1 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(Formerly III Metropolitan Magistrate Court)
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Sri K.Rakesh,
VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022
CALENDAR CASE NO.208 /2015
(Cr.No.775/2014 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)
BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.
...Complainant
AND: Pothala Trinadha Rao, S/o.Sanjeev Rao, 26 years, Telaga, R/o.S.35, Maghadripeta, 104 Area, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam,N/o.Bhogapuram,Vizianagaram District.
...Accused
This case is coming on 25.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution; and of Sri V.Govinda Raju, Advocate for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.775/2014 for the offence under Section 325 of IPC of Kancharapalem Police Station.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused family and family of PW.1-Gara Ganesh were residing in MES Quarters, Marripalem,
Visakhapatnam and there is a illegal intimacy by the accused with the wife of PW.1, for which PW.1 admonished his wife Pydikonda and she kept quiet for sometime. On 01.12.2014 at about 6.100 a.m., PW.1 observed that the accused was coming out from his house on that, he questioned the accused, on that accused fisted him on the face of PW.1 and mouth, hence his two tooth fell down and further sustained cut injury to his upper lip. Further, PW.1 pushed the accused to rescue her 2 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
daughter, for which she fell down. Then, he went to the private hospital and got treatment and then at night he went to KGH and on 02.11.2014, he lodged Ex.P.1 statement.
Basing on the statement of PW.1, LW.7-A.Satya Rao, SI of Police,
Kancharapalem, registered the case, as a case in Crime No.775/2014 under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC and took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and prima facie case against the accused was established under Section 325 of IPC and on 15.12.2014 he arrested the accused and produced the accused for remand and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 325 of IPC.
3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. On appearance of the accused; copies of all documents were furnished to the accused in compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Section 325 of
IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
5.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined
PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4. The learned APP given up the evidences of LW.4-Mahatti Prasitham & LW.5-Usha Anush and the evidence of LW.7-A.Satya Rao, SI of Police, Kancharapalem was closed as he died.
6.After the evidence of prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating 3 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard the counsel for the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.
The counsel for the defence argued that all the witnesses in this case were the relatives and there is one day delay in lodging in the FIR and further he relied on the judgment High Court of Andhra Pradesh
in Ambati Vykunta Rao vs., State of Andhra Pradesh, dated
01.03.2003 reported in 2003 1 ALD(Cri) 754; 2003 1 ALT (Cri)
340; 2003 3 RCR(Cri) 63.
8. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to drive home
the guilt of the accused for the offence under
Section 325 of IPC ?
9. POINT:
(i)The evidence of PW.1 is that he have been working as Chowkidhar,
Military Engineering Services, Visakhapatnam since 1987 and he is a resident of Kakaninaga and he joined in Meghadripeta MES Quarters in 2009. He further stated that the family of the accused was also living in
MES quarters by that time as the father of the accused was also an employee in MES. The accused used to reside besides their house. The accused developed illegal intimacy with his wife Pydikonda. The accused used to have sexual intercourse in his house in his absence. In- spite of it, the accused used to visit his house in his absence and continued his illegal intimacy with his wife.
He further stated that on the previous day of 01-12-2014 his wife called the accused over phone to warn his son Vamsi who was trying to evading school. Having afraid of the accused that he would scold his 4 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
son, he enable his son to go out. But his son did not turn up to house on that day. On that day himself and his daughter slept in their house.
On 01-12-2014 when he woke up and found the accused in his house. Then himself and his daughter questioned his wife as to why the accused had come. Then his wife replied that the parents of the accused necked out the accused, as such she provided food on the previous night. At that time his daughter not believed the words of his wife and told him that previously also the accused was visiting the house even during nights. Therefore, his wife and daughter started quarreling and his wife beat his daughter. Then his wife called the accused and complained against him and his daughter that they are beating her. Then the accused slapped her daughter and pushed her.
