S.C.No.189 of 2017 1 ASJ Court, Allagadda
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.
Present:- Sri K.Siva Sankar, Assistant Sessions Judge,
Allagadda.
Friday, the 21st day of October, 2022.
Sessions Case No.189 of 2017
State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Rural Police Station. … Complainant.
Versus
1. Chikkanti Venkata Ramana @ Babu, Son of Late Ramakrishnudu, aged 43 years, R/o Suddapalli village, Peddamudiem Mandal, Kadapa District,
2. Bochu Sankar, S/o Bala Obi, aged 34 years, R/o P.V. Nagar, Nandyal town.
3. Borilli Sampath Kumar, S/o Prakasham, aged 30 years, R/o Devana- gar, Nandyal town,
4. Deshu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, aged 22 years, R/o Deva Nagar, Nandyal town,
5. Gaddam Suresh Babu, S/o Rajaratnam, aged 34 years, R/o Devana- gar in Nandyal town,
6. Gongalla Bala Maddilety, S/o Tirupal, aged 42 years, R/o Jillella vil- lage, Gospadu Mandal,
7. Majjiga Radhamma, W/o Ramudu, aged 34 years, R/o Nagireddipalle village, Rudravaram Mandal. … Accused
This case is coming up on 12.08.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri S. Ramanaiah and Sri O.Venkataiah, Advocates for the
Accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having perused the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, Allagadda Rural Police Station laid charge sheet in Crime No.105/2015 for the offences under Sections
S.C.No.189 of 2017 2 ASJ Court, Allagadda
120[b], 324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 to
A7.
2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:
The defacto-complainant/LW1 [Ayyaluri Venkata Rami
Reddy] is living by doing business of Bengal-gram and also doing finance business. Two years prior to the occurrence he advanced loan to A1 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and obtained promissory note.
Thereafter a rastha dispute took place in which A1 signed against the defacto complainant. On that the defacto complainant insisted him to pay Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.3,00,000/-. A panchayat was held about the amount. A1’s brother-in-law Bala Sankar cleared the amount by making payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defacto complainant, and on that there are disputes between A1 and the defacto complainant.
Due to the harassing demand for payment of money by the defacto complainant, the accused A1 developed grudge against him and hatched a plan to done away with the defacto complainant. A1 discussed with A7 and A6. A1, A7 along with A6 hatched a plan and A5 promised to do away with defacto complainant and demanded
Rs.5,00,000/-.
Five days prior to the occurrence, A5 demanded Rs.10,000/- saying that he would kill the defacto complainant. A1 gave Rs.10,000/- to A5 for expenses and A5 discussed the plan and engaged A2, A3 and others to executed the plan.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 3 ASJ Court, Allagadda
While it was so, on 22.08.2015 A5 gave steel rod to A2 and advised A2 and A3 to be present at Suddapalli village. As per the plan
A2 armed with dagger and chilli powder. Both A2 and A3 waited for defacto complainant in Allagadda town. In the evening at 5.00 PM, they noticed the defacto complainant was proceeding to the village along with LW2 Kalvatala Basha. A5 informed the same to A3 over phone at 5.30 PM. On seeing the defacto complainant A2 sprinkled chilli powder on defacto complainant, and attempted to stab with dagger but the defacto complainant escaped the blow which hit on left shoulder. A3 beat the defacto complainant with steel rod. The pillion rider tried to rescue the defacto complainant. Meanwhile, A2 and A3 noticed some persons coming near the scene and they escaped by hiding the dagger and steel rod at the outskirts of Allagadda town.
On 22.08.2015 at 9.00 AM, basing on the report of PW1, the Sub
Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.105/2015 U/s.324, 307 of
IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation, on 22.08.2015 the S.I. of Police arrested the accused A1 to A7 in the presence of panchayatdars and seized the crime weapons i.e., one dagger and one steel rod under cover of panchanama. The S.I. of Police added
Sec.120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The arrested accused were sent to remand.
On 31.10.2015 the Hon’ble JMFC, Nandyal conducted Test
Identification Parade of the accused where the defacto complainant and LW2 Kalvatala Basha identified the accused A2 and A3. The
Medical Officer issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries
S.C.No.189 of 2017 4 ASJ Court, Allagadda
are simple in nature. After completion of investigation the S.I. of Police filed charge sheet. On the above grounds, the S.I. of Police requested to punish the accused according to law.
