1 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT.
PRESENT: SRI. K.SRIKANTH,
Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. First Class Magistrate, FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class,Vikarabad.
DATED, THIS THE 30 th DAY OF March, 2022
C.C. No. 441 OF 2012
Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Dharur. … Complainant
A N D
A1: Edigi Srinivas Goud, S/o: Balakistaiah Goud, Aged about 28 Years, Occ: Agriculture.
A2: Edigi Balakistaiah @ Balakisti, S/o: Chendraiah, Aged about 55 Years, Occ: Agriculture. Both R/o: Ebbanur Village, Dharur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri.S.Jangaiah, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The SubInspector of Police P.S. Dharur filed charge sheet against the
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.89 of 2012 for the offence punishable Under
Section 326 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred as IPC in brevity).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that, on 09.08.2012 at 11:00 hours, the defactocomplainant/Edigi Srinivas
Goud/LW1 came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint, stating that since two months back the accused persons made a land Survey at his agricultural land. In that Survey, the complainant obtained additional land.
2 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
On 07.08.2012 at 12:00 hours, while the complainant was proceeding to his agricultural land, on the way, the Accused persons quarreled with the complainant, abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick on his chin and mouth as he got excess land due to the said Survey. Basing on the above complaint, LW8/M. Krishnaiah, SubInspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 89/2012, U/Sec.324 R/W 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of
LW1/E.Srinivas Goud, LW2/Smt. E.Kalavathi, LW3/K.Sanjeeva &
LW4/B.Venkataiah, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of
LW5/B.Ramu & LW6/MD.Chotemiya and referred the injured/LW1/E.Srinivas
Goud to Government Civil Hospital, Vikarabad for treatment. While the investigation was in progress, on 13.08.2012 at 12:00 hours, he arrested the
Accused Nos.1 & 2 and produced them before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial
Remand. After receipt of Wound Certificate and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused persons. Hence, the charge.
3. This Court has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.326
R/W 34 IPC against the Accused Nos.1 and 2.
4. On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. The charge has been framed for the offence U/Sec.326 R/W 34 of IPC and it was read over and explained to the
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Telugu. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and Ex.D1 is marked. PW1 is the complainant/injured, PW2 is the 3 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
circumstantial witness, PWs.3 & 5 are the eye witnesses, PWs.4 & 7 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanam and PW6 is the Investigating
Officer in this case. The evidence of LW7/Dr. Seshidhar Reddy was closed as police filed report that he has migrated to Australia.
6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1
and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.326
R/W 34 of IPC?”
POINT:
9.The crux of the prosecution case is that on 07.08.2012 at 12:00 hours, while the complainant was proceeding to his agricultural land, on the way, the
Accused persons A1 and A2 quarreled with the complainant/PW1, abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick and hand on his chin and mouth, there by caused grievous injury to PW1 by Accused Nos.1 and 2. In that quarreled A1 and A2 threatened to the complainant/E. Srinivas Goud, abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick on his chin and mouth and also assaulted on him due to land disputes between them. LW3 and LW4 were present and witnessed the incident.
10. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, it is essential to give a glance on the essential ingredients of Sec.326 of IPC:
(i) Accused must commit an act with knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to the victim;
(ii) Accused must have caused grievous hurt;
(iii) He caused it voluntarily;
(iv) He caused it by using any of the weapon or instrument.
4 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
11.To prove the above said offence, the prosecution examined the complainant cum injured as PW1/E. Srinivas Goud, wherein he deposed that on 07.08.2012 at about 12:00 P.M. while he was going to his fields, both the
Accused persons caught hold of him and beat him with stick. Due to which, he received injuries to his jaw bone and lost two teeth. PWs.3 & 5 were present at the scene and they are the eye witnesses. The accused persons beat him with regard to land disputes. PW1 orally reported to the Police on the same day and they referred him to the hospital for treatment. PW1 further deposed that he lodged report on 09.08.2012 under Ex.P1. During the crossexamination of
PW1, he stated that he started from his house to the fields at about 12:00 noon. Ex.P1 was scribed on the instructions of his wife as his jaw bone was injured. He immediately added that Ex.P1 was scribed on his instructions.