Then, he pushed the accused to rescue his daughter. Then the accused fisted on his face below the nose, resulting he lost two teeth and also sustained bleeding injury. Then himself and his daughter escaped from their house and went to his sister’s house at Kancharapalem. He went to a private hospital and took treatment for his injury and on the next day, he went to Kancharapalem Police Station and stated what had happened. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Even till today the accused has been maintaining his illegal intimacy with his wife as such they are not living together.
During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he have no idea about the distance between the scene of offence house and the
Kancharapalem Police Station. The Circle Inspector of Police,
Kancharapalem gave counseling to them and released him on bond keeping the welfare of the children. He further admitted that he did not lodge any report on 01.12.2014 before police. On 01.12.2014, he was not on duty and he was in home. On 01.12.2014, himself, his wife and 5 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
his daughter were only present in their house and his wife has been suffering from Cancer.
(ii)The evidence of PW.2 is that she is a resident of Kakaninagar. PW1 is her father. Previously, they used to reside at Meghadripeta, 104 Area,
MES Quarters, S23. Herself, PW1, her mother Pydikonda and her younger Vamsi used to reside in the said house. The family of the accused also used to reside beside their house. The mother of the accused and her mother became friends as such they know each others family.
On the previous day of 01-12-2014, herself and her younger brother Vamsi slept in one of the bed rooms of their house. On 01-12-2014 at about 6.00 or 6.30 AM, PW.1 returned from his duty and when they woke up, the accused was very much present in their house.
Then, PW.1 questioned the accused as to why the accused was present in their house. In that process there was some exchange of arguments between PW.1 and the accused. For that her brother Vamsi got afraid and left the house. During that argument with her father PW1, the accused fisted PW.1 on his upper lip below nose resulting PW.1 sustained a cut injury on his upper lip and two teeth came out with blood. Prior to that, one tooth of PW.1 was semi-damaged (Half Putchu Pannu). She tried to stop the accused from beating her father, but she could not resist the accused. Herself and her father left the house for treatment.
Initially, they went to their relatives house at Kancharapalem and from there to a private hospital and there PW.1 was treated. From there they went to KGH. On the next of incident they filed the case. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that on the date of alleged incident, she was studying Intermediate. She further admitted 6 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
that her mother Pydikonda is the second wife of his father PW.1. Herself and her younger brother Vamsi are the issues of his father through her mother Pydikonda. Whereas, PW.3 is the son of his father through his first wife Ramadevi. She further admitted that on 01.12.2014, they did not lodge any report before police and she volunteers that as PW.1 was suffering from injuries, they lodged the report on the following day.
(iii)The evidence of PW.3 is that PW.1 is his father. PW.2 is his younger sister. At present he was residing at Kancharapalem. After his marriage, he put up a separate family at Kancharapalem. On 02-12-2014 at about 9.30 or 10.00 am., PW.2 brought his father to his house. At that time
PW.1 was with a cut injury on his upper lip and two teeth were removed.
Then, he took him to KGH for treatment. After treatment at KGH, he took PWs.1 and 2 to Kancharapalem Police Station and lodged a report there. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
(iv)The evidence of PW.4 is that he have been working as Chief
Medical Officer, KGH, Visakhapatnam since November, 2014. On 02.12.2014, at 1.40 p.m., he examined PW.1 and found the injuries
1) 1 x 1 cm laceration over upper lip and 2) History of tooth loss (incision), sutured at private hospital.
Dental Surgeon opinion given fresh socket was present. As per the opinion of the Dental Surgeon, the above injury is grievous injury. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate issued by him.
During cross-examination, that there is a possibility of sustaining the injury mentioned in Ex.P.2 if a person falls from steps or while travelling on a motor bike.