3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda took cognizance of the offence U/s.120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. After furnishing copies and observing the formalities, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kurnool made over the case to this Court for disposal according
to law.
4. On appearance of the accused, the accused A1 to A7 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., and charges were framed under
Sections 120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 to A7, read over and explained to them, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and M.Os.1 and 2.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to
A7 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded ignorance and denied the offence, and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides.
8. Now, the point for determination is,
S.C.No.189 of 2017 5 ASJ Court, Allagadda
1. Whether the prosecution proved the motive for the offence U/s.307 IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution established the identity of A2 and A3 and specific overt acts of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts?
3. Whether the prosecution proved the offences
U/s.120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A7 beyond all reasonable doubts?
Arguments on behalf of the prosecution:
9.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused were engaged by A1 and A5 to done away with the life of the defacto complainant due to previous grudges. Accordingly on the fateful day while the defacto complainant was going on motor cycle along with PW2, the accused A2 sprinkled chilli powder and tried to stab the defacto complainant. A3 beat with iron rod on the back of defacto complainant. Meanwhile, LW2 tried to interfere and on seeing some persons coming near the scene, the accused went away.
10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the injured was shifted to hospital by his brother and on the next day morning the defacto complainant lodged complaint/Ex.P1. Police arrested the accused and the Hon’ble JMFC, Nandyal conducted Test
Identification Parade where Pws.1 and 2 identified the accused A2 and
A3. He argued that the prosecution established the case against the accused and requested to punish the accused accordingly relying on the evidence of Pws.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to P11.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 6 ASJ Court, Allagadda
Arguments on behalf of the Accused:
11.The advocate appearing for the accused vehemently argued that the injured gave complaint stating that unidentified persons attacked him. In the chief examination PW1 stated that there is no motive or grudge between A1 and himself. He further argued that the incident took place in the night and there is no proper identification of the accused in this case. The Investigating Officer fixed the accused basing on the confession which is not admissible in evidence. He further argued that there is abnormal delay in registering the case and sending the same to the Court.
12. He argued that the defacto complainant did not mention any identification marks of the accused. Hence the identification made by him in the presence of Magistrate could not be given much weight.
The witness admitted that the accused was shown to him prior to Test
Identification Parade. There are no independent eye witnesses to the occurrence and all the witnesses are interested witnesses. The counsel requested that the accused are falsely implicated and requested to give benefit of doubt.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 7 ASJ Court, Allagadda
POINT :
13. I have perused the FIR, Charge Sheet and the evidence on record including exhibits and the material objects placed by the prosecution. The court has appreciate the evidence placed by the prosecution to come to right conclusion.
14. PW1 is the injured/defacto complainant. He deposed that on 22.08.2015 he came to Allagadda and while he was returning to his village Suddapalli on motor cycle along with PW2/Kavatala Basha, when the motor cycle reached tamarind tree near Chinna Kandukuru village some persons came and sprinkled chilli powder. A2 attacked with dagger and when he tried to stab on the chest, he raised to avert off blow and received injury on the left hand near shoulder. A3 beat with iron rod on his back. Then PW2 caught hold of A3 and he was scuffling with A2. Meanwhile, three persons came from Chinna
Kambaluru side and on seeing them A2 and A3 left the injured and ran away. PW1 informed the same to his brother who came in car and shifted him to Government Hospital. Police came and obtained the complaint which was scribed by one Nagamuni Reddy his relative and recorded his statement and subsequently police examined.
15.He further deposed that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- to A1 and demanded back. A1 used to told that he has taken only Rs.3,00,000/-.
On that there were disputes. After panchayat A1 paid the amount and
A1 bore grudge.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 8 ASJ Court, Allagadda
16. The witness PW1 categorically deposed that A4 to A7 did not participate in the offence. His complaint is marked as Ex.P1. In the cross examination he deposed that they reached the scene of offence at 5.30 PM which is around 2 kms from Allagadda. The accused were standing on the right side of the road. The chilli powder spread on his chest and shoulder. The chilli powder did not fell on PW2 K.Basha. He admitted that he do not mention the names of accused in his complaint. The entire incident took place in about 5 minutes. While the scuffle was going on, three persons came on bike. The complaint was prepared at the hospital at 7.00 or 7.30 PM. The witness further admitted that he did not mention the physical features of A2 and A3 in his complaint. After payment of money by A1’s brother-in-law he has no disputes with A1.