The quarrel was with regard to the land that he was having more land than the
Accused persons. He stated to the Police that he lost his tooth in the said quarrel. He was admitted in the hospital for two days. His wife i.e. PW2 went to the fields at the time of the alleged incident. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
12.To corroborate the version of PW1, the prosecution choose to examine
PW2/Kalavathi who is the circumstantial witness and wife of PW1, wherein she deposed that in the year 2012 at about 12:00 noon, the Accused beat PW1 with a stick, due to which PW1 received injury on his jaw bone and lost his tooth and there was a quarrel between them with regard to excess land that they were holding. She was returning from her fields at the time of the alleged incident and by the time she reached her house, PW1 fell on the ground with bleeding injuries. Immediately, she took him to the Tandur Hospital. During her crossexamination, PW2 stated that she is not an eye witness to the incident. By the time she reached her house, she saw her husband with 5 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
bleeding injuries on the road in front of her house. Further, she denied all the suggestions put to her by the defence counsel.
13. In support of the PW1 and PW2, the prosecution choose to examine
PW3/B.Venkataiah who is an crucial eye witness in this case, wherein he deposed that at about 5 years back, there was a quarrel between the PW1 and accused persons at about 12:00 noon. He was in his house and on hearing the quarrel, he went to the scene and separated the accused persons and PW1.
Both the Accused persons were beating PW1 with a stick. During his cross examination, PW3 stated that there are disputes with regard to land between the Accused persons and PW1. He is not very closely acquainted with PW1.
Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
14.Further, the prosecution examined PW5/K. Sanjeeva who is the another eye witness in this case, wherein he deposed that at about 4 or 5 years back at around 10:00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M., while he was going from his house to shop, there was a galata between the accused persons and PW1 near the School. He further deposed that the accused persons were beating PW1 with hands.
Immediately, he along with PW3 intervened and separated them, later he left the place. The dispute is with regard to the land between the Accused persons and PW1 as they are agnates. During his crossexamination, PW5 stated that there were around 10 to 12 persons gathered at the time of the offence. There was a panchayath held in the village after 2 to 3 days of the said offence and at that time, he came to know that there were land disputes between the Accused persons and PW1. It is elicited by the defence is that he did not state to the
Police as in Ex.D1 that there were land disputes between the Accused persons and PW1 because he is not aware of the same at that time. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
15. To prove the scene of offence Panchanama, the prosecution examined
PW4/Chotemiya who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama 6 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
under Ex.P2, wherein he deposed that Police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and PW7 with regard to quarrel and also drew rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P3. During the crossexamination of PW4, he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and he only put his thumb impression on the same. Further, he denied the suggestions putforth by the defence counsel.
16.Further, the prosecution choose to examine PW7/B.Ramu who is the another panch witness for scenecumseizure panchanama, wherein he deposed that at about 4 years ago at 11:30 A.M., A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Two days after the incident, P.S. Dharur conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and seized M.O.1 in his presence. On being confronted with M.O.1, he admitted that it was seized in his presence, along with him, PWs.4 & PW5 were present during the seizure. On being confronted with Exs.P2 & P3, the witness identified his signatures on them. During the crossexamination of PW7, he admitted that he does not know the contents of
Exs.P2 & P3 and he stated that he simply affixed his signatures on them on the instructions of the Police. He added that Police must have written the details of the incident in Ex.P2. He does not know the measurements of the M.O.1.
Further, he admitted that he does not know what type of stick M.O.1 is. He added that he saw A1 and A2 beat PW1 with M.O.1. Further, he denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
17. When it comes to the evidence of PW6/M. Krishnaiah who is the
Investigating Officer, reiterated the contents of the charge sheet, wherein he deposed that on 09.08.2012 at 11:00 hours, he received a complaint from PW1.
Basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.89/2012, U/Sec.324 R/W 34 of
IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P4. Thereafter, he recorded the statements witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch of the scene, and the stick was seized under 7 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
the cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs.4 & 7. On 13.08.2012, he affected the arrest of A1 and A2 and produced before this Court for judicial remand. He obtained the Medical Certificate of PW1 and after completing the investigation and basing on the M.LC. under Ex.P5, he altered the section of offence from 324 of IPC to 326 of IPC and filed the charge sheet into the Court.
M.O.1 is the stick seized by him.