(v)The evidence of PW.5 is that he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kancharapalem Police Station from July 2013 to October, 2016 and he is 7 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
was deposing the evidence in this crime basing on the record of the crime. He further stated that he know the deceased A.Satyarao who is
LW.7 in this crime. Himself and LW.7 deceased Satyarao worked in the
Kancharapalem Police Station. He have well acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of the said deceased Satyarao. He further stated that on confronting the FIR and rough sketch by the learned APP, he recognized the signatures of the deceased LW.7 A.Satyarao in both
Ex.P.3 FIR and Ex.P.4 rough sketch.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE :-
10.(i)The case of the prosecution is that the accused family and family of PW.1-Gara Ganesh were residing in MES Quarters, Marripalem,
Visakhapatnam and there is a illegal intimacy by the accused with the wife of PW.1, for which PW.1 admonished his wife Pydikonda and she kept quiet for sometime. On 01.12.2014 at about 6.100 a.m., PW.1 observed that the accused was coming out from his house on that, he questioned the accused, on that accused fisted him on the face of PW.1 and mouth, hence his two tooth fell down and further sustained cut injury to his upper lip. Further, PW.1 pushed the accused to rescue her daughter, for which she fell down. Then, he went to the private hospital and got treatment and then at night he went to KGH and on 02.11.2014, he lodged Ex.P.1 statement.
(ii)On perusing the evidence of PW.1, who is the victim and PW.2 who is the daughter of PW.1 and PW.1 in his evidence before this court stubbornly stated that the accused has illegally intimacy with his wife and the accused used to sexual intercourse with his wife in his house, while he was absence. Further, prior to the date of the incident 01.12.2014, his wife called the accused over phone to warn his son
Vamsi, who was trying to evading school, for which, PW.1 enable his son 8 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
to go out. Then, PW.1 son did not turn up to the house on that day.
While so, on 01.12.2014 he woke up he found the accused present in his house, for which, himself and his daughter PW.2 questioned his wife as to the presence of the accused, then his wife replied that the parents of the accused necked out, as such, she provided food on the previous night. By not believing the words of his wife, his daughter PW.2 informed PW.1 that the accused was visiting the house even during the nights. Therefore, his wife quarreled with his daughter PW.2 and his wife beat PW.2. Then, his wife called the accused and complained against himself and his daughter that they were beating her, then accused slapped PW.2 and pushed her, then PW.1 pushed the accused to rescue
PW.1. Then, the accused fisted him on his face below the nose, resulting, he lost two teeth and also sustained bleeding injuries. Then, himself and his daughter escaped from the house and went to his sister’s house at Kancharapalem. Then, he went to private hospital and took treatment for his injury and on the next day, he went to
Kancharapalem Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 statement.
(iii)The evidence of PW.1 is supported by the evidence of PW.2 who is his daughter and direct evidence of the incident as that on 01.12.2014, herself and her younger brother Vamsi slept on one of the bedrooms of their house and at about 6.00 or 6.30 a.m., PW.1 returned from his duty, when they woke up, the accused was very much present in their house.
Then, PW.1 questioned about his presence in that process some exchange of arguments was occurred between PW.1 and the accused.
During that argument with his father PW.1, the accused fisted PW.1 on his upper lip below nose, resulting which, PW.1 sustained a cut injury on his upper lip and two teeth came out with blood. She further stated
before this court that prior to that one tooth of PW.1 was semi damaged
9 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
(half putchu pannu). Further, she stated before this court that she tried to stop the accused from beating her father, but she could not resist.
Then, herself and PW.1 left the house for treatment. Initially, they went to their relatives house at Kancharapalem and from there, they went to private hospital and there PW.1 was treated. From there, he went to
KGH. On the next day, they filed the report.
Even though elaborate cross-examination was conducted by the defence counsel, but in that cross-examination, PW.1 & PW.2 stubbornly stood and they do not deviate the evidence, which supporting that the accused fisted PW.1, for which, PW.1 sustained cut injury on the upper lip and below the nose and lost his two tooth. Even though, defence counsel tried to elicit the rivalry between the PW.1 and his wife, but PW.1 & PW.2 deny the same and PW.1 admitted that CI of Police,
Kancharapalem gave counseling PW.1 and his wife Pydikonda.
