence and tried to rescue Pw.1 for which some accused beat Pw.2 on his head and causing injury.
29.Though Pw.3 claimed that she found 10 persons who holding sticks in drunken state and abused Pw.1, the same is not whispered either in the evidence of Pw.1 and in the evidence of Pw.2. Further, though, Pw.3 stated that the accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with stout stick and all the persons who gathered there, beat Pws.1 and 2, there is no whisper about the same in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. So also, as per the evidence of Pw.3, the neighbours shifted the injured in the auto to the hospital and he accompanied them to the hospital, but according to the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, they along with some others rushed to the police station and from then the police referred them to the hospital.
30.Ex.D7 relevant portion has marked in the cross examination of
Pw.3 on behalf of the defence. As per the evidence of Pw.3, he did not state before the Investigating Office as in Ex.D7 which says that on 23- 04-2012 he came to Guntur along with Pw.7 and others to attend house 13 construction work and were doing construction work at Balaji Nagar
Colony. The Investigating Officer/Pw.9 admitted, in the cross examination of the defence, that Pw.3 stated before him as in Ex.D7.
The contradiction marked in Ex.D7 is a significant to doubt the veracity of Pw.3 that he went to the house of Pw.1 to see the wife of Pw.1 and on the instructions of the wife of Pw.1, she went to the scene of offence. So also Pw.3 admitted the omission in respect of she did not state before the police that the wife of Pw.1 informed her that Pw.1 was available and discussing in the disputed site.
31.Coming to the evidence of Pw.4, who claimed that on 23-04-2012 at 11.00 a.m, his senior paternal uncle/Pw.1 along with some coolies were discussing in the house site of Pw.1, he was standing by the side of Pw.1 and while erecting pillars, the accused No.1 came there by shouting loudly and beat Pw.1. Immediately, they went to PS and police referred Pw.1 to the hospital for treatment. Pw.4 further deposed that on the same day evening Pw.1 returned to the house and when the workers demanded coolie work amount, Pw.1 and himself went to the site and were discussing with the workers, the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with 10 to 20 others, harmed with sticks and rods, came there by shouting loudly and beat them. On observing the same Pw.2 rushed there from the house by jumping over the wall and tried to rescue Pw.1, to which the accused Nos.3 and 4 beat him.
32.It is the further evidence of Pw.4 that he rescued Pw.2 and in the mean time, they beat Pw.1. The accused also beat the workers and then they all went to Police Station in the auto and police referred them to hospital for treatment. Though, Pw.4 claimed that at the time of the 14 incident at 11.00 a.m he was present along with Pw.1 and witnessed that the accused No.1 beat Pw.1, there is no whisper in the evidence of
Pw.1 about the very presence of P.w.4 at the time of the first incident.
So also there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.1 that Pw.4 also accompanied him to the police station and also to the hospital after 11.00 a.m on 23-04-2012, though, the same is wispherd in the evidence of Pw.4.
33.Further, as per the evidence of Pw.1, the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with 10 members came to the scene of offence and attacked Pw.1. But, according to the evidence of Pw.2 all the accused along with other people came to the site and created a galata. On contra to the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, Pw.3 stated that she found 10 persons armed with sticks in drunken state abused Pw.1. Per contra to the evidence of
Pws.1 to 3, Pw.4 claimed that the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with 10 to 20 others armed with sticks and rods, came there by shouting loudly and beat them. However, there is no whisper in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 about version of Pw.4 that the accused came arming with rods.
Furthermore, though Pw.4 claimed that the accused also beat the workers there is no whisper about the same in the evidence of Pw.2.
Moreover, there is no specific evidence of Pw.1 about the number of workers who were also beaten by the accused.
34.Moreover, though, Pw.4 claimed that after the incident all of them went to the PS in the auto, and the police referred them to the hospital for treatment, according to the evidence of Pw.3, she accompanied
Pws.1 and 2 in the auto to the hospital directly. Further, though, Pw.4 claimed that Pw.1 received fracture injury on the right hand, there is no 15 medical evidence to show the same. Furthermore, according to contents of Ex.P8 wound certificate Pw.1 sustained injuries simple in nature. Moreover, there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.1 that he sustained any fracture injury. So also though Pw.4 stated that he received small injuries on the waist and on the right hand, there is no medical evidence to prove the same.