18. Having perusal of the above evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, When it comes to the testimony of PW.1 who is the complainantcuminjured witness, where as she deposed that on 07.08.2012 at 12:00 P.M., A1 and A2 beat him with a stick with regard to the land disputes. At the time of incident, PWs.3 and 5 were present and witnessed the incident. Then report was given to the police, he was referred to the hospital for treatment on 09.08.2012. Ex.P1 report is filed. During the crossexamination of the PW1 nothing is elicited by the learned defence counsel except that there was a land disputes and previous enmity between the accused persons and PW1. Nothing more elicited to support the case of the defence to disbelieve the evidence of PW1.
19. To corroborate the version of the PW1, both eye witnesses who are examined as PWs.3 and 5, wherein both witnesses deposed that the accused persons beat the PW1 with stick on his mouth and on his jaw, both the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the alleged incident took place against the PW1. PWs.3 and 5 who are the eye witnesses deposed in a true lines of PW1 about the date, time and manner in which the alleged incident took place. During the crossexamination of PW3 nothing is elicited except eliciting that PW3 was examined him before the alleged incident, but not after the incident. When it comes to the crossexamination of PW5, the defence side elicited that Ex.D1 as he did not state to the police that there was a land disputes between the accused persons and PW1 because he was not aware of the same at that time which is the contradiction under Ex.D1 is not 8 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
relevant and it does not effect the core of the prosecution case. The suggestion made by the defence counsel to the PWs.1 and 2 that there was a previous disputes with regard to the land between the PW.1 and accused persons itself shows that there was a previous enmity or disputes which was the motive for the commission of the offence. In view of the above, the Ex.D1 is not relevant to consider and it does not effect the testimony of PW.5.
20. To support the version of the PWs.1, 3 & 5, the prosecution choose to examine the wife of the PW1 as PW2, wherein she deposed that in the year of 2012 at 12:00 noon, the accused beat the PW.1 with stick, due to which PW1 received injuries on his jaw bone on lost his tooth. She further deposed that when she was returning from the fields, at that time the alleged incident took place when she reached to her house, PW1 fell on the ground with bleedings injuries when she was shifted to Tandur hospital. During the cross examination, she admitted that she was not an eye witness to the incident and also admitted that there was a land disputes with the accused since the time of her fatherinlaw. Nothing more elicited to disbelieve the version of the PW2.
21. The PW4 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama also supported the version of the prosecution and Exs.P2 and P3 are marked and he deposed that police conducted the panchanama in his presence with regard to the quarrel between PW1 and accused. Further, the prosecution also examined the PW7 who is the panch cum seizure witness, wherein he deposed that at about four years back at 11:30 A.M., A1 and A2 beat the PW1 with stick and after two days police conducted scene of offfence panchanama in his presence and seized the MO.1 stick in his presence and he also identified the MO.1
before the court that it was the same which was seized by the police during
investigation. During crossexamination of PWs.4 and 7 nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. PW7 denied the several suggestions 9 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
putforth by the defence counsel that MO.1 is not seized in his presence and
A1 and A2 did not beat the PW1 with MO.1.
22. At this stage, It is the submission of the learned APP is that the PW.1 who is an injured person clearly deposed about the incident with the date, time and place of incident and in support of the evidence of PW1, PWs.3 and 5 also supported who are the eye witnesses, both deposed that the accused persons beat the PW1, itself sufficient to prove the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC. Further, the prosecution also proved the seizure of MO.1 which used to beat the PW1 would establish the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him.
PWs.1 to 6 evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused persons and they deserve punishment U/Sec.326 of IPC.
23. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned defence counsel is that the PW1 foisted the false complaint against the accused persons due to the land disputes and previous enmity. There was no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution. The PWs.1 to 3 are the relative witnesses and their evidence is not taken into consideration. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the injuries received by the PW.1 with the support of the medical officer and the evidence of LW7/Dr.Seshidhar Reddy who treated the PW1 closed by the prosecution. Further argued that there is a delay of two days in filing the FIR. As such, the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC is not proved. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 consist of several contradictions and omissions which would not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. Having heard the rival contentions of both side and on perusal of the testimony on record, Firstly. to answer the contention with regard to the non examination of the medical officer is concerned, mere nonexamination of he 10 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
medical officer itself is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution. He was not available and migrated to other country, due to which the prosecution did not examined the medical officer. The medical certificate marked under Ex.P5 through PW.6 would shows that the PW.1 received the injuries since the Ex.P5 is the documentary evidence, unless it is disproved by the defence counsel that
Ex.P5 is not genuine in respect of the examination of the PW.1 and the injuries mentioned in the Ex.P5. As already discussed above, the PW.1 in support of the PWs.3 and 5 evidence clearly establishes that the A1 and A2 committed the offence against the PW.1, due to which he received the injury and the prosecution also succeded in proving the weapon under MO.1 which used to beat PW.1.