17. The 2nd witness PW2 was sitting on the motor cycle driven by PW1. He deposed that when they reached tamarind tree near
Chinna Kandukuru village, two persons sprinkled chilli powder. When
PW1 questioned they sprinkled chilli power and one person attacked with knife on the left hand. PW1 received injury on the upper arm near the shoulder. PW2 deposed that A2 stabbed PW1 with knife. The witness further deposed that A1 stabbed with iron rod on his back. He separated the accused. Meanwhile some villagers came and on seeing them the accused ran away. After two months police called him to sub- jail and he identified A2 and A3 before Magistrate. In the cross examination he stated that he do not remember the names who bear
S.C.No.189 of 2017 9 ASJ Court, Allagadda
PW1. The chilli powder fell into his eyes and he could not see the persons. The incident lasted for 15 minutes. PW1 was conscious and his shift was stained with blood.
18.As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 the incident occurred at 5.30 PM, and the younger brother of PW1 came at 6.30 PM and they reached the hospital at 7.30 PM. The evidence of PW1 shows that some unidentified persons sprinkled chilli powder into the eyes and A2 stabbed on the left hand near shoulder and A3 beat on the back. The witness says that chilli powder fell on his shirt and pancha.
The complaint, FIR shows that the unidentified persons attacked him and he could not identify them. In the evidence PW1 stated that A2 stabbed him and A3 beat him with rod. The evidence of PW2 shows that the chilli powder was sprinkled and one person attacked with knife and another beat on the back.
The version of PW1 that PW2 caught hold of A3 was not supported by PW2. The cross examination of PW2 shows that the incident lasted for 15 minutes, whereas the evidence of PW1 shows the incident lasted for 5 minutes. Both witnesses admitted that the scene of offence is a busy road. According to PW1 shirt and pancha stained with blood but they were not seized by police. PW1 deposed that A2 was standing 10 feet away which goes to show that A1 and A2 did not attack at the same time.
According to PW2 chilli powder fell into the eyes of both Pws.1 and 2. When chilli powder fell into the eyes they cannot identify the
S.C.No.189 of 2017 10 ASJ Court, Allagadda
assailants and their version that they identified A2 and A3 subsequently in the Test Identification Parade creates doubt about the identification made by the accused.
19. PW3 is the brother of PW1 who deposed that on 22.08.2015
PW1 telephoned him and he went to the scene in a car. He noticed bleeding injuries on PW1 near the tamarind tree of Chinna Kandukuru village. PW1 received injury on the upper arm, then he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Allagadda. PW1 informed him that he gave
Rs.5,00,000/- to A1, and A1 disputed that only Rs.3,00,000/- was given and in the panchayat the brother-in-law of A1 paid Rs.5,00,000/- due to which A1 bore grudge for the attack. In the cross examination he stated that he took the injured to the hospital at 5.30 PM, and the police examined him at 7.00 PM in the hospital. The witness categorically stated that he observed the blood stains on PW1.
20. According to Pws.1 and 2 the incident occurred at 5.30 PM and they reached the hospital at 7.00 or 7.30 PM. The distance is only about 1 km from the scene of offence to the hospital. PW3 evidence shows that the injured reached the hospital at 5.30pm. Whereas the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 shows that they were shifted to hospital at 7.00 or 7.30 PM. However, PW3 is not the eye witness to the occurrence.
21. PW4 is the hearsay witness who came to know that on 22.08.2015 some persons sprinkled chilli powder on Pws.1 and 2 and attacked with dagger and also beat with iron rod. He further stated
S.C.No.189 of 2017 11 ASJ Court, Allagadda
that 3 months prior to the occurrence himself, Byapureddy and
Nallapalli Obulesu are waiting in bus stop at 4.00 PM and they noticed
A1 talking with 4 others and on that he suspected the role of accused.
In the cross examination he categorically stated that he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and he did not hear the discussion between A1 to A5 in the bus stop. The evidence of PW4 is only hearsay evidence and the same is not admissible. The court can not rely on the hear say evidence. witness and his evidence could not be given much weight. Even assuming that he observed A1 to A5 in the bus stop, he did not listen anything about conspiracy or about the plans. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW4 cannot be given much weight.