35.Coming to the evidence of Pw.5, who deposed that in the year 2012 she worked as SGT teacher in MPUP school at Sri Rukpinipuram of
Machavaram Mandal. On 23-04-2012 it was a last working day for the school for the academic year and she returned to the house from the school by 3.30 p.m. After relaxing for some time, she went to the house of Pw.1 and by that time, her father with 6 or 7 coolies doing some work in the vacant place located back side to her father's house and since she was having tender aged daughter, ahe was looking after her daughter in the house of her father till 4.00 or 4.30 p.m and by that time, 20 persons in a drunken state, armed with sticks, came to the back side of her house in the vacant site and beat Pw.1 and all the workers who were attending the work. They beat her father by pushing him on the ground and on observing the same her brother Pw.2 jumped 4 feats height wall and tried to rescue her father but the said persons beat her brother on the left side head with stick and caused bleeding injury.
36.It is the further evidence of Pw.5 that her father sustained injury on the right hand and due to which a rod was fixed to her father's right hand. On noticing the said galata, the villagers rushed there and on arrival of the villagers, the said 20 persons went away from that place.
16
The further evidence of Pw.5 is that the accused No.4 beat her brother/
Pw.2 and the accused Nos.1 to 3 were also present in the said 20 persons. While the said 20 persons leaving the place, hurdled brick pieces towards them. Then, her father and other injured were shifted to the hospital in the auto and Pw.4 had taken Pw.2 to Police Station on his motorbike and the police referred Pw.2 to the hospital.
37.In the cross examination of the defence, Pw.5 admitted that no bus service to the village of Sri Rukinipuram where she was working by the, but auto services are available. Pw.5 also admitted, in the cross examination, that the villagers of Rukminipuram have to come to
Piduguralla and board buses to come to Guntur and two hours time is required to travel from Pidugrualla to Guntur. As per the evidence of
Pw.5 claimed in the chief examination that the day 23-04-2012 is a last working day to the school, she was working as S.G.T. Teacher in M.P.U.P.
School, Sri Rukpinipuram, Machavaram Mandal, she was attended the school and returned to the school by 3.30 p.m. It is the further evidence of Pw.5 that after relaxing for some time in the house, she went to the house of Pw.1 and at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m, she noticed that 20 persons, in a drunken state, armed with sticks, came back side to her house and beat Pw.1 & workers.
38.As stated supra, as per the admitted evidence of Pw.1, Pw.5 was on duty at the time of the incident. As per the specific evidence of
Pw.5 also she attended the school on 23-04-2012. As per the further specific evidence of Pw.5, minimum 2 hours time is required to come to
Guntur from the place where she was working. As per the evidence of 17
Pw.5, she returned to the house in Guntur from the school, Sri
Rukminipura by 03.30 p.m.
39.It is not the contention of Pw.5 that she attended the school half day on the last working or school was worked only for ½ day on the last working day. Further, as per the evidence of Pw.5, 20 persons came in drunken state, beat his father by pushing him on the ground and when
Pw.2 went in rescue of Pw.1, the said persons beat Pw.2 and caused injury, the accused No.4 beat Pw.2 and the accused Nos.1 to 3 also present in the said 20 persons. It is the further evidence of Pw.5 that while leaving the said place, the said 20 persons hurled brick pieces towards them, then his father and other injured were shifted to the hospital in the auto and Pw.4 has taken Pw.2 to P.S on his motorbike and police referred Pw.2 to the hospital. But the same are not whispered in the evidence of Pws.1 to 4.