(iv)Further, on perusing the evidence of PW.1, the incident was occurred in the year 2014 and the date of giving his evidence is in the year 2020. As on date of his giving evidence, PW.1 is residing separately from her wife, but on the date of the incident, they are residing together at one roof. In general no husband come forward to state about the illicit intimacy of her wife with other person whey they are living in one roof, except like facts of this case may occur. However, the presence of the accused in the house of PW.1 on the date of offence and fisted the PW.1 is the issue to be decided. But here, as per the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 on the date of incident, accused was present in the house of PW.1 and fisted PW.1 is established.
(v)Now the burden is upon the accused to prove that he was not present in the house of PW.1 and alleged incident was not occurred.
Even though, defence counsel tried to shake the prosecution evidence 10 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
that the accused was not present at the time of incident. In the light of the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2, their defence was not supported. Even though, the accused do not come forward to prove his contention at the time of 313 Cr.P.C., examination as to prove his contention as on the date of incident he was not present in the house of PW.1. But the evidence of victim and the direct witness PW.2 shows that the accused is present in the house of PW.1 and some altercations took place in between PW.1 and the accused and PW.2 also tried to rescue the PW.1 from the hands of the accused and at the time of altercation, accused beat PW.1.
(vi)As per Ex.P.1, LW.7-A.Satya Rao, SI of Police, Kancharapalem, registered the case in Crime No.775/2014 under Section 325 & 323 of
IPC. On perusing Ex.P.1 and 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PW.1 & PW.2 and the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 before this court, even though, PW.1 in his
Ex.P.1 statement stated that the accused pushed his daughter PW.2, but
PW.2 who is the daughter of PW.1 do not state before this court that the the accused slapped her or pushed her, but PW.2 in her evidence before this court stated that she tried to stop the accused from beating her father, but she could not resist the accused. Further more, the evidence of PW.2 do not disclose any illicit intimacy in between the accused and her mother Pydikonda. But she stubbornly stood before this court, the presence of the accused at the date of occurrence of the crime and fisted PW.1 and further she stated that her mother and mother of the accused are friends and as such, they know each other families.
(vii)These evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 when compared with Ex.P.1 and the 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PW.1 & PW.2 before the police, this court found some discrepancies in their evidence. But the record disclose that the crime was occurred on 01.12.2014 and the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 11 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
are deposed before this court on 28.01.2020, hence there is around six years gap in between the incident and their evidence. Hence, these discrepancies may occurred due to the fade out of memory in time travelling.
(viii) Hence, his court found these discrepancies are minor in nature by way of relying on the following Hon’ble Apex court judgment dated 24.05.1983 reported in 1983 AIR 753, 1983 SCR (3) 280
BHARWADA BHOGINBHAI HIRJIBHAI Vs.,
STATE OF GUJARAT
“Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:- (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short 12 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.”
(ix)Then, the learned counsel for the decence argued that there is a delay of one day in lodging Ex.P.3 FIR. To this regard, this court eqnuired whether the said delay was properly examined on the said examination and this court found through Ex.P.1, which is his statement due to his pain to his injury, he failed to come on that day and on the next day, i.e., 02.04.2014 he gave his statement before the police. Further, the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 after the incident they went to private hospital and took treatment. Hence, these explanation of delay is condonable in nature and even though PW.1 in his evidence after the incident they went to some relatives house at Kancharapalem and even though as per the evidence of PW.3, who is the first son of PW.1 that on 02.12.2014 at 9.30 pm., PW.2 brought his father to his house. Then, they went to KGH for treatment and after treatment they went to Kancharapalem Police
Station and lodged the report at Kancharapalem PS.
(x)At this juncture, this court rely on the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos.35 and 189 of 2013 13 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
Vadlamukkala Suresh vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Where in the Hon’ble High Court of AP relied on the Hon’ble Apex
Court of India judgment Ravi vs, Badrinarayan which the Apex court observed the following:
"It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police
Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the F.I.R. with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim."