25. However, the prosecution failed to prove the offnece U/Sec.326 of IPC and to attract the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC i.e., (i) Accused must commit an act with knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to the victim; (ii) Accused must have caused grievous hurt; (iii) He caused it voluntarily;
(iv) He caused it by using any of the weapon or instrument. The prosecution must produced Xray or radiologist reports to prove the grievous injuries which would fall under the definition of 319 of Cr.P.C. There are catena of judgments of Apex Courts held that to prove the offence U/Sec.326 of grievous injuries, the prosecution has to prove the said injuries with the support of Xray and
Radiologist report, unless production of the said Xray and Radiologist report, the offence U/Sec.326 of IPC is not made out. When it comes to the injuries received by the PW.1 is concerned, he received injury on his jaw bone and lost his tooth. Wheres, the LW7 who treated the PW.1 did not mention the same in the Ex.P5 report and he mentioned that he made a reference basing on the
Xray report produced by the PW.1, but the said Xray report did not file before the court by the prosecution to prove the same.
26. At this Juncture, it is petinent to mention that whether the prosecution 11 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
proved the essential ingrediants of the offence under section 324 IPC or not. To prove the offence U/sec.324 of IPC, it is relevant to establish the injury caused by the means of any instrument or any weapon to incorporate the human body, whereas the case on hand, Pw.1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 categorically deposed that the A1 and A2 beat him on his jaw with stick, as a result PW1 received bleeding injury and the weapon used in this case is a stick which falls under the defination of deadly weapon to attract the offence U/s.324 of IPC and it is relevant to establish the injuries are grevious in nature. However this court relied upon the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Medical
evidence can hardly be relied upon to falsify the evidence of eye
witnesses because of the fact that medical evidenceis guided by various
factors based on guess and certain calculations” AIR 1979 SC 1194”
27. Whereas, in the instance case, it is established fact that to believe about the simple injury caused by the A1 and A2 against Pw.1 and it clearly manifest with the aid of prosecution witnesses PW.3 and PW.5 who are independent eye witnesses, though medical officer is not examined from prosecution side, that itself is not a fatal to case of the prosecution, however, the medical cerficate
Ex.P5 which issued by the medical officer is much availble on record, wherein it is clearly discloses the injuries received to them in corrobartion with the injured persons oral evidence. Therefore, when the injury is clearly established with the aid of independent eye witnesses, it is safely concluded that the accused persons committed the offence with an intention to cause simple injury to the Pw.1, But prosection failed to establish the offence under section 326 of IPC.
28. It is specific contention of the learned defence counsel is that there is delay of 2 Days in Lodging the Ex.P1 to police by the PW1. To answer the said contention this court placed reliance of the observation of the Hon’ble Apex
Court that the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground of 12 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
delay in lodging the FIR. The court has to examine the explanation furnished by the prosecution for explaining the delay. There may be various circumstances particularly the number of victims, atmosphere prevailing at the scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has taken place. If the prosecution explains the delay, the court should not reject the case of the prosecution solely on this ground. Therefore, the entire incident as narrated by the witnesses has to be construed and examined to decide whether there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution and even if there is some unexplained delay, the court has to take into consideration whether it can be termed as abnormal. (Vide: P. Venkataswarlu v. State of
A.P., AIR 2003 SC 574; and State of U.P. v. Munesh, AIR 2013 SC 147). When it comes to case on hand, admittedly PW1 got went to hospital for treatment, for which the delay is caused. Generally, any injured would prefer to go
Hospital for treatment immediately after the incident. The delay of 2 days not found to be abnormal. Hence the contention of the defence may not effect the core of the Prosecution case.
29.Lastly, it is the another contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused persons is that there are previous land disputes between them and for which they lodged the false report against the accused person. The counsel vehemently argued that it is also elicited during the cross examination of Pw.1 to PW3 and Pw.5 about the enemity and previous grudges between them. But the allegations and accusation were false and had given colour version of the incident.In so far as the above contentions raised by the defence counsel this court relied upon the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that “ mere fact that there was enmity between the two groups or persons cannot be a ground to reject the clear evidence of eye witnesses” held in the case of Kallu vs. State 2006 (10) SCC 313. In sofar as the present case in concerned, this court do 13 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
not find any ring of truth to believe that the Ex.P1 falsy attended to with the land disputes.