22. PW5 is another hearsay witness who accompanied PW3 and shifted the injured to Government Hospital. He also stated that 3 months prior to the occurrence, he noticed some 4 persons near the bus stand. The witness deposed that accused were present near the bus stand and he do not listen anything. Mere presence is not sufficient to hold that they conspired to commit the offence. The evidence of
PW5 is not trustworthy and cannot be believed.
23. PW6 is a panchayatdar who stated that on the request of police he reached Alfa college on 27.08.2015 at 9.30 or 9.40 AM, and the police arrested 7 members under the cover of Mediator Report. The witness himself stated that he is unable to say the names of arrested persons and the Panchanama is marked as Ex.P2. He further deposed
S.C.No.189 of 2017 12 ASJ Court, Allagadda
that on the same day at 1.40 PM, the S.I. of Police seized one dagger and one steel rod M.Os.1 and 2 under cover of Panchanama Ex.P3 from road side near PVSR Godown. The witness stated that he attested the
Panchanama.
The cross examination goes to show that he cannot say how many staff accompanied the S.I. of Police, and the S.I. examined one of the accused. It took 20 minutes to complete the examination and 2½ hours to complete the enquiry. The witness himself admitted that he cannot identify all the 7 accused due to time gap. Since the witness is only a panch witness, and not the direct witness. Further, the witness though deposed in the chief examination that he can identify, in the cross examination he deposed that he cannot identify the accused. The confession recorded by the I.O is not admissible in evidence.
24. PW7 is the scribe of the complaint who deposed that he prepared the complaint on the dictation of PW1 in the hospital. At the time of preparing the complaint PW1, PW3 and PW5 and other police constables were present. In the cross examination he deposed that
PW1 is his brother-in-law. He admitted that in the complaint PW1 did not mention the names of the accused or the names of any other assailants. During the course of 161 Cr.P.C. examination also the witnesses did not say the names of assailants or physical features of the accused. The evidence is only to the effect of preparing the complaint on the dictation of PW1 which is marked as Ex.P1.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 13 ASJ Court, Allagadda
25. The Medical Officer examined as PW8 who observed two injuries on PW1 i.e., 1) 5 x 2 x 1 cm incised wound on left arm lateral aspect and 2) 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm incised wound on left shoulder region, and opined that the injuries are simple in nature.
26.PW9 is the Judicial Magistrate of First Class who conducted the Test Identification. In the chief examination she stated that on 31.10.2015 she conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused in the Sub-Jail, Allagadda. She further deposed that Pw1 and Pw2 identified the accused A2 and A3. The T.I.P. proceedings were marked as Ex.P5. In the cross examination the witness stated that Pws.1 and 2 did not mention the age and specific height of the suspects and also the physical features. The witness further stated that she did not mention the colour, dress worn by the suspects and non-suspects. The
TIP was conducted after lapse of 2 months.The identification without mentioning any identity marks gives raise to suspicion.
27. PW10 is the Investigating Officer/S.I. of Police. He deposed that on 22.08.2015 while he was present in P.S. he received hospital intimation. Then he proceeded to hospital and obtained the complaint.
He registered the case as Cr.No.105/2015 U/s.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. The original FIR submitted to Court is Ex.P9. He made enquiries about the suspects, but no clues came to light. The rough sketch is marked as
Ex.P10. On 27.08.2015 he proceeded to Alfa Engineering College and found some persons who are moving suspicious. He caught hold of them with assistance of his staff and then he ascertained their names
S.C.No.189 of 2017 14 ASJ Court, Allagadda
and identified them as A1 to A7 and arrested them under cover of panchanama. He filed a memo to add Sec.120[B] IPC and the Memo is
Ex.P11. He recovered one dagger and one steel rod from the possession of the accused lying on road side. He gave requisition to the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal to conduct Test
Identification Parade to A2 and A3, and accordingly the T.I.P. is conducted by the JFCM.
In the cross examination he deposed that PW1 did not reveal any physical features of the suspected persons. He further admitted that he did not seize any blood stained clothes. He did not secure any mediators near the godown as they were already available. He did not mention the physical features of the suspects in the requisition filed for conducting Test Identification Parade.
28. PW11 is the S.I. of Police who filed charge sheet.
29. The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the court can rely on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the TIP conducted by the learned Magistrate where Pws.1 and 2 identified the accused.
The defence counsel argued that no physical features were mentioned by the witness/injured in the F.I.R. and subsequently he never mentioned any physical features before the learned Magistrate at the time of conducting T.I.P. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable and accused are falsely implicated.
I have perused the evidence on record. PW1 stated in the cross examination that the accused were shown to him after arrest. The
S.C.No.189 of 2017 15 ASJ Court, Allagadda
admission of Pw1 that accused A2 A3 were shown to him dilute the TIP and the test identification can not be given much weight. The Pws.1 and 2 did not mention any identification features like age, height, colour, etc., before the Investigating Officer at the time of Sec.161
Cr.P.C. statement and no such particulars were mentioned. The T.I.P.
conducted after the lapse of 3 months could not be relied on.
30. The entire prosecution case as revealed in the FIR shows that there was a grudge between PW1 and the accused relating to money dispute. But in the chief evidence PW1 stated that he has no differences with A1 after making payment. When he has no differences with A1, there is no need for the accused to attempt to kill him. The entire motive based on the differences between A1 and Pw1.
When there are no differences the version of the prosecution fails and the conspiracy is not at all attracted. There are no grounds to attrach criminal liability against other accused. Mere presence in the bus stop together will not attract criminal conspiracy. On the sole ground that the accused talking to 4 or 5 persons did not attract any offence and the same could not be a ground to believe the version of conspiracy between A1 to A7.
31.The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the accused confessed the offence before panchayatdars. But the confession is not admissible in evidence which is hit by sec. 25 of Evidence Act, and the court cannot look into the confession of the accused except to the limited extent of leading to recovery. In the present case the
S.C.No.189 of 2017 16 ASJ Court, Allagadda
Investigating Officer recovered the dagger and rod which were lying on the road side which is accessible to public. The said aspect also gives rise to a doubt about recovery at the instance of accused. When the road is busy road and many people are moving, the version of the accused thrown away the dagger and iron rod on the road side does not inspire confidence.
32. The learned APP relied on the decision reported in 2017 (3)
Criminal Court cases 0161 of Supreme Court of India between
Illathody Beeran Vs. State of Kerala & Another with regard to Section 9 of Evidence Act. I have perused the decision and the same is not applicable to the present case.
33. The learned APP relied on another decision held in 2018 (2)
Criminal Court cases 0505 of Supreme Court of India between
Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar Vs. State of Maharashtra. It was held that:
“Merely because the names of accused was not
mentioned in the FIR is not the ground to disbelieve the
prosecution story.”
It is true that Pws.1 and 2 did not mention the names in the
FIR. But when the S.I. of Police examined them under Section 161
Cr.P.C. also they did not reveal anything about the accused or about the physical features of the accused. The ratio laid down in the decision is not applicable to the present case. In the present case
Pws.1 and 2 did not say anything about the accused physical features, colour, height, etc., but they surprisingly identified the accused in the
S.C.No.189 of 2017 17 ASJ Court, Allagadda
Sub-Jail which gives rise to reasonable doubt about the identification made by Pws.1 and 2.
34. The defence counsel argued that the long delay in conducting T.I.P. creates doubt about the prosecution case. The defence counsel relied on the decision reported in
2009 (3) ALT (Crl.) 30 (A.P.) between B.Murali @ Prasad Vs. State of
A.P. rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, where it was observed that “An inordinate delay gives scope for embellishment”.
35. I have perused the above judgment, and the ratio laid down in the decision is applicable to the present case as T.I.P. is conducted after delay of 3 months. During the period accused produced before
Learned Magistrate and there is possibility of seeing the accused by prosecution witnesses. Pw1 himself admitted in the cross examination that accused were shown to him by police before TIP.
36. PW1 himself is saying that he has no differences with A1 and in such a case there is no need for A1 to conspire and made other accused to attack. Further, the prosecution failed to establish the connection between A1 and other accused in the present offence. The injured/PW1 himself mentioned in the cross examination that A4 to A7 have nothing to do with the offence and they never participated in the offence. In such circumstances, the version of the prosecution that all the accused conspire together cannot be believed.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 18 ASJ Court, Allagadda
37. Considering the overall evidence on record, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused are given benefit of doubt.