40.As stated supra, according to the evidence of Pw.1, the accused
Nos.1 to 4 along with their followers nearly 10 members came and attacked him, but as per the evidence of Pw.5, 20 persons attacked
Pw.1. Further, according to the evidence of Pw.1, the accused Nos.1 to 3 beat him with sticks, the accused No.3 kicked him with legs and the accused No.3 beat Pw.2. But, no specific over-tacts made against the accused Nos.1 to 3 except their presence and acts against each of the accused and who specifically beat Pw.1 in the evidence of Pw.5. More so, contrary to the evidence of Pws.1, 2 & 4 that the injured were shifted to the police station and from then, they were taken to hospital,
Pw.3 stated that the injured were shifted to the Hospital directly from the scene of offence. Per contra to the evidence Pws.1 to 4, Pw.5 18 claimed that Pw.1 and other injured were shifted to the hospital in the auto and Pw.4 taken Pw.2 on his bike to the police station and police referred Pw.2 to the hospital. Therefore, there is no corroboration among the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 as to the specific over-tacts made against the accused Nos.1 to 5 on Pws.1 to 3. So also, there is clear inconsistency elicited among the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 regarding the time of the incident, shifting the injured to the police station/hospital and presence of the eye wintesses at the time of the incident.
41.Coming to the evidence of Pw.6, who claimed that she worked as
CMO, GGH, Guntur. On 23-04-2012 at 5.30 p.m, she examined Pw.2 and found laceration of 3 x 1 cms on the right frontal region. According to the opinion of Pw.6 the above injury is simple in nature and it may be caused due to blunt object. It is the further evidence of Pw.6 that on the same day, at 5.30 p.m, she examined Pw.7 and found 1. Laceration of 1 x 1 cms on the left side of fore head, 2. Swelling of left hand and 3. She sent the patient for X-ray, and found left fore arm with wrist fracture of left ulna.
42.Though, in the cross examination of the defence, Pw.6 stated that she can not say whether Pw.2 is a male or female and Pw.2 stated to her that she received injury in the hands of known person with a rod and 12 stitches are not required for the injury No.1 to Pw.2, as stated supra, as per the evidence of Pw.2, he underwent for 12 stitches for the injury sustained on the head. Further, though, Pw.6 claimed that she examined Pw.7 and noted two injuries, Pw.7 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile intoto. Though, Pw.7 is said to be one of the injured and direct eye witnesses for the incident and crucial 19 witness for the prosecution, he did not support the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 in spite of facing cross examination on behalf of the prosecution.
43.So also, Pw.8 did not support the version of the Investigating
Officer in respect of the observing the scene of offence in his presence and preparing the scene observation report. As far as the evidence of
Pw.9 is concerned who narrated his part of role done in this case as mentioned in the charge sheet.
44.On careful examining the entire evidence of the Investigating
Officer/Pw.9, it is clear that Pw.9 has simply recorded the statements of the witnesses including the first information statements, drafted rough sketches and filed the charge sheets, without conducting the
Investigation properly in a routine manner and without deciding the aggressor out of both parties involved in the present case and in
C.C.No. 332/2012 (case and counter cases).
45.In the cross examination of the defence, Pw.9 has categorically admitted that FIR was reached to the court on 24-04-2012 at 5.00 p.m, that he did not seize blood stained cloths of the injured, that he did not say whether Pws.1 and 2 are having house site disputed property, that he did not examine the neighbouring witnesses who are shown in the rough sketch, that he did not ask Pw.1 whether he has any title deed over the disputed property and he did not seize any document about the seized property. Pw.9 further admitted that Pw.1 did not mention about altercation took place in the morning of 23-04-2012 at 11.00 a.m in Ex.P1 statement and he did not refer the injured to the hospital either in the morning or in the evening. So also, Pw.9 admitted that 20
Pw.1 did not state in Ex.P1 and during 161 Cr.P.C statement that after he discharged from the hospital on 23-04-2012 at 4.00 p.m while he was discussing with the workers regarding the labour, the accused went there and attacked him.
46.As stated supra, according to the evidence of Pw.1 on 23-04-2012 at 11.00 a.m while he was constricting the house, the accused No.1 threatened him and beat him and on that, he reported the matter in
Lalapet PS and then, the police referred him to the hospital for treatment. But, Pw.9 denied the said version of Pw.1. Further, though,
Pw.1 claimed that he was taken treatment and discharged from the hospital at 4.-00 p.m on 23-04-2012, no document is filed to prove the same. Moreover, Pw.9/Investigating Officer has admitted that he has no information about the incident till he recorded Ex.P1 statement from
Pw.1 at 8.00 p.m on 23-04-2012. More so, Pw.1 has not stated about the incident occurred in the morning on 23-04-2012 either in Ex.P1 or during 161 Cr.P.C statement.
47.Moreover, the Medical Officer who examined Pw.1 and issued wound certificate is not examined and her evidence was closed, basing on the representation of the prosecution that her whereabouts are not traced by the prosecution. Though, Ex.P8 wound certificate showing the injuries sustained by Pw.1 is marked in the evidence of Pw.9, without examining the medical officer and without identifying the signature of the medical Officer by the person who has acquaintance with the signature of the medical officer, the contents of Ex.P8 wound certificate can not be considered as substantive piece of evidence.
21
48.Further, though, Mos.1 to 5 are marked in the evidence of Pw.9, they were not identified by the injured and mediator for the scene observation report as that of the objects through which the injured sustained injuries and seized from the scene of offence respectively.
Pw.9 further admitted Pws.4 and 5 did not state the specific overt acts against the accused during their 161 Cr.P.C statement and Pw.5 did not state before him that Pw.1 sustained fracture injury and about morning incident.
49.As discussed in detail in the above referred paragraphs, there is a serious dispute between both parties about the title over the disputed property and civil suits were filed before the competent civil courts.
Further, there were matrimonial and money disputes between both families. Since there are many inconsistencies elicited among the evidence of prosecution witnesses about the specific over-tacts against the accused and about timings of the incidents in both cases, the very presence of the parties in both cases itself is doubtful. Hence, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to the extent of convicting the accused for the charges leveled against them.
50.Moreover, it is well settled principal of law in Criminal
Jurisprudence that the guilty of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and if any amount of doubt raises benefit of doubt must go to the accused. In this case also the evidence let in by the prosecution can not be held as sufficient and substantive to believe the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, the points are answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.
22
51. Point No. 5 ; In view of the findings answered to the point Nos. 1 to 4 it is held that the accused are entitled for acquittal.
In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of their sureties shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months. Mos.1 to 5 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time, if no appeal prefers.
Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the court on this the 22nd day of February, 2018.
IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
GUNTUR.
Appendix Of Evidence
Witnesses Examined:
FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : None.
Pw.1 : K. Venkateswarlu Pw.2 : K. Vijay Pw.3 : B. Padmavathi Pw.4 : K. Gopi Pw.5 : K. Jhansi Pw.6 : Dr. M. Sarvani Pw.7 : Eepuri Kiran Babu Pw.8 : M. Suresh Babu Pw.9 : R. Victor John
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw.1 on the statement. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of Pw.1. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of Lw.3 / Kiran. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Ex.P6 is the scene observation report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate.
23
FOR DEFENCE :
Ex.D1 is the served copy of the legal notice. Ex.D2 is the letter pad. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the registration form identified by Pw.1 containing name Ekalavya Girijana Seva Sangam. Ex.D4 is the Narasaraoept Division Ikya Girijana Seva Sangam run with same register number. Ex.D5 is the society run in the name of guntu Zilla Ekalavya Girijana Seva Sangam with same register number. Ex.D6 is the Girijaja Sanskehma Seva Sangam with same register number. Ex.D7 is the relevant portion in the 161 statement of Pw.3.
Material Objects Marked On Behalf Of The Prosecution
Mo.1 is the two Babbo sticks. Mo.2 is the five casuarina sticks (Sarvi sticks). Mo.3 is the stick warper one. Mos.4 and 5 are the two towels colouring white, read and blue mixing.
Mos Marked on behalf of the Defence
Nil
IV AJCJ,
GNT.