(xi)When the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 are believable in nature, the delay in lodging was already explained through the Ex.P.1 and the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2. This court conclude that there may be no chance to cooked up the case by PW.1 & PW.2 and this delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to discard the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2.
(xii)Further, the learned counsel for the defence counsel argued before this court that all the witnesses are blood relatives and one family members and pray this court, their evidences are not reliable.
To this regard, this court inclined to rely the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal Nos.940-941 of 2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos.2860-2861 of 2019, dated 03.09.2021.
14 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan and another vs.
the State of Gujarat
“The evidentiary value of the close relatives/interested witness is not liable to be rejected on the ground of being a relative of the deceased. Law does not disqualify the relatives to be produced as a witness though they may be interest witness”
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied in the same judgment of the judgment reported in AIR 1953 SC 364
Dalip Singh and others Vs.,
The State of Punjab
“A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely”.
(xiii) The evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 scrutinized in cautious manner, which proved the fact that the accused beat PW.1 is proved. Hence, there is no any force on the version of the defence counsel by rising the non-believablity of witnesses by the relatives.
(xv)In this case, as per PW.1 & PW.2 evidence, after treatment of PW.1 at private hospital they went to KGH on 02.12.2014 and that LW.6/PW.4 examined PW.1 at KGH and issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate by stating that he examined PW.1 and found the following injuries:
1) 1 x 1 cm laceration over upper lip and
2) History of tooth loss (incision), sutured at private hospital.
The evidence of PW.4 along with Ex.P.2 wound certificate issued by him, he examined PW.1 and found laceration over upper lip of PW.1. But he opined regarding the tooth loss is basis on the opinion of Dental
Surgeon as it is grievous in nature.
15 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
On perusing the Ex.P.2 one Doctor Sd/- Dr Janardhana Rao was showed as Dental Surgeon. As per his opinion, PW.4 Dr Y.Surendra
Kumar opined that Dental Surgeon opinion given fresh socket was present, which shows with regarding to the tooth loss he gave the opinion basing on the opinion of the said Dental Surgeon. But the said
Dental Surgeon who was not examined before this court or his name was not cited in the prosecution witnesses.
(xv)Further more, on scrutinizing the evidence of PW.2, this court found that even though on fisting by the accused to PW.1 on the upper lip below the nose of PW.1, resulting him cut injury on his upper lip and tooth came out with blood. Further, PW.2 states that one of the tooth of
PW.1 was semi-damaged.
This evidence arise a doubt in the mind of the court about the lose of tooth. Further more, the x-ray or radiology report belongs to loss of tooth was not produced before this court. Hence, to that extent of grievous injury, which opined about the loss of tooth was not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. But the evidence of PW.4 under Ex.P.2 shows that PW.1 got treatment at private hospital and as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and coupled with the evidence of
PW.4, who is the Doctor as he observed that 1 x 1 cm., laceration over upper lip, these evidences is believable that PW.1 sustained injuries in the hands of the accused.
(xvi) In this case, even though crime was registered by LW.7-A.Satya
Rao and investigation was conducted by way of registering FIR under
Ex.P.3 and rough sketch under Ex.P.4, but he was not examined before this court, as he is no more. But the prosecution filed a petition for marking those documents through one R.Somasekhar Rao, who is previously worked as SI of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station from July 16 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
2013 to October 2016 as witness of prosecution to identify signatures of the deceased LW.7 A.Satya Rao and the same petition allowed in
Criminal MP.No.267/2022 and the said R.Some Sekhar Rao examined as
PW.5 and he stated before this court that he know LW.7 as they worked together in the Kancharapalem Police Station and he have well acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of the said deceased
Satyarao and Exs.P.3 & P.5 were marked.