38.In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the
Accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 [one Dagger with knife] and M.O.2 [Steel Rod] are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, transcribed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21 st day of October, 2022.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
ALLAGADDA.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution :
P.W.1:A. Venkata Rami Reddy P.W.2:K. Basha P.W.3:A. Sankar Reddy P.W.4:N. Parameswara Reddy P.W.5:K. Bayapu Reddy P.W.6:B. Ramakrishna P.W.7:P. Naga Muni Reddy P.W.8:T.J. Ramya P.W.9:S. Sailaja P.W.10:A.P. Sreenivasulu P.W.11:M. Ramaiah
For Defence :
S.C.No.189 of 2017 19 ASJ Court, Allagadda
None
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution :
Ex.P1:Complaint of P.W.1. Ex.P2:Panchanama, dated 27.08.2015 Ex.P3:Panchanama Ex.P4:Wound Certificate Ex.P5:T.I.P. Proceedings Ex.P6:Summons issued to 1st witness Ex.P7:Summons issued to 2nd witness Ex.P8:Request letter Ex.P9:First Information Report Ex.P10:Rough Sketch Ex.P11:Alteration Memo
For Defence :
Nil
Material objects marked :
M.O.1:One Dagger with knife M.O.2:One steel rod
ASJ, ALG.
S.C.No.189 of 2017 20 ASJ Court, Allagadda
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.
Present:- Dr. Sri K.Siva Sankar, Assistant Sessions Judge,
Allagadda.
Friday, the 21st day of October, 2022.
Sessions Case No.189 of 2017
TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF Crl.R.P.
01.Name of the Police Station : Allagadda Rural Police Station & Crime Number in Cr.No.105 of 2015
02.Sessions Case No.: 189 of 2017
03.Section of law: 120-B, 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC
04.Description of the Accused:
1. Chikkanti Venkata Ramana @ Babu, Son of Late Ramakrishnudu, aged 43 years, R/o Suddapalli village, Peddamudiem Mandal, Kadapa District,
2. Bochu Sankar, S/o Bala Obi, aged 34 years, R/o P.V. Nagar, Nandyal town.
3. Borilli Sampath Kumar, S/o Prakasham, aged 30 years, R/o Devana- gar, Nandyal town,
4. Deshu Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, aged 22 years, R/o Deva Nagar, Nandyal town,
5. Gaddam Suresh Babu, S/o Rajaratnam, aged 34 years, R/o Devana- gar in Nandyal town,
6. Gongalla Bala Maddilety, S/o Tirupal, aged 42 years, R/o Jillella vil- lage, Gospadu Mandal,
7. Majjiga Radhamma, W/o Ramudu, aged 34 years, R/o Nagireddipalle village, Rudravaram Mandal.
05.Date of occurrence of offence:22-08-2015
06.Date of Complaint:22-08-2015
07.Date of Apprehension of Accused:27-08-2015
08.Date of release of Accused:29-10-2015 [A1, A5] 05-11-2015 [A2, A3] 06-11-2015 [A4] 29-09-2015 [A6, A7]
09.Date of Commitment of case:19-01-2017
10.Date of Commencement of Trial:25-04-2022
11.Date of close of Trial:12-08-2022
12.Date of Sentence of Order:21-10-2022
S.C.No.189 of 2017 21 ASJ Court, Allagadda
13.Explanations for delay:-
On 05.06.2017, this case was received on being made over to this Court for disposal according to law from the Court of Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool. On 29.11.2021,charges were framed against Accused under Sections 120-B, 324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 25.04.2022 P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P1 marked. On 26.04.2022 PWs.4 & 5 were examined. On 27.04.2022 PWs.6 to 8 were examined and Exs.P2 to P4, M.O.1 and M.O.2 marked. On 28.04.2022 P.W.9 was examined and Exs.P5 to P8 are marked. On 05.05.2022 P.Ws.10 and 11 were examined and Exs.P9 to P11 marked. On 26.05.2022 the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they reported no defence evidence and heard arguments. Judgment was pronounced on 21.10.2022.
Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 120[B], 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 [one Dagger with knife] and M.O.2 [Steel Rod] are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
ALLAGADDA.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Copy submitted to
The Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Copy to
The Director of Prosecution, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.
The District Collector, Kurnool.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.
4. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Allagadda.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Allagadda.