30. Moreover, when the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 and PW5 is constant, cogent and corroborative as to the time, place and injuries sustained by PW.1.
More particularly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the minor discrepancies in the lengthy and searching crossexamination does not inspire this Court to disbelieve the testimony of PWs.1 to PW.3 and PW.5. The witnesses being rustic in nature, such discrepancies after many years should not be treated as major. However the Apex Court held in the case of “Gorusu
Nagaraju VS State of Andhra Pradesh 2018(1) ALD Crl 904 SC” observed that it is a well settled principle of criminal law that minor contradictions or inconsistencies in evidence cannot affect the material evidence and such contradictions or inconsistencies cannot be made basis to discard the whole evidence as unreliable.
31. In these circumstances, agreeing with the prosecution, though there are admitted land disputes among the accused persons and injured persons, since the testimony of injured persons is corroborated through the evidence of eye witnesses and with the injuries received to him, this Court opines that the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 shall not be totally discarded. However, it is well settled principle of law is that when the evidence of a single witness is clear, cogent and consistent, there is absolutely no impediment in placing reliance on such evidence and the court need not seek for corroboration.
Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act clearly describes that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if he is wholly reliable and his evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible critisim. Corroboration may be necessary when he is partially reliable.
14 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
32. However, the prosecution clearly made out the simple injuries caused to the PW1 with aid of eye witnesses coupled with Ex.P5. As such, it can be concluded that the prosecution establish the offence under section 324 of IPC.
Therefore this court considered opinion, through oral and documentary evidence prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/sec 324 IPC. In the light of above discussion made, this court is of considered view that the prosecution proved all the essential ingredients to attract the provisions for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C.
Therefore, without any hesitation this Court holds that the accused persons are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C.
33. With the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution successfully established that the A1 and A2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. From the unshaken evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Pw.5 the specific involvement of accused persons are manifest and proved the guilt of the accused persons with the cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Hence, this point is answered against the accused in respect of offence u/s 324 of IPC and in favour of the prosecution. Further, also point is answered against the prosecution in respect of offence u/s 326 of IPC.
34. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 R/W 34 of IPC and they are convicted U/Sec.248(2) of
Cr.P.C.
Partly typed by me in Laptop and Partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th Day of March, 2022.
FAC ADDL.JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE
AT VIKARABAD.
35.When the A1 and A2 are questioned about the quantum of sentence under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C., they stated as follows:
Heard the Learned counsel for accused Persons and submitted that they 15 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
intend to file suspension of sentence petition. The Court examined the accused persons and the brief submission of A1 and A2 is that A2 is suffering with ill health and he is taking treatment at hospital and A1 has to take him to the hospital once in a month for treatment and for the said reason they pleaded for lenient view and pleaded mercy. When consider the facts of the case and nature of offence, this court felt that they are entitled for lenient view in imposing the quantum of sentence. This court is not inclined to invoke the benefit under P.O. Act and U/Sec.360 of Cr.P.C.
36. In the result, the A1 to A2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 Months (SIX MONTHS) and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees one thousand only) each. In default payment of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The default sentence shall run consequentially along with sentence period.
37. The period of detention undergone by the accused on 13.08.2012, A1 and
A2 remanded and released on the same day, Hence the Setoff under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. would not applicable.
38.The accused is informed that they have got right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. The accused is informed that she has got right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.1 deposited into this
Court vide CPR No. 391/2012 and shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The Office is hereby directed to prepare conviction warrant and furnish the copy of Judgment to A1 and A2 forthwith at free of cost.
Partly typed by me in Laptop and Partly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th Day of March, 2022.
FAC ADDL.JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE
AT VIKARABAD.
16 of 16
CC. No. 441 of 2012
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW1 is E. Srinivas Goud None PW2 is Kalalvathi PW3 is B. Venkataiah PW4 is Chotemiya PW5 is K. Sanjeeva PW6 is Krishnaiah, SubInspector of Police PW7 is Ramulu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTIO DEFENCE
Ex.P1 is Complaint Ex.D1 is relevant portion in Ex.P2 is Scene of Offence Panchanama 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch Ex.P4 is First Information Report Ex.P5 is Medical Certificate
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O. 1 is the Stick
FAC ADDL.JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE
AT VIKARABAD.