(xvii) To this regard, the evidence of PW.5 disclose that the deceased
A.Satya Rao and himself are worked together and he has well acquaintance with the handwriting and signatures of the deceased and it is relevant under Section 32(2) of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the investigation was conducted by LW.7 deceased A.Satya Rao treated as a circumstantial evidence and this court relied on it.
(xviii) As per the above foregoing discussion, this court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused under Section 325 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, but the prosecution
succeeded to prove the case against the accused under Section
323 of IPC.
(xix) The learned defence counsel relied on the judgment of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 1 ALD(Cri) 754; 2003 1 ALT (Cri) 340; 2003 3 RCR (Cri) 63 Ambati Vykunta Rao vs., State of
Andhra Pradesh and on going though the above judgment “where as per the evidence of victim in that judgment accused twisted his hand and he sustained the fracture, but in its medical report opined the injury was caused by blunt object. Further, the above judgment runs of fact of inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 about the incident.
Hence, this facts in that judgment was not similar to this present case 17 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
facts and hence, this court humbly submit that the said judgment not helpful to the case of the defence.
12)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence under
Section 323 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.
xxSd/-K.Rakesh
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
13)When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he is a poor person and he is living by way of doing painting work and requested this court to take a lenient view.
On considering the plea of the accused, this court concluded that the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, will meets the ends of justice.
Further, on perusing the nature of the offence, this court not inclined to apply Section 360 of Cr.P.C., or Probation of Offenders Act.
Further, the accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment. When questioned about means for preferring appeal, he stated that he has capacity to engage a counsel.
No order as to case property.
Pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.
xxSd/-K.Rakesh
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
18 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:
PW.1Gara Ganesh PW.2Gara Sirisha PW.3Gara Venkatesh PW.4Dr Y.Surendra Kumar, Chief Medical Officer, KGH, Visakhapatnam PW.5R.Soma Sekara Rao, SI of Police, Kancharapalem PS
For Defense:NONE Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2Wound certificate Ex.P.3First Information Report Ex.P.4Rough sketch
For Defense:- NIL - No. of Material Objects Marked - NIL - xxSd/-K.Rakesh
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
// True Copy //
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
19 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(Formerly III Metropolitan Magistrate Court)
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: Sri K.Rakesh,
VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022
CALENDAR CASE NO.208 /2015
(Cr.No.775/2014 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City) 1Name of the Complainant: The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. 2Pothala Trinadha Rao, S/o.Sanjeev Rao, 26 years, Telaga, R/o.S.35, Maghadripeta,104Area,Marripalem,Visakhapatnam, N/o.Bhogapuram, Vizianagaram District. 3Date of Offence: 01.12.2014 4Date of report or : 02.12.2014 complaint 5Date of apprehension of: 15.12.2014 the accused or Date of appearanceofthe accused in the court 6Date of Commencement : 21.01.2020 of trial 7Date for close of trial: 11.03.2022 8Date of sentence on order : 08.04.2022
9.Explanation of delay or : -- remarks 10 Offences: Under Section 323 of IPC 11 Finding of the court: Found guilty
SENTENCE: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
When questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, the accused stated that he is a poor person and he is living by way of doing painting work and requested this court to take a lenient view.
On considering the plea of the accused, this court concluded that the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period 20 VII AMM COURT, VSP
CC No.208/2015
of three (3) months and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, will meets the ends of justice.
Further, on perusing the nature of the offence, this court not inclined to apply Section 360 of Cr.P.C., or Probation of Offenders Act.
Further, the accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment. When questioned about means for preferring appeal, he stated that he has capacity to engage a counsel.
No order as to case property.
xxSd/-K.Rakesh
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
// True Copy //
VII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::
VISAKHAPATNAM.
(Formerly III Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam)
Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022
CALENDAR CASE NO.208 /2015
(Cr.No.775/2014 of Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam City)
Q: Do you, the accused want to say anything with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against you for the offence under
Section 323 of IPC ?
Ans: